[G.R. No. 135981.

January 15, 2004]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIVIC

GENOSA, appellant.

DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

Admitting she killed her husband, appellant anchors her prayer for acquittal
on a novel theory -- the battered woman syndrome (BWS), which allegedly
constitutes self-defense. Under the proven facts, however, she is not entitled to
complete exoneration because there was no unlawful aggression -- no
immediate and unexpected attack on her by her batterer-husband at the time
she shot him.
Absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or
incomplete.
But all is not lost. The severe beatings repeatedly inflicted on appellant
constituted a form of cumulative provocation that broke down her psychological
resistance and self-control. This psychological paralysis she suffered
diminished her will power, thereby entitling her to the mitigating factor under
paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
In addition, appellant should also be credited with the extenuating
circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally
produced passion and obfuscation. The acute battering she suffered that fatal
night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact that she was eight
months pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid
emotional and mental state, which overcame her reason and impelled her to
vindicate her life and her unborn childs.
Considering the presence of these two mitigating circumstances arising
from BWS, as well as the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she may
now apply for and be released from custody on parole, because she has already
served the minimum period of her penalty while under detention during the
pendency of this case.

The Case
 For automatic review before this Court is the September 25, 1998
Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City (Branch 35) in
Criminal Case No. 5016-0, finding Marivic Genosa guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of parricide. The decretal portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, after all the foregoing being duly considered, the Court finds the
accused, Marivic Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Parricide as provided under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code as restored by Sec.
5, RA No. 7659, and after finding treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance and
none of mitigating circumstance, hereby sentences the accused with the penalty of
DEATH.

The Court likewise penalizes the accused to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of
fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency as indemnity and another sum
of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency as moral damages.[2]

The Information[3] charged appellant with parricide as follows:

That on or about the 15th day of November 1995, at Barangay Bilwang, Municipality
of Isabel, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault,
hit and wound one BEN GENOSA, her legitimate husband, with the use of a hard
deadly weapon, which the accused had provided herself for the purpose, [causing] the
following wounds, to wit:

Cadaveric spasm.

Body on the 2nd stage of decomposition.

Face, black, blownup & swollen w/ evident post-mortem lividity. Eyes

protruding from its sockets and tongue slightly protrudes out of the mouth.

Fracture, open, depressed, circular located at the occipital bone of the head,
resulting [in] laceration of the brain, spontaneous rupture of the blood vessels
on the posterior surface of the brain, laceration of the dura and meningeal
vessels producing severe intracranial hemorrhage.

Blisters at both extrem[i]ties, anterior chest, posterior chest, trunk w/ shedding of the
epidermis.

Abdomen distended w/ gas. Trunk bloated.

 which caused his death.[4]
With the assistance of her counsel,[5] appellant pleaded not guilty during her
arraignment on March 3, 1997.[6] In due course, she was tried for and convicted
of parricide.

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarizes the prosecutions

version of the facts in this wise:

Appellant and Ben Genosa were united in marriage on November 19, 1983 in Ormoc
City. Thereafter, they lived with the parents of Ben in their house at Isabel, Leyte. For
a time, Bens younger brother, Alex, and his wife lived with them too. Sometime in
1995, however, appellant and Ben rented from Steban Matiga a house at Barangay
Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte where they lived with their two children, namely: John Marben
and Earl Pierre.

On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight after receiving
their salary. They each had two (2) bottles of beer before heading home. Arturo would
pass Bens house before reaching his. When they arrived at the house of Ben, he found
out that appellant had gone to Isabel, Leyte to look for him. Ben went inside his house,
while Arturo went to a store across it, waiting until 9:00 in the evening for
the masiao runner to place a bet. Arturo did not see appellant arrive but on his way
home passing the side of the Genosas rented house, he heard her say I wont hesitate to
kill you to which Ben replied Why kill me when I am innocent? That was the last time
Arturo saw Ben alive. Arturo also noticed that since then, the Genosas rented house
appeared uninhabited and was always closed.

On November 16, 1995, appellant asked Erlinda Paderog, her close friend and neighbor
living about fifty (50) meters from her house, to look after her pig because she was
going to Cebu for a pregnancy check-up. Appellant likewise asked Erlinda to sell her
motorcycle to their neighbor Ronnie Dayandayan who unfortunately had no money to
buy it.

That same day, about 12:15 in the afternoon, Joseph Valida was waiting for a bus going
to Ormoc when he saw appellant going out of their house with her two kids in tow, each
one carrying a bag, locking the gate and taking her children to the waiting area where
he was. Joseph lived about fifty (50) meters behind the Genosas rented house. Joseph,
appellant and her children rode the same bus to Ormoc. They had no conversation as
Joseph noticed that appellant did not want to talk to him.

On November 18, 1995, the neighbors of Steban Matiga told him about the foul odor
emanating from his house being rented by Ben and appellant. Steban went there to find
out the cause of the stench but the house was locked from the inside. Since he did not
have a duplicate key with him, Steban destroyed the gate padlock with a borrowed steel
saw. He was able to get inside through the kitchen door but only after destroying a
window to reach a hook that locked it. Alone, Steban went inside the unlocked bedroom
where the offensive smell was coming from. There, he saw the lifeless body of Ben
lying on his side on the bed covered with a blanket. He was only in his briefs with
injuries at the back of his head. Seeing this, Steban went out of the house and sent word
to the mother of Ben about his sons misfortune. Later that day, Iluminada Genosa, the
mother of Ben, identified the dead body as that of [her] son.

Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, SPO3 Leo Acodesin, then assigned at the
police station at Isabel, Leyte, received a report regarding the foul smell at the Genosas
rented house. Together with SPO1 Millares, SPO1 Colon, and Dr. Refelina Cerillo,
SPO3 Acodesin proceeded to the house and went inside the bedroom where they found
the dead body of Ben lying on his side wrapped with a bedsheet. There was blood at the
nape of Ben who only had his briefs on. SPO3 Acodesin found in one corner at the side
of an aparador a metal pipe about two (2) meters from where Ben was, leaning against
a wall. The metal pipe measured three (3) feet and six (6) inches long with a diameter
of one and half (1 1/2) inches. It had an open end without a stop valve with a red stain
at one end. The bedroom was not in disarray.

About 10:00 that same morning, the cadaver of Ben, because of its stench, had to be
taken outside at the back of the house before the postmortem examination was
conducted by Dr. Cerillo in the presence of the police. A municipal health officer at
Isabel, Leyte responsible for medico-legal cases, Dr. Cerillo found that Ben had been
dead for two to three days and his body was already decomposing. The postmortem
examination of Dr. Cerillo yielded the findings quoted in the Information for parricide
later filed against appellant. She concluded that the cause of Bens death was
cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to a depressed
fracture of the occipital [bone].

Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going home after work on
November 15, 1995, she got worried that her husband who was not home yet might
have gone gambling since it was a payday. With her cousin Ecel Arao, appellant went
to look for Ben at the marketplace and taverns at Isabel, Leyte but did not find him
there. They found Ben drunk upon their return at the Genosas house. Ecel went home
despite appellants request for her to sleep in their house.

Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following him, even challenging her to a
fight. She allegedly ignored him and instead attended to their children who were doing
their homework. Apparently disappointed with her reaction, Ben switched off the light
and, with the use of a chopping knife, cut the television antenna or wire to keep her
from watching television. According to appellant, Ben was about to attack her so she
ran to the bedroom, but he got hold of her hands and whirled her around. She fell on the
side of the bed and screamed for help. Ben left. At this point, appellant
packed his clothes because she wanted him to leave. Seeing his packed clothes upon his
return home, Ben allegedly flew into a rage, dragged appellant outside of the bedroom
towards a drawer holding her by the neck, and told her You might as well be killed so
nobody would nag me. Appellant testified that she was aware that there was a gun inside
the drawer but since Ben did not have the key to it, he got a three-inch long blade cutter
from his wallet. She however, smashed the arm of Ben with a pipe, causing him to drop
the blade and his wallet. Appellant then smashed Ben at his nape with the pipe as he
was about to pick up the blade and his wallet. She thereafter ran inside the bedroom.

Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her husband by shooting him.
She supposedly distorted the drawer where the gun was and shot Ben. He did not die
on the spot, though, but in the bedroom.[7] (Citations omitted)

Version of the Defense

Appellant relates her version of the facts in this manner:

1. Marivic and Ben Genosa were allegedly married on November 19, 1983. Prior to her
marriage, Marivic had graduated from San Carlos, Cebu City, obtaining a degree of
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, and was working, at the time of her
husbands death, as a Secretary to the Port Managers in Ormoc City. The couple had
three (3) children: John Marben, Earl Pierre and Marie Bianca.

2. Marivic and Ben had known each other since elementary school; they were neighbors
in Bilwang; they were classmates; and they were third degree cousins. Both sets of
parents were against their relationship, but Ben was persistent and tried to stop other
suitors from courting her. Their closeness developed as he was her constant partner at
fiestas.
3. After their marriage, they lived first in the home of Bens parents, together with Bens
brother, Alex, in Isabel, Leyte. In the first year of marriage, Marivic and Ben lived
happily. But apparently, soon thereafter, the couple would quarrel often and their fights
would become violent.

4. Bens brother, Alex, testified for the prosecution that he could not remember when
Ben and Marivic married. He said that when Ben and Marivic quarreled, generally when
Ben would come home drunk, Marivic would inflict injuries on him. He said that in one
incident in 1993 he saw Marivic holding a kitchen knife after Ben had shouted for help
as his left hand was covered with blood. Marivic left the house but after a week, she
returned apparently having asked for Bens forgiveness. In another incident in May 22,
1994, early morning, Alex and his father apparently rushed to Bens aid again and saw
blood from Bens forehead and Marivic holding an empty bottle. Ben and Marivic
reconciled after Marivic had apparently again asked for Bens forgiveness.

Mrs. Iluminada Genosa, Marivics mother-in-law, testified too, saying that Ben and
Marivic married in 1986 or 1985 more or less here in Fatima, Ormoc City. She said as
the marriage went along, Marivic became already very demanding. Mrs. Iluminada
Genosa said that after the birth of Marivics two sons, there were three (3)
misunderstandings. The first was when Marivic stabbed Ben with a table knife through
his left arm; the second incident was on November 15, 1994, when Marivic struck
Ben on the forehead using a sharp instrument until the eye was also affected. It was
wounded and also the ear and her husband went to Ben to help; and the third incident
was in 1995 when the couple had already transferred to the house in Bilwang and she
saw that Bens hand was plastered as the bone cracked.

Both mother and son claimed they brought Ben to a Pasar clinic for medical
intervention.

5. Arturo Basobas, a co-worker of Ben, testified that on November 15, 1995 After we
collected our salary, we went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO. They stayed there for
three (3) hours, after which they went to Uniloks and drank beer allegedly only two (2)
bottles each. After drinking they bought barbeque and went to the Genosa
residence. Marivic was not there. He stayed a while talking with Ben, after which he
went across the road to wait for the runner and the usher of the masiao game because
during that time, the hearing on masiao numbers was rampant. I was waiting for the
ushers and runners so that I can place my bet. On his way home at about 9:00 in the
evening, he heard the Genosas arguing. They were quarreling loudly. Outside their
house was one Fredo who is used by Ben to feed his fighting cocks. Basobas testimony
on the root of the quarrel, conveniently overheard by him was Marivic saying I will
never hesitate to kill you, whilst Ben replied Why kill me when I am innocent. Basobas
thought they were joking.
He did not hear them quarreling while he was across the road from the Genosa
residence. Basobas admitted that he and Ben were always at the cockpits every Saturday
and Sunday. He claims that he once told Ben before when he was stricken with a bottle
by Marivic Genosa that he should leave her and that Ben would always take her back
after she would leave him so many times.

Basobas could not remember when Marivic had hit Ben, but it was a long time that they
had been quarreling. He said Ben even had a wound on the right forehead. He had
known the couple for only one (1) year.

6. Marivic testified that after the first year of marriage, Ben became cruel to her and
was a habitual drinker. She said he provoked her, he would slap her, sometimes he
would pin her down on the bed, and sometimes beat her.

These incidents happened several times and she would often run home to her parents,
but Ben would follow her and seek her out, promising to change and would ask for her
forgiveness. She said after she would be beaten, she would seek medical help from Dr.
Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra. Cerillo. These doctors would enter the injuries
inflicted upon her by Ben into their reports. Marivic said Ben would beat her or quarrel
with her every time he was drunk, at least three times a week.

7. In her defense, witnesses who were not so closely related to Marivic, testified as to
the abuse and violence she received at the hands of Ben.

7.1. Mr. Joe Barrientos, a fisherman, who was a [neighbor] of the Genosas, testified that
on November 15, 1995, he overheard a quarrel between Ben and Marivic. Marivic was
shouting for help and through the open jalousies, he saw the spouses grappling with
each other. Ben had Marivic in a choke hold. He did not do anything, but had come
voluntarily to testify. (Please note this was the same night as that testified to by Arturo
Busabos.[8])

7.2. Mr. Junnie Barrientos, also a fisherman, and the brother of Mr. Joe Barrientos,
testified that he heard his neighbor Marivic shouting on the night of November 15,
1995. He peeped through the window of his hut which is located beside the Genosa
house and saw the spouses grappling with each other then Ben Genosa was holding
with his both hands the neck of the accused, Marivic Genosa. He said after a while,
Marivic was able to extricate he[r]self and enter the room of the children. After that, he
went back to work as he was to go fishing that evening. He returned at 8:00 the next
morning. (Again, please note that this was the same night as that testified to by Arturo
Basobas).
7.3. Mr. Teodoro Sarabia was a former neighbor of the Genosas while they were living
in Isabel, Leyte. His house was located about fifty (50) meters from theirs. Marivic is
his niece and he knew them to be living together for 13 or 14 years. He said the couple
was always quarreling. Marivic confided in him that Ben would pawn items and then
would use the money to gamble. One time, he went to their house and they were
quarreling. Ben was so angry, but would be pacified if somebody would come. He
testified that while Ben was alive he used to gamble and when he became drunk, he
would go to our house and he will say, Teody because that was what he used to call me,
mokimas ta, which means lets go and look for a whore. Mr. Sarabia further testified that
Ben would box his wife and I would see bruises and one time she ran to me, I noticed
a wound (the witness pointed to his right breast) as according to her a knife was stricken
to her. Mr. Sarabia also said that once he saw Ben had been injured too. He said he
voluntarily testified only that morning.

7.4. Miss Ecel Arano, an 18-year old student, who is a cousin of Marivic, testified that
in the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic went to her house and asked her help
to look for Ben. They searched in the market place, several taverns and some other
places, but could not find him. She accompanied Marivic home. Marivic wanted her to
sleep with her in the Genosa house because she might be battered by her husband. When
they got to the Genosa house at about 7:00 in the evening, Miss Arano said that her
husband was already there and was drunk. Miss Arano knew he was drunk because of
his staggering walking and I can also detect his face. Marivic entered the house and she
heard them quarrel noisily. (Again, please note that this is the same night as that testified
to by Arturo Basobas) Miss Arano testified that this was not the first time Marivic had
asked her to sleep in the house as Marivic would be afraid every time her husband would
come home drunk. At one time when she did sleep over, she was awakened at 10:00 in
the evening when Ben arrived because the couple were very noisy in the sala and I had
heard something was broken like a vase. She said Marivic ran into her room and they
locked the door. When Ben couldnt get in he got a chair and a knife and showed us the
knife through the window grill and he scared us. She said that Marivic shouted for help,
but no one came. On cross-examination, she said that when she left Marivics house on
November 15, 1995, the couple were still quarreling.

7.5. Dr. Dino Caing, a physician testified that he and Marivic were co-employees at
PHILPHOS, Isabel, Leyte. Marivic was his patient many times and had also received
treatment from other doctors. Dr. Caing testified that from July 6, 1989 until November
9, 1995, there were six (6) episodes of physical injuries inflicted upon Marivic. These
injuries were reported in his Out-Patient Chart at the PHILPHOS Hospital. The
prosecution admitted the qualifications of Dr. Caing and considered him an expert
witness.

xxxxxxxxx
Dr. Caings clinical history of the tension headache and hypertention of Marivic on
twenty-three (23) separate occasions was marked at Exhibits 2 and 2-B. The OPD Chart
of Marivic at the Philphos Clinic which reflected all the consultations made by Marivic
and the six (6) incidents of physical injuries reported was marked as Exhibit 3.

On cross-examination, Dr. Caing said that he is not a psychiatrist, he could not say
whether the injuries were directly related to the crime committed. He said it is only a
psychiatrist who is qualified to examine the psychological make-up of the patient,
whether she is capable of committing a crime or not.

7.6 Mr. Panfilo Tero, the barangay captain in the place where the Genosas resided,
testified that about two (2) months before Ben died, Marivic went to his office past 8:00
in the evening. She sought his help to settle or confront the Genosa couple who were
experiencing family troubles. He told Marivic to return in the morning, but he did not
hear from her again and assumed that they might have settled with each other or they
might have forgiven with each other.

xxxxxxxxx

Marivic said she did not provoke her husband when she got home that night it was her
husband who began the provocation. Marivic said she was frightened that her husband
would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. In fact,
Marivic had to be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was suffering from
eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely on December 1, 1995.

Marivic testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five
(5) times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. Marivic said
that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because he
was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu x x x Rubillos.

On cross-examination, Marivic insisted she shot Ben with a gun; she said that he died
in the bedroom; that their quarrels could be heard by anyone passing their house; that
Basobas lied in his testimony; that she left for Manila the next day, November 16, 1995;
that she did not bother anyone in Manila, rented herself a room, and got herself a job as
a field researcher under the alias Marvelous Isidro; she did not tell anyone that she was
leaving Leyte, she just wanted to have a safe delivery of her baby; and that she was
arrested in San Pablo, Laguna.

Answering questions from the Court, Marivic said that she threw the gun away; that she
did not know what happened to the pipe she used to smash him once; that she was
wounded by Ben on her wrist with the bolo; and that two (2) hours after she was whirled
by Ben, he kicked her ass and dragged her towards the drawer when he saw that she
had packed his things.

9. The body of Ben Genosa was found on November 18, 1995 after an investigation
was made of the foul odor emitting from the Genosa residence. This fact was testified
to by all the prosecution witnesses and some defense witnesses during the trial.

10. Dra. Refelina Y. Cerillo, a physician, was the Municipal Health Officer of Isabel,
Leyte at the time of the incident, and among her responsibilities as such was to take
charge of all medico-legal cases, such as the examination of cadavers and the autopsy
of cadavers. Dra. Cerillo is not a forensic pathologist. She merely took the medical
board exams and passed in 1986. She was called by the police to go to the Genosa
residence and when she got there, she saw some police officer and neighbor around.
She saw Ben Genosa, covered by a blanket, lying in a semi-prone position with his back
to the door. He was wearing only a brief.

xxxxxxxxx

Dra. Cerillo said that there is only one injury and that is the injury involving the skeletal
area of the head which she described as a fracture. And that based on her examination,
Ben had been dead 2 or 3 days. Dra. Cerillo did not testify as to what caused his death.

Dra. Cerillo was not cross-examined by defense counsel.

11. The Information, dated November 14, 1996, filed against Marivic Genosa charged
her with the crime of PARRICIDE committed with intent to kill, with treachery and
evidence premeditation, x x x wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit
and wound x x x her legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly weapon x x x
which caused his death.

12. Trial took place on 7 and 14 April 1997, 14 May 1997, 21 July 1997, 17, 22 and 23
September 1997, 12 November 1997, 15 and 16 December 1997, 22 May 1998, and 5
and 6 August 1998.

13. On 23 September 1998, or only fifty (50) days from the day of the last trial date,
the Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona, Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City,
rendered a JUDGMENT finding Marivic guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of parricide, and further found treachery as an aggravating circumstance, thus
sentencing her to the ultimate penalty of DEATH.

14. The case was elevated to this Honorable Court upon automatic review and, under
date of 24 January 2000, Marivics trial lawyer, Atty. Gil Marvel P. Tabucanon, filed a
Motion to Withdraw as counsel, attaching thereto, as a precautionary measure, two (2)
drafts of Appellants Briefs he had prepared for Marivic which, for reasons of her own,
were not conformed to by her.

The Honorable Court allowed the withdrawal of Atty. Tabucanon and permitted the
entry of appearance of undersigned counsel.

15. Without the knowledge of counsel, Marivic Genosa wrote a letter dated 20 January
2000, to the Chief Justice, coursing the same through Atty. Teresita G. Dimaisip,
Deputy Clerk of Court of Chief Judicial Records Office, wherein she submitted her
Brief without counsels to the Court.

This letter was stamp-received by the Honorable Court on 4 February 2000.

16. In the meantime, under date of 17 February 2000, and stamp-received by the
Honorable Court on 19 February 2000, undersigned counsel filed an URGENT
OMNIBUS MOTION praying that the Honorable Court allow the exhumation of Ben
Genosa and the re-examination of the cause of his death; allow the examination of
Marivic Genosa by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state of
mind at the time she killed her husband; and finally, to allow a partial re-opening of the
case a quo to take the testimony of said psychologists and psychiatrists.

Attached to the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION was a letter of Dr. Raquel Fortun, then
the only qualified forensic pathologist in the country, who opined that the description
of the death wound (as culled from the post-mortem findings, Exhibit A) is more akin
to a gunshot wound than a beating with a lead pipe.

17. In a RESOLUTION dated 29 September 2000, the Honorable Court partly granted
Marivics URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION and remanded the case to the trial court for
the reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the battered woman
syndrome plea, within ninety (90) days from notice, and, thereafter to forthwith report
to this Court the proceedings taken, together with the copies of the TSN and relevant
documentary evidence, if any, submitted.

18. On 15 January 2001, Dra. Natividad A. Dayan appeared and testified before the
Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona, RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City.

Immediately before Dra. Dayan was sworn, the Court a quo asked if she had
interviewed Marivic Genosa. Dra. Dayan informed the Court that interviews were done
at the Penal Institution in 1999, but that the clinical interviews and psychological
assessment were done at her clinic.
Dra. Dayan testified that she has been a clinical psychologist for twenty (20) years with
her own private clinic and connected presently to the De La Salle University as a
professor. Before this, she was the Head of the Psychology Department of the
Assumption College; a member of the faculty of Psychology at the Ateneo de Manila
University and St. Josephs College; and was the counseling psychologist of the National
Defense College. She has an AB in Psychology from the University of the Philippines,
a Master of Arts in Clinical [Counseling], Psychology from the Ateneo, and a PhD from
the U.P. She was the past president of the Psychological Association of the Philippines
and is a member of the American Psychological Association. She is the secretary of the
International Council of Psychologists from about 68 countries; a member of the
Forensic Psychology Association; and a member of the ASEAN [Counseling]
Association. She is actively involved with the Philippine Judicial Academy, recently
lecturing on the socio-demographic and psychological profile of families involved in
domestic violence and nullity cases. She was with the Davide Commission doing
research about Military Psychology. She has written a book entitled Energy Global
Psychology (together with Drs. Allan Tan and Allan Bernardo). The Genosa case is the
first time she has testified as an expert on battered women as this is the first case of that
nature.

Dra. Dayan testified that for the research she conducted, on the socio-demographic and
psychological profile of families involved in domestic violence, and nullity cases, she
looked at about 500 cases over a period of ten (10) years and discovered that there are
lots of variables that cause all of this marital conflicts, from domestic violence to
infidelity, to psychiatric disorder.

Dra. Dayan described domestic violence to comprise of a lot of incidents of

psychological abuse, verbal abuse, and emotional abuse to physical abuse and also
sexual abuse.

xxxxxxxxx

Dra. Dayan testified that in her studies, the battered woman usually has a very low
opinion of herself. She has a self-defeating and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x
they usually think very lowly of themselves and so when the violence would happen,
they usually think that they provoke it, that they were the one who precipitated the
violence, they provoke their spouse to be physically, verbally and even sexually abusive
to them. Dra. Dayan said that usually a battered x x x comes from a dysfunctional family
or from broken homes.

Dra. Dayan said that the batterer, just like the battered woman, also has a very low
opinion of himself. But then emerges to have superiority complex and it comes out as
being very arrogant, very hostile, very aggressive and very angry. They also had (sic) a
very low tolerance for frustrations. A lot of times they are involved in vices like
gambling, drinking and drugs. And they become violent. The batterer also usually
comes from a dysfunctional family which over-pampers them and makes them feel
entitled to do anything. Also, they see often how their parents abused each other so
there is a lot of modeling of aggression in the family.

Dra. Dayan testified that there are a lot of reasons why a battered woman does not leave
her husband: poverty, self-blame and guilt that she provoked the violence, the cycle
itself which makes her hope her husband will change, the belief in her obligations to
keep the family intact at all costs for the sake of the children.

xxxxxxxxx

Dra. Dayan said that abused wives react differently to the violence: some leave the
house, or lock themselves in another room, or sometimes try to fight back triggering
physical violence on both of them. She said that in a normal marital relationship, abuses
also happen, but these are not consistent, not chronic, are not happening day in [and]
day out. In an abnormal marital relationship, the abuse occurs day in and day out, is
long lasting and even would cause hospitalization on the victim and even death on the
victim.

xxxxxxxxx

Dra. Dayan said that as a result of the battery of psychological tests she administered,
it was her opinion that Marivic fits the profile of a battered woman because inspite of
her feeling of self-confidence which we can see at times there are really feeling (sic) of
loss, such feelings of humiliation which she sees herself as damaged and as a broken
person. And at the same time she still has the imprint of all the abuses that she had
experienced in the past.

xxxxxxxxx

Dra. Dayan said Marivic thought of herself as a loving wife and did not even consider
filing for nullity or legal separation inspite of the abuses. It was at the time of the tragedy
that Marivic then thought of herself as a victim.

xxxxxxxxx

19. On 9 February 2001, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo, a physician, who has since passed away,
appeared and testified before RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City.
Dr. Pajarillo was a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Psychiatry; a Fellow of the
Philippine Board of Psychiatry and a Fellow of the Philippine Psychiatry Association.
He was in the practice of psychiatry for thirty-eight (38) years. Prior to being in private
practice, he was connected with the Veterans Memorial Medical Centre where he
gained his training on psychiatry and neurology. After that, he was called to active duty
in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, assigned to the V. Luna Medical Center for
twenty six (26) years. Prior to his retirement from government service, he obtained the
rank of Brigadier General. He obtained his medical degree from the University of Santo
Tomas. He was also a member of the World Association of Military Surgeons; the
Quezon City Medical Society; the Cagayan Medical Society; and the Philippine
Association of Military Surgeons.

He authored The Comparative Analysis of Nervous Breakdown in the Philippine

Military Academy from the Period 1954 1978 which was presented twice in
international congresses. He also authored The Mental Health of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines 2000, which was likewise published internationally and locally. He had
a medical textbook published on the use of Prasepam on a Parke-Davis grant; was the
first to use Enanthate (siquiline), on an E.R. Squibb grant; and he published the use of
the drug Zopiclom in 1985-86.

Dr. Pajarillo explained that psychiatry deals with the functional disorder of the mind
and neurology deals with the ailment of the brain and spinal cord enlarged. Psychology,
on the other hand, is a bachelor degree and a doctorate degree; while one has to finish
medicine to become a specialist in psychiatry.

Even only in his 7th year as a resident in V. Luna Medical Centre, Dr. Pajarillo had
already encountered a suit involving violent family relations, and testified in a case in
1964. In the Armed Forces of the Philippines, violent family disputes abound, and he
has seen probably ten to twenty thousand cases. In those days, the primordial intention
of therapy was reconciliation. As a result of his experience with domestic violence
cases, he became a consultant of the Battered Woman Office in Quezon City under
Atty. Nenita Deproza.

As such consultant, he had seen around forty (40) cases of severe domestic violence,
where there is physical abuse: such as slapping, pushing, verbal abuse, battering and
boxing a woman even to an unconscious state such that the woman is sometimes
confined. The affliction of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder depends on the vulnerability
of the victim. Dr. Pajarillo said that if the victim is not very healthy, perhaps one episode
of violence may induce the disorder; if the psychological stamina and physiologic
constitutional stamina of the victim is stronger, it will take more repetitive trauma to
precipitate the post-traumatic stress disorder and this x x x is very dangerous.
In psychiatry, the post-traumatic stress disorder is incorporated under the anxiety
neurosis or neurologic anxcietism. It is produced by overwhelming brutality, trauma.

xxxxxxxxx

Dr. Pajarillo explained that with neurotic anxiety, the victim relives the beating or
trauma as if it were real, although she is not actually being beaten at that time. She
thinks of nothing but the suffering.

xxxxxxxxx

A woman who suffers battery has a tendency to become neurotic, her emotional tone
is unstable, and she is irritable and restless. She tends to become hard-headed and
persistent. She has higher sensitivity and her self-world is damaged.

Dr. Pajarillo said that an abnormal family background relates to an individuals illness,
such as the deprivation of the continuous care and love of the parents. As to the batterer,
he normally internalizes what is around him within the environment. And it becomes
his own personality. He is very competitive; he is aiming high all the time; he is so
macho; he shows his strong faade but in it there are doubts in himself and prone to act
without thinking.

xxxxxxxxx

Dr. Pajarillo emphasized that even though without the presence of the precipator (sic)
or the one who administered the battering, that re-experiencing of the trauma occurred
(sic) because the individual cannot control it. It will just come up in her mind or in his
mind.

xxxxxxxxx

Dr. Pajarillo said that a woman suffering post traumatic stress disorder try to defend
themselves, and primarily with knives. Usually pointed weapons or any weapon that is
available in the immediate surrounding or in a hospital x x x because that abound in the
household. He said a victim resorts to weapons when she has reached the lowest rock
bottom of her life and there is no other recourse left on her but to act decisively.

xxxxxxxxx

Dr. Pajarillo testified that he met Marivic Genosa in his office in an interview he
conducted for two (2) hours and seventeen (17) minutes. He used the psychological
evaluation and social case studies as a help in forming his diagnosis. He came out with
a Psychiatric Report, dated 22 January 2001.

xxxxxxxxx

On cross-examination by the private prosecutor, Dr. Pajarillo said that at the time she
killed her husband Marivicc mental condition was that she was re-experiencing the
trauma. He said that we are trying to explain scientifically that the re-experiencing of
the trauma is not controlled by Marivic. It will just come in flashes and probably at that
point in time that things happened when the re-experiencing of the trauma flashed in
her mind. At the time he interviewed Marivic she was more subdued, she was not super
alert anymore x x x she is mentally stress (sic) because of the predicament she is
involved.

xxxxxxxxx

20. No rebuttal evidence or testimony was presented by either the private or the public
prosecutor. Thus, in accord with the Resolution of this Honorable Court, the records of
the partially re-opened trial a quo were elevated.[9]

Ruling of the Trial Court

Finding the proffered theory of self-defense untenable, the RTC gave

credence to the prosecution evidence that appellant had killed the deceased
while he was in bed sleeping. Further, the trial court appreciated the generic
aggravating circumstance of treachery, because Ben Genosa was supposedly
defenseless when he was killed -- lying in bed asleep when Marivic smashed
him with a pipe at the back of his head.
The capital penalty having been imposed, the case was elevated to this
Court for automatic review.

Supervening Circumstances

On February 19, 2000, appellant filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying

that this Court allow (1) the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the reexamination
of the cause of his death; (2) the examination of appellant by qualified
psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time she
had killed her spouse; and (3) the inclusion of the said experts reports in the
records of the case for purposes of the automatic review or, in the alternative,
a partial reopening of the case for the lower court to admit the experts
testimonies.
On September 29, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution granting in part
appellants Motion, remanding the case to the trial court for the reception of
expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the battered woman
syndrome plea; and requiring the lower court to report thereafter to this Court
the proceedings taken as well as to submit copies of the TSN and additional
evidence, if any.
Acting on the Courts Resolution, the trial judge authorized the examination
of Marivic by two clinical psychologists, Drs. Natividad Dayan [10] and Alfredo
Pajarillo,[11] supposedly experts on domestic violence. Their testimonies, along
with their documentary evidence, were then presented to and admitted by the
lower court before finally being submitted to this Court to form part of the records
of the case. [12]

The Issues

Appellant assigns the following alleged errors of the trial court for this Courts
consideration:

1. The trial court gravely erred in promulgating an obviously hasty decision without
reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self-defense.

2. The trial court gravely erred in finding as a fact that Ben and Marivic Genosa were
legally married and that she was therefore liable for parricide.

3. The trial court gravely erred finding the cause of death to be by beating with a pipe.

4. The trial court gravely erred in ignoring and disregarding evidence adduced from
impartial and unbiased witnesses that Ben Genosa was a drunk, a gambler, a womanizer
and wife-beater; and further gravely erred in concluding that Ben Genosa was a battered
husband.

5. The trial court gravely erred in not requiring testimony from the children of Marivic
Genosa.

6. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that Marivics flight to Manila and her
subsequent apologies were indicia of guilt, instead of a clear attempt to save the life of
her unborn child.
7. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that there was an aggravating
circumstance of treachery.

8. The trial court gravely erred in refusing to re-evaluate the traditional elements in
determining the existence of self-defense and defense of foetus in this case, thereby
erroneously convicting Marivic Genosa of the crime of parricide and condemning her
to the ultimate penalty of death.[13]

In the main, the following are the essential legal issues: (1) whether
appellant acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus; and (2) whether
treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa.

The Courts Ruling

The appeal is partly meritorious.

Collateral Factual Issues

The first six assigned errors raised by appellant are factual in nature, if not
collateral to the resolution of the principal issues. As consistently held by this
Court, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are entitled to a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial judge gravely abused his
discretion or overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied material facts or
circumstances of weight and substance that could affect the outcome of the
case.[14]
In appellants first six assigned items, we find no grave abuse of discretion,
reversible error or misappreciation of material facts that would reverse or modify
the trial courts disposition of the case. In any event, we will now briefly dispose
of these alleged errors of the trial court.
First, we do not agree that the lower court promulgated an obviously hasty
decision without reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self-defense. We note
that in his 17-page Decision, Judge Fortunito L. Madrona summarized the
testimonies of both the prosecution and the defense witnesses and -- on the
basis of those and of the documentary evidence on record -- made his
evaluation, findings and conclusions. He wrote a 3-page discourse assessing
the testimony and the self-defense theory of the accused. While she, or even
this Court, may not agree with the trial judges conclusions, we cannot
peremptorily conclude, absent substantial evidence, that he failed to reflect on
the evidence presented.
Neither do we find the appealed Decision to have been made in an obviously
hasty manner. The Information had been filed with the lower court on November
14, 1996. Thereafter, trial began and at least 13 hearings were held for over a
year. It took the trial judge about two months from the conclusion of trial to
promulgate his judgment. That he conducted the trial and resolved the case
with dispatch should not be taken against him, much less used to condemn him
for being unduly hasty. If at all, the dispatch with which he handled the case
should be lauded. In any case, we find his actions in substantial compliance
with his constitutional obligation.[15]
Second, the lower court did not err in finding as a fact that Ben Genosa and
appellant had been legally married, despite the non-presentation of their
marriage contract. In People v. Malabago,[16] this Court held:

The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the
case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and
the deceased is the marriage certificate. In the absence of a marriage certificate,
however, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered by the trial court if
such proof is not objected to.

Two of the prosecution witnesses -- namely, the mother and the brother of
appellants deceased spouse -- attested in court that Ben had been married to
Marivic.[17] The defense raised no objection to these testimonies. Moreover,
during her direct examination, appellant herself made a judicial admission of
her marriage to Ben.[18] Axiomatic is the rule that a judicial admission is
conclusive upon the party making it, except only when there is a showing that
(1) the admission was made through a palpable mistake, or (2) no admission
was in fact made.[19] Other than merely attacking the non-presentation of the
marriage contract, the defense offered no proof that the admission made by
appellant in court as to the fact of her marriage to the deceased was made
through a palpable mistake.
Third, under the circumstances of this case, the specific or direct cause of
Bens death -- whether by a gunshot or by beating with a pipe -- has no legal
consequence. As the Court elucidated in its September 29, 2000 Resolution,
[c]onsidering that the appellant has admitted the fact of killing her husband and
the acts of hitting his nape with a metal pipe and of shooting him at the back of
his head, the Court believes that exhumation is unnecessary, if not immaterial,
to determine which of said acts actually caused the victims death. Determining
which of these admitted acts caused the death is not dispositive of the guilt or
defense of appellant.
Fourth, we cannot fault the trial court for not fully appreciating evidence that
Ben was a drunk, gambler, womanizer and wife-beater. Until this case came to us
for automatic review, appellant had not raised the novel defense of battered
woman syndrome, for which such evidence may have been relevant. Her theory
of self-defense was then the crucial issue before the trial court. As will be
discussed shortly, the legal requisites of self-defense under prevailing
jurisprudence ostensibly appear inconsistent with the surrounding facts that led to
the death of the victim. Hence, his personal character, especially his past behavior,
did not constitute vital evidence at the time.
Fifth, the trial court surely committed no error in not requiring testimony from
appellants children. As correctly elucidated by the solicitor general, all criminal
actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor,
in whom lies the discretion to determine which witnesses and evidence are
necessary to present.[20] As the former further points out, neither the trial court
nor the prosecution prevented appellant from presenting her children as
witnesses. Thus, she cannot now fault the lower court for not requiring them to
testify.
Finally, merely collateral or corroborative is the matter of whether the flight
of Marivic to Manila and her subsequent apologies to her brother-in-law are
indicia of her guilt or are attempts to save the life of her unborn child. Any
reversible error as to the trial courts appreciation of these circumstances has
little bearing on the final resolution of the case.

First Legal Issue:

Self-Defense and Defense of a Fetus

Appellant admits killing Ben Genosa but, to avoid criminal liability, invokes
self-defense and/or defense of her unborn child. When the accused admits
killing the victim, it is incumbent upon her to prove any claimed justifying
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.[21] Well-settled is the rule that
in criminal cases, self-defense (and similarly, defense of a stranger or third
person) shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.[22]

The Battered Woman Syndrome

In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel theory of the battered

woman syndrome. While new in Philippine jurisprudence, the concept has been
recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-defense or, at the least,
incomplete self-defense.[23] By appreciating evidence that a victim or defendant
is afflicted with the syndrome, foreign courts convey their understanding of the
justifiably fearful state of mind of a person who has been cyclically abused and
controlled over a period of time.[24]
A battered woman has been defined as a woman who is repeatedly
subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order
to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights.
Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship
with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the
couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find
herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time,
and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.[25]
Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-esteem,
traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex role; emotional
dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to accept responsibility for
the batterers actions; and false hopes that the relationship will improve.[26]
More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-
called cycle of violence,[27] which has three phases: (1) the tension-building
phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least,
nonviolent) phase.[28]
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could be
verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman
usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or
by simply staying out of his way. What actually happens is that she allows
herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively minor. All she wants
is to prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish,
however, proves to be double-edged, because her placatory and passive
behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in the first place.
However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to placate him
are not usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical abuse worsens. Each
partner senses the imminent loss of control and the growing tension and
despair. Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered woman soon
withdraws emotionally. But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the
more the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some
unpredictable point, the violence spirals out of control and leads to an acute
battering incident.[29]
 The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this
incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no
control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as
unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it.
The battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason with him, and that
resistance would only exacerbate her condition.
At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible
pain, although she may later clearly remember every detail. Her apparent
passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the batterer is
almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from her past painful
experience that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very
savage and out of control, such that innocent bystanders or intervenors are
likely to get hurt.[30]
The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering
incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound
relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior
towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to
make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising never to beat her
again. On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself that
the battery will never happen again; that her partner will change for the better;
and that this good, gentle and caring man is the real person whom she loves.
A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the
emotional stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair, she feels
responsible for his well-being. The truth, though, is that the chances of his
reforming, or seeking or receiving professional help, are very slim, especially if
she remains with him. Generally, only after she leaves him does he seek
professional help as a way of getting her back. Yet, it is in this phase of
remorseful reconciliation that she is most thoroughly tormented psychologically.
The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in a battered
womans psyche. In this phase, she and her batterer are indeed emotionally
dependent on each other -- she for his nurturant behavior, he for her
forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of tension, violence and
forgiveness, each partner may believe that it is better to die than to be
separated. Neither one may really feel independent, capable of functioning
without the other.[31]

History of Abuse
in the Present Case
 To show the history of violence inflicted upon appellant, the defense
presented several witnesses. She herself described her heart-rending
experience as follows:
ATTY. TABUCANON
Q How did you describe your marriage with Ben Genosa?
A In the first year, I lived with him happily but in the subsequent year he was cruel to
me and a behavior of habitual drinker.
Q You said that in the subsequent year of your marriage, your husband was abusive to
you and cruel. In what way was this abusive and cruelty manifested to you?
A He always provoke me in everything, he always slap me and sometimes he pinned
me down on the bed and sometimes beat me.
Q How many times did this happen?
A Several times already.
Q What did you do when these things happen to you?
A I went away to my mother and I ran to my father and we separate each other.
Q What was the action of Ben Genosa towards you leaving home?
A He is following me, after that he sought after me.
Q What will happen when he follow you?
A He said he changed, he asked for forgiveness and I was convinced and after that I
go to him and he said sorry.
Q During those times that you were the recipient of such cruelty and abusive behavior
by your husband, were you able to see a doctor?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who are these doctors?
A The company physician, Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra. Cerillo.

xxxxxxxxx

Q You said that you saw a doctor in relation to your injuries?

A Yes, sir.
Q Who inflicted these injuries?
A Of course my husband.
Q You mean Ben Genosa?
A Yes, sir.

xxxxxxxxx
 [Court] /to the witness
Q How frequent was the alleged cruelty that you said?
A Everytime he got drunk.
Q No, from the time that you said the cruelty or the infliction of injury inflicted on your
occurred, after your marriage, from that time on, how frequent was the
occurrence?
A Everytime he got drunk.
Q Is it daily, weekly, monthly or how many times in a month or in a week?
A Three times a week.
Q Do you mean three times a week he would beat you?
A Not necessarily that he would beat me but sometimes he will just quarrel me. [32]

Referring to his Out-Patient Chart[33] on Marivic Genosa at the Philphos

Hospital, Dr. Dino D. Caing bolstered her foregoing testimony on chronic battery
in this manner:
Q So, do you have a summary of those six (6) incidents which are found in the chart of
your clinic?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who prepared the list of six (6) incidents, Doctor?
A I did.
Q Will you please read the physical findings together with the dates for the record.
A 1. May 12, 1990 - physical findings are as follows: Hematoma (R) lower eyelid and
redness of eye. Attending physician: Dr. Lucero;
2. March 10, 1992 - Contusion-Hematoma (L) lower arbital area, pain and
contusion (R) breast. Attending physician: Dr. Canora;
3. March 26, 1993 - Abrasion, Furuncle (L) Axilla;
4. August 1, 1994 - Pain, mastitis (L) breast, 2 to trauma. Attending physician: Dr.
Caing;
5. April 17, 1995 - Trauma, tenderness (R) Shoulder. Attending physician: Dr.
Canora; and
6. June 5, 1995 - Swelling Abrasion (L) leg, multiple contusion Pregnancy.
Attending physician: Dr. Canora.
Q Among the findings, there were two (2) incidents wherein you were the attending
physician, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you actually physical examine the accused?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, going to your finding no. 3 where you were the one who attended the patient.
What do you mean by abrasion furuncle left axilla?
A Abrasion is a skin wound usually when it comes in contact with something rough
substance if force is applied.
Q What is meant by furuncle axilla?
A It is secondary of the light infection over the abrasion.
Q What is meant by pain mastitis secondary to trauma?
A So, in this 4th episode of physical injuries there is an inflammation of left breast. So,
[pain] meaning there is tenderness. When your breast is traumatized, there is
tenderness pain.
Q So, these are objective physical injuries. Doctor?

xxxxxxxxx

Q Were you able to talk with the patient?

A Yes, sir.
Q What did she tell you?
A As a doctor-patient relationship, we need to know the cause of these injuries. And
she told me that it was done to her by her husband.
Q You mean, Ben Genosa?
A Yes, sir.

xxxxxxxxx

ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q By the way Doctor, were you able to physical examine the accused sometime in the
month of November, 1995 when this incident happened?
A As per record, yes.
Q What was the date?
A It was on November 6, 1995.
Q So, did you actually see the accused physically?
A Yes, sir.
Q On November 6, 1995, will you please tell this Honorable Court, was the patient
pregnant?
A Yes, sir.
Q Being a doctor, can you more engage at what stage of pregnancy was she?
A Eight (8) months pregnant.
Q So in other words, it was an advance stage of pregnancy?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your November 6, 1995 examination, was it an examination about her
pregnancy or for some other findings?
A No, she was admitted for hypertension headache which complicates her pregnancy.
Q When you said admitted, meaning she was confined?
A Yes, sir.
Q For how many days?
A One day.
Q Where?
A At PHILPHOS Hospital.

xxxxxxxxx

Q Lets go back to the clinical history of Marivic Genosa. You said that you were able to
examine her personally on November 6, 1995 and she was 8 months pregnant.
What is this all about?
A Because she has this problem of tension headache secondary to hypertension and I
think I have a record here, also the same period from 1989 to 1995, she had a
consultation for twenty-three (23) times.
Q For what?
A Tension headache.
Q Can we say that specially during the latter consultation, that the patient had
hypertension?
A The patient definitely had hypertension. It was refractory to our treatment. She does
not response when the medication was given to her, because tension headache is
more or less stress related and emotional in nature.
Q What did you deduce of tension headache when you said is emotional in nature?
A From what I deduced as part of our physical examination of the patient is the family
history in line of giving the root cause of what is causing this disease. So, from the
moment you ask to the patient all comes from the domestic problem.
Q You mean problem in her household?
A Probably.
Q Can family trouble cause elevation of blood pressure, Doctor?
A Yes, if it is emotionally related and stressful it can cause increases in hypertension
which is unfortunately does not response to the medication.
Q In November 6, 1995, the date of the incident, did you take the blood pressure of the
accused?
 A On November 6, 1995 consultation, the blood pressure was 180/120.
Q Is this considered hypertension?
A Yes, sir, severe.
Q Considering that she was 8 months pregnant, you mean this is dangerous level of
blood pressure?
A It was dangerous to the child or to the fetus. [34]

Another defense witness, Teodoro Sarabia, a former neighbor of the

Genosas in Isabel, Leyte, testified that he had seen the couple quarreling
several times; and that on some occasions Marivic would run to him with
bruises, confiding that the injuries were inflicted upon her by Ben.[35]
Ecel Arano also testified[36] that for a number of times she had been asked
by Marivic to sleep at the Genosa house, because the latter feared that Ben
would come home drunk and hurt her. On one occasion that Ecel did sleep
over, she was awakened about ten oclock at night, because the couple were
very noisy and I heard something was broken like a vase. Then Marivic came
running into Ecels room and locked the door. Ben showed up by the window
grill atop a chair, scaring them with a knife.
On the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic again asked her help --
this time to find Ben -- but they were unable to. They returned to the Genosa
home, where they found him already drunk. Again afraid that he might hurt her,
Marivic asked her to sleep at their house. Seeing his state of drunkenness, Ecel
hesitated; and when she heard the couple start arguing, she decided to leave.
On that same night that culminated in the death of Ben Genosa, at least
three other witnesses saw or heard the couple quarreling.[37] Marivic relates in
detail the following backdrop of the fateful night when life was snuffed out of
him, showing in the process a vivid picture of his cruelty towards her:
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Please tell this Court, can you recall the incident in November 15, 1995 in the
evening?
A Whole morning and in the afternoon, I was in the office working then after office
hours, I boarded the service bus and went to Bilwang. When I reached Bilwang, I
immediately asked my son, where was his father, then my second child said, he
was not home yet. I was worried because that was payday, I was anticipating that
he was gambling. So while waiting for him, my eldest son arrived from school, I
prepared dinner for my children.
Q This is evening of November 15, 1995?
A Yes, sir.
Q What time did Ben Genosa arrive?
A When he arrived, I was not there, I was in Isabel looking for him.
Q So when he arrived you were in Isabel looking for him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you come back to your house?
A Yes, sir.
Q By the way, where was your conjugal residence situated this time?
A Bilwang.
Q Is this your house or you are renting?
A Renting.
Q What time were you able to come back in your residence at Bilwang?
A I went back around almost 8:00 oclock.
Q What happened when you arrived in your residence?
A When I arrived home with my cousin Ecel whom I requested to sleep with me at that
time because I had fears that he was again drunk and I was worried that he would
again beat me so I requested my cousin to sleep with me, but she resisted
because she had fears that the same thing will happen again last year.
Q Who was this cousin of yours who you requested to sleep with you?
A Ecel Arao, the one who testified.
Q Did Ecel sleep with you in your house on that evening?
A No, because she expressed fears, she said her father would not allow her because
of Ben.
Q During this period November 15, 1995, were you pregnant?
A Yes, 8 months.
Q How advance was your pregnancy?
A Eight (8) months.
Q Was the baby subsequently born?
A Yes, sir.
Q Whats the name of the baby you were carrying at that time?
A Marie Bianca.
Q What time were you able to meet personally your husband?
A Yes, sir.
Q What time?
A When I arrived home, he was there already in his usual behavior.
Q Will you tell this Court what was his disposition?
A He was drunk again, he was yelling in his usual unruly behavior.
Q What was he yelling all about?
A His usual attitude when he got drunk.
Q You said that when you arrived, he was drunk and yelling at you? What else did he
do if any?
A He is nagging at me for following him and he dared me to quarrel him.
Q What was the cause of his nagging or quarreling at you if you know?
A He was angry at me because I was following x x x him, looking for him. I was just
worried he might be overly drunk and he would beat me again.
Q You said that he was yelling at you, what else, did he do to you if any?
A He was nagging at me at that time and I just ignore him because I want to avoid
trouble for fear that he will beat me again. Perhaps he was disappointed because I
just ignore him of his provocation and he switch off the light and I said to him, why
did you switch off the light when the children were there. At that time I was also
attending to my children who were doing their assignments. He was angry with me
for not answering his challenge, so he went to the kitchen and [got] a bolo and cut
the antenna wire to stop me from watching television.
Q What did he do with the bolo?
A He cut the antenna wire to keep me from watching T.V.
Q What else happened after he cut the wire?
A He switch off the light and the children were shouting because they were scared and
he was already holding the bolo.
Q How do you described this bolo?
A 1 1/2 feet.
Q What was the bolo used for usually?
A For chopping meat.
Q You said the children were scared, what else happened as Ben was carrying that
bolo?
A He was about to attack me so I run to the room.
Q What do you mean that he was about to attack you?
A When I attempt to run he held my hands and he whirled me and I fell to the bedside.
Q So when he whirled you, what happened to you?
A I screamed for help and then he left.
Q You said earlier that he whirled you and you fell on the bedside?
A Yes, sir.
Q You screamed for help and he left, do you know where he was going?
A Outside perhaps to drink more.
Q When he left what did you do in that particular time?
A I packed all his clothes.
Q What was your reason in packing his clothes?
A I wanted him to leave us.
Q During this time, where were your children, what were their reactions?
A After a couple of hours, he went back again and he got angry with me for packing his
clothes, then he dragged me again of the bedroom holding my neck.
Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged you? How did he
drag you?
COURT INTERPRETER:
The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand flexed forcibly in her
front neck)
A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Where did he bring you?
A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then he kept on shouting
at me that you might as well be killed so there will be nobody to nag me.
Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is there in the drawer?
A I was aware that it was a gun.
COURT INTERPRETER:
(At this juncture the witness started crying).
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Were you actually brought to the drawer?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer?
A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open the drawer but he
could not open it because he did not have the key then he pulled his wallet which
contained a blade about 3 inches long and I was aware that he was going to kill
me and I smashed his arm and then the wallet and the blade fell. The one he used
to open the drawer I saw, it was a pipe about that long, and when he was about to
pick-up the wallet and the blade, I smashed him then I ran to the other room, and
on that very moment everything on my mind was to pity on myself, then the feeling
I had on that very moment was the same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS
Clinic, I was about to vomit.
 COURT INTERPRETER:
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).

xxxxxxxxx

ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Talking of drawer, is this drawer outside your room?
A Outside.
Q In what part of the house?
A Dining.
Q Where were the children during that time?
A My children were already asleep.
Q You mean they were inside the room?
A Yes, sir.
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you please describe this blade
about 3 inches long, how does it look like?
A Three (3) inches long and 1/2 inch wide.
Q Is it a flexible blade?
A Its a cutter.
Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?
A Yes, because he once used it to me.
Q How did he do it?
A He wanted to cut my throat.
Q With the same blade?
A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me. [38]

In addition, Dra. Natividad Dayan was called by the RTC to testify as an

expert witness to assist it in understanding the psyche of a battered person.
She had met with Marivic Genosa for five sessions totaling about seventeen
hours. Based on their talks, the former briefly related the latters ordeal to the
court a quo as follows:
Q: What can you say, that you found Marivic as a battered wife? Could you in laymans
term describe to this Court what her life was like as said to you?
A: What I remember happened then was it was more than ten years, that she was
suffering emotional anguish. There were a lot of instances of abuses, to emotional
abuse, to verbal abuse and to physical abuse. The husband had a very meager
income, she was the one who was practically the bread earner of the family. The
husband was involved in a lot of vices, going out with barkadas, drinking, even
 womanizing being involved in cockfight and going home very angry and which will
trigger a lot of physical abuse. She also had the experience a lot of taunting from
the husband for the reason that the husband even accused her of infidelity, the
husband was saying that the child she was carrying was not his own. So she was
very angry, she was at the same time very depressed because she was also
aware, almost like living in purgatory or even hell when it was happening day in
and day out. [39]

In cross-examining Dra. Dayan, the public prosecutor not merely elicited,

but wittingly or unwittingly put forward, additional supporting evidence as shown
below:
Q In your first encounter with the appellant in this case in 1999, where you talked to her
about three hours, what was the most relevant information did you gather?
A The most relevant information was the tragedy that happened. The most important
information were escalating abuses that she had experienced during her marital
life.
Q Before you met her in 1999 for three hours, we presume that you already knew of
the facts of the case or at least you have substantial knowledge of the facts of the
case?
A I believe I had an idea of the case, but I do not know whether I can consider them as
substantial.

xxxxxxxxx

Q Did you gather an information from Marivic that on the side of her husband they were
fond of battering their wives?
A I also heard that from her?
Q You heard that from her?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you ask for a complete example who are the relatives of her husband that were
fond of battering their wives?
A What I remember that there were brothers of her husband who are also battering
their wives.
Q Did she not inform you that there was an instance that she stayed in a hotel in
Ormoc where her husband followed her and battered [her] several times in that
room?
A She told me about that.
Q Did she inform you in what hotel in Ormoc?
A Sir, I could not remember but I was told that she was battered in that room.
Q Several times in that room?
 A Yes, sir. What I remember was that there is no problem about being battered, it really
happened.
Q Being an expert witness, our jurisprudence is not complete on saying this matter. I
think that is the first time that we have this in the Philippines, what is your opinion?
A Sir, my opinion is, she is really a battered wife and in this kind happened, it was
really a self-defense. I also believe that there had been provocation and I also
believe that she became a disordered person. She had to suffer anxiety reaction
because of all the battering that happened and so she became an abnormal
person who had lost shes not during the time and that is why it happened because
of all the physical battering, emotional battering, all the psychological abuses that
she had experienced from her husband.
Q I do believe that she is a battered wife. Was she extremely battered?
A Sir, it is an extreme form of battering. Yes.[40]
Parenthetically, the credibility of appellant was demonstrated as follows:
Q And you also said that you administered [the] objective personality test, what x x x [is
this] all about?
A The objective personality test is the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. The purpose
of that test is to find out about the lying prone[ne]ss of the person.
Q What do you mean by that?
A Meaning, am I dealing with a client who is telling me the truth, or is she someone
who can exaggerate or x x x [will] tell a lie[?]
Q And what did you discover on the basis of this objective personality test?
A She was a person who passed the honesty test. Meaning she is a person that I can
trust. That the data that Im gathering from her are the truth.[41]

The other expert witness presented by the defense, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo,
testified on his Psychiatric Report,[42] which was based on his interview and
examination of Marivic Genosa. The Report said that during the first three years
of her marriage to Ben, everything looked good -- the atmosphere was fine,
normal and happy -- until Ben started to be attracted to other girls and was also
enticed in[to] gambling[,] especially cockfighting. x x x. At the same time Ben
was often joining his barkada in drinking sprees.
The drinking sprees of Ben greatly changed the attitude he showed toward
his family, particularly to his wife. The Report continued: At first, it was verbal
and emotional abuses but as time passed, he became physically abusive.
Marivic claimed that the viciousness of her husband was progressive every time
he got drunk. It was a painful ordeal Marivic had to anticipate whenever she
suspected that her husband went for a drinking [spree]. They had been married
for twelve years[;] and practically more than eight years, she was battered and
maltreated relentlessly and mercilessly by her husband whenever he was
drunk.
Marivic sought the help of her mother-in-law, but her efforts were in vain.
Further quoting from the Report, [s]he also sought the advice and help of close
relatives and well-meaning friends in spite of her feeling ashamed of what was
happening to her. But incessant battering became more and more frequent and
more severe. x x x.[43]
From the totality of evidence presented, there is indeed no doubt in the
Courts mind that Appellant Marivic Genosa was a severely abused person.

Effect of Battery on Appellant

Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the abused

woman, her state of mind metamorphoses. In determining her state of mind, we
cannot rely merely on the judgment of an ordinary, reasonable person who is
evaluating the events immediately surrounding the incident. A Canadian court
has aptly pointed out that expert evidence on the psychological effect of
battering on wives and common law partners are both relevant and necessary.
How can the mental state of the appellant be appreciated without it? The
average member of the public may ask: Why would a woman put up with this
kind of treatment? Why should she continue to live with such a man? How could
she love a partner who beat her to the point of requiring hospitalization? We
would expect the woman to pack her bags and go. Where is her self-respect?
Why does she not cut loose and make a new life for herself? Such is the
reaction of the average person confronted with the so-called battered wife
syndrome.[44]
To understand the syndrome properly, however, ones viewpoint should not
be drawn from that of an ordinary, reasonable person. What goes on in the mind
of a person who has been subjected to repeated, severe beatings may not be
consistent with -- nay, comprehensible to -- those who have not been through
a similar experience. Expert opinion is essential to clarify and refute common
myths and misconceptions about battered women.[45]
The theory of BWS formulated by Lenore Walker, as well as her research
on domestic violence, has had a significant impact in the United States and the
United Kingdom on the treatment and prosecution of cases, in which a battered
woman is charged with the killing of her violent partner. The psychologist
explains that the cyclical nature of the violence inflicted upon the battered
woman immobilizes the latters ability to act decisively in her own interests,
making her feel trapped in the relationship with no means of escape. [46] In her
years of research, Dr. Walker found that the abuse often escalates at the point
of separation and battered women are in greater danger of dying then.[47]
Corroborating these research findings, Dra. Dayan said that the battered
woman usually has a very low opinion of herself. She has x x x self-defeating
and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x [W]hen the violence would happen,
they usually think that they provoke[d] it, that they were the one[s] who
precipitated the violence[; that] they provoke[d] their spouse to be physically,
verbally and even sexually abusive to them.[48]
According to Dra. Dayan, there are a lot of reasons why a battered woman
does not readily leave an abusive partner -- poverty, self-blame and guilt arising
from the latters belief that she provoked the violence, that she has an obligation
to keep the family intact at all cost for the sake of their children, and that she is
the only hope for her spouse to change.[49]
The testimony of another expert witness, Dr. Pajarillo, is also helpful. He
had previously testified in suits involving violent family relations, having
evaluated probably ten to twenty thousand violent family disputes within the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, wherein such cases abounded. As a result of
his experience with domestic violence cases, he became a consultant of the
Battered Woman Office in Quezon City. As such, he got involved in about forty
(40) cases of severe domestic violence, in which the physical abuse on the
woman would sometimes even lead to her loss of consciousness.[50]
Dr. Pajarillo explained that overwhelming brutality, trauma could result in
posttraumatic stress disorder, a form of anxiety neurosis or neurologic
anxietism.[51] After being repeatedly and severely abused, battered persons
may believe that they are essentially helpless, lacking power to change their
situation. x x x [A]cute battering incidents can have the effect of stimulating the
development of coping responses to the trauma at the expense of the victims
ability to muster an active response to try to escape further trauma.
Furthermore, x x x the victim ceases to believe that anything she can do will
have a predictable positive effect.[52]
A study[53] conducted by Martin Seligman, a psychologist at the University
of Pennsylvania, found that even if a person has control over a situation, but
believes that she does not, she will be more likely to respond to that situation
with coping responses rather than trying to escape. He said that it was the
cognitive aspect -- the individuals thoughts -- that proved all-important. He
referred to this phenomenon as learned helplessness. [T]he truth or facts of a
situation turn out to be less important than the individuals set of beliefs or
perceptions concerning the situation. Battered women dont attempt to leave the
battering situation, even when it may seem to outsiders that escape is possible,
because they cannot predict their own safety; they believe that nothing they or
anyone else does will alter their terrible circumstances.[54]
Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is somehow responsible
for the violent behavior of her partner, she also believes that he is capable of
killing her, and that there is no escape.[55] Battered women feel unsafe, suffer
from pervasive anxiety, and usually fail to leave the relationship.[56] Unless a
shelter is available, she stays with her husband, not only because she typically
lacks a means of self-support, but also because she fears that if she leaves she
would be found and hurt even more.[57]
In the instant case, we meticulously scoured the records for specific
evidence establishing that appellant, due to the repeated abuse she had
suffered from her spouse over a long period of time, became afflicted with the
battered woman syndrome. We, however, failed to find sufficient evidence that
would support such a conclusion. More specifically, we failed to find ample
evidence that would confirm the presence of the essential characteristics of
BWS.
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the cycle of violence
supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No
doubt there were acute battering incidents. In relating to the court a quo how
the fatal incident that led to the death of Ben started, Marivic perfectly described
the tension-building phase of the cycle. She was able to explain in adequate
detail the typical characteristics of this stage. However, that single incident does
not prove the existence of the syndrome. In other words, she failed to prove
that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had gone through a
similar pattern.
How did the tension between the partners usually arise or build up prior to
acute battering? How did Marivic normally respond to Bens relatively minor
abuses? What means did she employ to try to prevent the situation from
developing into the next (more violent) stage?
Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase
of the cycle. She simply mentioned that she would usually run away to her
mothers or fathers house;[58] that Ben would seek her out, ask for her
forgiveness and promise to change; and that believing his words, she would
return to their common abode.
Did she ever feel that she provoked the violent incidents between her and
her spouse? Did she believe that she was the only hope for Ben to reform? And
that she was the sole support of his emotional stability and well-being?
Conversely, how dependent was she on him? Did she feel helpless and trapped
in their relationship? Did both of them regard death as preferable to separation?
In sum, the defense failed to elicit from appellant herself her factual
experiences and thoughts that would clearly and fully demonstrate the essential
characteristics of the syndrome.
The Court appreciates the ratiocinations given by the expert witnesses for
the defense. Indeed, they were able to explain fully, albeit merely theoretically
and scientifically, how the personality of the battered woman usually evolved or
deteriorated as a result of repeated and severe beatings inflicted upon her by
her partner or spouse. They corroborated each others testimonies, which were
culled from their numerous studies of hundreds of actual cases. However, they
failed to present in court the factual experiences and thoughts that appellant
had related to them -- if at all -- based on which they concluded that she had
BWS.
We emphasize that in criminal cases, all the elements of a modifying
circumstance must be proven in order to be appreciated. To repeat, the records
lack supporting evidence that would establish all the essentials of the battered
woman syndrome as manifested specifically in the case of the Genosas.

BWS as Self-Defense

In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in

itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence
must still be considered in the context of self-defense.[59]
From the expert opinions discussed earlier, the Court reckons further that
crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the
time of the offense[60] -- she must have actually feared imminent harm from her
batterer and honestly believed in the need to kill him in order to save her life.
Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the one who resorts
to self-defense must face a real threat on ones life; and the peril sought to be
avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.[61] Thus, the
Revised Penal Code provides the following requisites and effect of self-
defense:[62]

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. -- The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense.[63] It

presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack -- or an imminent danger
thereof -- on the life or safety of a person.[64] In the present case, however,
according to the testimony of Marivic herself, there was a sufficient time interval
between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him. She had
already been able to withdraw from his violent behavior and escape to their
childrens bedroom. During that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went
to bed. The reality or even the imminence of the danger he posed had ended
altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat on
her life or safety.
Had Ben still been awaiting Marivic when she came out of their childrens
bedroom -- and based on past violent incidents, there was a great probability
that he would still have pursued her and inflicted graver harm -- then, the
imminence of the real threat upon her life would not have ceased yet. Where
the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual
physical assault at the time of the killing is not required. Incidents of domestic
battery usually have a predictable pattern. To require the battered person to
await an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life would amount to
sentencing her to murder by installment.[65] Still, impending danger (based on
the conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the defendants
use of deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or communication
can satisfy the required imminence of danger.[66] Considering such
circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-defense may be appreciated.
We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not continuous, does not
warrant self-defense.[67] In the absence of such aggression, there can be no
self-defense -- complete or incomplete -- on the part of the victim.[68] Thus,
Marivics killing of Ben was not completely justified under the circumstances.

Mitigating Circumstances Present

In any event, all is not lost for appellant. While she did not raise any other
modifying circumstances that would alter her penalty, we deem it proper to
evaluate and appreciate in her favor circumstances that mitigate her criminal
liability. It is a hornbook doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case opens it wholly
for review on any issue, including that which has not been raised by the
parties.[69]
From several psychological tests she had administered to Marivic, Dra.
Dayan, in her Psychological Evaluation Report dated November 29, 2000,
opined as follows:

This is a classic case of a Battered Woman Syndrome. The repeated battering Marivic
experienced with her husband constitutes a form of [cumulative] provocation which
broke down her psychological resistance and natural self-control. It is very clear that
she developed heightened sensitivity to sight of impending danger her husband posed
continuously. Marivic truly experienced at the hands of her abuser husband a state of
psychological paralysis which can only be ended by an act of violence on her part. [70]

Dr. Pajarillo corroborates the findings of Dra. Dayan. He explained that the
effect of repetitious pain taking, repetitious battering, [and] repetitious
maltreatment as well as the severity and the prolonged administration of the
battering is posttraumatic stress disorder.[71] Expounding thereon, he said:
Q What causes the trauma, Mr. Witness?
A What causes the trauma is probably the repetitious battering. Second, the severity of
the battering. Third, the prolonged administration of battering or the prolonged
commission of the battering and the psychological and constitutional stamina of
the victim and another one is the public and social support available to the victim.
If nobody is interceding, the more she will go to that disorder....

xxxxxxxxx

Q You referred a while ago to severity. What are the qualifications in terms of severity
of the postraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Pajarillo?
A The severity is the most severe continuously to trig[g]er this post[t]raumatic stress
disorder is injury to the head, banging of the head like that. It is usually the very
very severe stimulus that precipitate this post[t]raumatic stress disorder. Others
are suffocating the victim like holding a pillow on the face, strangulating the
individual, suffocating the individual, and boxing the individual. In this situation
therefore, the victim is heightened to painful stimulus, like for example she is
pregnant, she is very susceptible because the woman will not only protect herself,
she is also to protect the fetus. So the anxiety is heightened to the end [sic]
degree.
Q But in terms of the gravity of the disorder, Mr. Witness, how do you classify?
A We classify the disorder as [acute], or chronic or delayed or [a]typical.
Q Can you please describe this pre[-]classification you called delayed or [atypical]?
A The acute is the one that usually require only one battering and the individual will
manifest now a severe emotional instability, higher irritability remorse,
 restlessness, and fear and probably in most [acute] cases the first thing will be
happened to the individual will be thinking of suicide.
Q And in chronic cases, Mr. Witness?
A The chronic cases is this repetitious battering, repetitious maltreatment, any
prolonged, it is longer than six (6) months. The [acute] is only the first day to six (6)
months. After this six (6) months you become chronic. It is stated in the book
specifically that after six (6) months is chronic. The [a]typical one is the repetitious
battering but the individual who is abnormal and then become normal. This is how
you get neurosis from neurotic personality of these cases of post[t]raumatic stress
disorder. [72]

Answering the questions propounded by the trial judge, the expert witness
clarified further:
Q But just the same[,] neurosis especially on battered woman syndrome x x x affects x
x x his or her mental capacity?
A Yes, your Honor.
Q As you were saying[,] it x x x obfuscated her rationality?
A Of course obfuscated.[73]

In sum, the cyclical nature and the severity of the violence inflicted upon
appellant resulted in cumulative provocation which broke down her
psychological resistance and natural self-control, psychological paralysis, and
difficulty in concentrating or impairment of memory.
Based on the explanations of the expert witnesses, such manifestations
were analogous to an illness that diminished the exercise by appellant of her
will power without, however, depriving her of consciousness of her acts. There
was, thus, a resulting diminution of her freedom of action, intelligence or intent.
Pursuant to paragraphs 9[74] and 10[75] of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code,
this circumstance should be taken in her favor and considered as a mitigating
factor. [76]
In addition, we also find in favor of appellant the extenuating circumstance
of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced
passion and obfuscation. It has been held that this state of mind is present when
a crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked
by prior unjust or improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
overcome reason.[77] To appreciate this circumstance, the following requisites
should concur: (1) there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such
a condition of mind; and (2) this act is not far removed from the commission of
the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might
recover her normal equanimity.[78]
 Here, an acute battering incident, wherein Ben Genosa was the unlawful
aggressor, preceded his being killed by Marivic. He had further threatened to
kill her while dragging her by the neck towards a cabinet in which he had kept
a gun. It should also be recalled that she was eight months pregnant at the time.
The attempt on her life was likewise on that of her fetus.[79]His abusive and
violent acts, an aggression which was directed at the lives of both Marivic and
her unborn child, naturally produced passion and obfuscation overcoming her
reason. Even though she was able to retreat to a separate room, her emotional
and mental state continued. According to her, she felt her blood pressure rise;
she was filled with feelings of self-pity and of fear that she and her baby were
about to die. In a fit of indignation, she pried open the cabinet drawer where
Ben kept a gun, then she took the weapon and used it to shoot him.
The confluence of these events brings us to the conclusion that there was
no considerable period of time within which Marivic could have recovered her
normal equanimity. Helpful is Dr. Pajarillos testimony[80] that with neurotic
anxiety -- a psychological effect on a victim of overwhelming brutality [or] trauma
-- the victim relives the beating or trauma as if it were real, although she is not
actually being beaten at the time. She cannot control re-experiencing the whole
thing, the most vicious and the trauma that she suffered. She thinks of nothing
but the suffering. Such reliving which is beyond the control of a person under
similar circumstances, must have been what Marivic experienced during the
brief time interval and prevented her from recovering her normal equanimity.
Accordingly, she should further be credited with the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation.
It should be clarified that these two circumstances -- psychological paralysis
as well as passion and obfuscation -- did not arise from the same set of facts.
On the one hand, the first circumstance arose from the cyclical nature and
the severity of the battery inflicted by the batterer-spouse upon appellant. That
is, the repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in her psychological
paralysis, which was analogous to an illness diminishing the exercise of her will
power without depriving her of consciousness of her acts.
The second circumstance, on the other hand, resulted from the violent
aggression he had inflicted on her prior to the killing. That the incident occurred
when she was eight months pregnant with their child was deemed by her as an
attempt not only on her life, but likewise on that of their unborn child. Such
perception naturally produced passion and obfuscation on her part.

Second Legal Issue:

Treachery
 There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to
oneself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[81] In order
to qualify an act as treacherous, the circumstances invoked must be proven as
indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere inferences,
or conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of evidence.[82] Because
of the gravity of the resulting offense, treachery must be proved as conclusively
as the killing itself.[83]
Ruling that treachery was present in the instant case, the trial court imposed
the penalty of death upon appellant. It inferred this qualifying circumstances
merely from the fact that the lifeless body of Ben had been found lying in bed
with an open, depressed, circular fracture located at the back of his head. As to
exactly how and when he had been fatally attacked, however, the prosecution
failed to establish indubitably. Only the following testimony of appellant leads
us to the events surrounding his death:
Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged you? How did he
drag you?
COURT:
The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand flexed forcibly in her
front neck)
A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Where did he bring you?
A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then he kept on shouting
at me that you might as well be killed so there will be nobody to nag me
Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is there in the drawer?
A I was aware that it was a gun.
COURT INTERPRETER
(At this juncture the witness started crying)
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Were you actually brought to the drawer?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer?
A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open the drawer but he
could not open it because he did not have the key then he pulled his wallet which
 contained a blade about 3 inches long and I was aware that he was going to kill
me and I smashed his arm and then the wallet and the blade fell. The one he used
to open the drawer I saw, it was a pipe about that long, and when he was about to
pick-up the wallet and the blade, I smashed him then I ran to the other room, and
on that very moment everything on my mind was to pity on myself, then the feeling
I had on that very moment was the same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS
Clinic, I was about to vomit.
COURT INTERPRETER
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).

xxxxxxxxx

Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you please describe this blade
about 3 inches long, how does it look like?
A Three (3) inches long and inch wide.
Q It is a flexible blade?
A Its a cutter.
Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?
A Yes, because he once used it to me.
Q How did he do it?
A He wanted to cut my throat.
Q With the same blade?
A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me.

xxxxxxxxx

ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q You said that this blade fell from his grip, is it correct?
A Yes, because I smashed him.
Q What happened?
A Ben tried to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I pick-up the pipe and I smashed him
and I ran to the other room.
Q What else happened?
A When I was in the other room, I felt the same thing like what happened before when I
was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to vomit. I know my blood pressure
was raised. I was frightened I was about to die because of my blood pressure.
COURT INTERPRETER:
(Upon the answer of the witness getting the pipe and smashed him, the witness at the
same time pointed at the back of her neck or the nape).
 ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q You said you went to the room, what else happened?
A Considering all the physical sufferings that Ive been through with him, I took pity on
myself and I felt I was about to die also because of my blood pressure and the
baby, so I got that gun and I shot him.
COURT
/to Atty. Tabucanon
Q You shot him?
A Yes, I distorted the drawer.[84]

The above testimony is insufficient to establish the presence of treachery.

There is no showing of the victims position relative to appellants at the time of
the shooting. Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule that when a killing is
preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as a
qualifying circumstance, because the deceased may be said to have been
forewarned and to have anticipated aggression from the assailant.[85]
Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, the method of assault adopted by
the aggressor must have been consciously and deliberately chosen for the
specific purpose of accomplishing the unlawful act without risk from any
defense that might be put up by the party attacked.[86] There is no showing,
though, that the present appellant intentionally chose a specific means of
successfully attacking her husband without any risk to herself from any
retaliatory act that he might make. To the contrary, it appears that the thought
of using the gun occurred to her only at about the same moment when she
decided to kill her batterer-spouse. In the absence of any convincing proof that
she consciously and deliberately employed the method by which she committed
the crime in order to ensure its execution, this Court resolves the doubt in her
favor.[87]

Proper Penalty

The penalty for parricide imposed by Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code
is reclusion perpetua to death. Since two mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance have been found to have attended the commission
of the offense, the penalty shall be lowered by one (1) degree, pursuant to
Article 64 of paragraph 5 of the same Code. The penalty of reclusion
[88] [89]

temporal in its medium period is imposable, considering that two mitigating

circumstances are to be taken into account in reducing the penalty by one
degree, and no other modifying circumstances were shown to have attended
the commission of the offense. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
[90]

minimum of the penalty shall be within the range of that which is next lower in
degree -- prision mayor -- and the maximum shall be within the range of the
medium period of reclusion temporal.
Considering all the circumstances of the instant case, we deem it just and
proper to impose the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, or six (6)
years and one (1) day in prison as minimum; to reclusion temporal in its medium
period, or 14 years 8 months and 1 day as maximum. Noting that appellant has
already served the minimum period, she may now apply for and be released
from detention on parole.[91]

Epilogue

Being a novel concept in our jurisprudence, the battered woman syndrome

was neither easy nor simple to analyze and recognize vis--vis the given set of
facts in the present case. The Court agonized on how to apply the theory as a
modern-day reality. It took great effort beyond the normal manner in which
decisions are made -- on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence applicable
to the proven facts. To give a just and proper resolution of the case, it
endeavored to take a good look at studies conducted here and abroad in order
to understand the intricacies of the syndrome and the distinct personality of the
chronically abused person. Certainly, the Court has learned much. And
definitely, the solicitor general and appellants counsel, Atty. Katrina Legarda,
have helped it in such learning process.
While our hearts empathize with recurrently battered persons, we can only
work within the limits of law, jurisprudence and given facts. We cannot make or
invent them. Neither can we amend the Revised Penal Code. Only Congress,
in its wisdom, may do so.
The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising
from the battered woman syndrome. We now sum up our main points. First,
each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have
characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her
intimate partner. Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing
of the batterer must have produced in the battered persons mind an actual fear
of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to
use force in order to save her life. Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer
must have posed probable -- not necessarily immediate and actual -- grave
harm to the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former
against the latter. Taken altogether, these circumstances could satisfy the
requisites of self-defense. Under the existing facts of the present case,
however, not all of these elements were duly established.
WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is
hereby AFFIRMED. However, there being two (2) mitigating circumstances and
no aggravating circumstance attending her commission of the offense, her
penalty is REDUCED to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
minimum; to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Inasmuch as appellant has been detained for more than the minimum penalty
hereby imposed upon her, the director of the Bureau of Corrections may
immediately RELEASE her from custody upon due determination that she is
eligible for parole, unless she is being held for some other lawful cause.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
 [G.R. No. 119190. January 16, 1997]

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-
TSOI, respondents.

DECISION
TORRES, JR., J.:

Man has not invented a reliable compass by which to steer a marriage in its
journey over troubled waters. Laws are seemingly inadequate. Over time, much
reliance has been placed in the works of the unseen hand of Him who created
all things.
Who is to blame when a marriage fails?
This case was originally commenced by a distraught wife against her
uncaring husband in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 89) which
decreed the annulment of the marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity. Petitioner appealed the decision of the trial court to respondent
Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 42758) which affirmed the Trial Court's
decision on November 29, 1994 and correspondingly denied the motion for
reconsideration in a resolution dated February 14, 1995.
The statement of the case and of the facts made by the trial court and
reproduced by the Court of Appeals in its decision are as follows:
[1]

"From the evidence adduced, the following facts were preponderantly established:

"Sometime on May 22, 1988, the plaintiff married the defendant at the Manila
Cathedral, xxx Intramuros Manila, as evidenced by their Marriage Contract. (Exh.
"A")

"After the celebration of their marriage and wedding reception at the South Villa,
Makati, they went and proceeded to the house of defendant's mother.

"There, they slept together on the same bed in the same room for the first night of
their married life.

"It is the version of the plaintiff, that contrary to her expectations, that as newlyweds
they were supposed to enjoy making love, or having sexual intercourse, with each
other, the defendant just went to bed, slept on one side thereof, then turned his back
and went to sleep. There was no sexual intercourse between them during the first
night. The same thing happened on the second, third and fourth nights.

"In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place where they can enjoy together
during their first week as husband and wife, they went to Baguio City. But, they did
so together with her mother, an uncle, his mother and his nephew. They were all
invited by the defendant to join them. [T]hey stayed in Baguio City for four (4) days.
But, during this period, there was no sexual intercourse between them, since the
defendant avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta time or by just sleeping on
a rocking chair located at the living room. They slept together in the same room and
on the same bed since May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989. But during this period,
there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. [S]he claims, that she did
not even see her husband's private parts nor did he see hers.

"Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio
Macalalag, a urologist at the Chinese General Hospital, on January 20, 1989.

The results of their physical examinations were that she is healthy, normal and still a
virgin, while that of her husbands examination was kept confidential up to this time.
While no medicine was prescribed for her, the doctor prescribed medications for her
husband which was also kept confidential. No treatment was given to her. For her
husband, he was asked by the doctor to return but he never did.

"The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not
show his penis. She said, that she had observed the defendant using an eyebrow pencil
and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. And that, according to her, the
defendant married her, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or maintain his residency status
here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man.

"The plaintiff is not willing to reconcile with her husband.

"On the other hand, it is the claim of the defendant that if their marriage shall be
annulled by reason of psychological incapacity, the fault lies with his wife.

"But, he said that he does not want his marriage with his wife annulled for several
reasons, viz: (1) that he loves her very much; (2) that he has no defect on his part and
he is physically and psychologically capable; and, (3) since the relationship is still
very young and if there is any differences between the two of them, it can still be
reconciled and that, according to him, if either one of them has some incapabilities,
there is no certainty that this will not be cured. He further claims, that if there is any
defect, it can be cured by the intervention of medical technology or science 
"The defendant admitted that since their marriage on May 22, 1988, until their
separation on March 15, 1989, there was no sexual contact between them. But, the
reason for this, according to the defendant, was that everytime he wants to have sexual
intercourse with his wife, she always avoided him and whenever he caresses her
private parts, she always removed his hands. The defendant claims, that he forced his
wife to have sex with him only once but he did not continue because she was shaking
and she did not like it. So he stopped.

"There are two (2) reasons, according to the defendant, why the plaintiff filed this
case against him, and these are: (1) that she is afraid that she will be forced to return
the pieces of jewelry of his mother, and, (2) that her husband, the defendant, will
consummate their marriage.

"The defendant insisted that their marriage will remain valid because they are still
very young and there is still a chance to overcome their differences.

"The defendant submitted himself to a physical examination. His penis was examined
by Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr., for the purpose of finding out whether he is impotent. As a
result thereof, Dr. Alteza submitted his Doctor's Medical Report. (Exh. "2"). It is
stated there, that there is no evidence of impotency (Exh. "2-B"), and he is capable of
erection. (Exh. "2-C")

"The doctor said, that he asked the defendant to masturbate to find out whether or not
he has an erection and he found out that from the original size of two (2) inches, or
five (5) centimeters, the penis of the defendant lengthened by one (1) inch and one
centimeter. Dr. Alteza said, that the defendant had only a soft erection which is why
his penis is not in its full length. But, still is capable of further erection, in that with
his soft erection, the defendant is capable of having sexual intercourse with a woman.

"In open Court, the Trial Prosecutor manifested that there is no collusion between the
parties and that the evidence is not fabricated. [2]

After trial, the court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

"ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered declaring as VOID the marriage

entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant on May 22, 1988 at the Manila
Cathedral, Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, Intramuros, Manila, before the Rt.
Rev. Msgr. Melencio de Vera. Without costs. Let a copy of this decision be furnished
the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City. Let another copy be furnished the Local
Civil Registrar of Manila.
"SO ORDERED. "

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.

Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner alleges that the respondent Court of Appeals erred:
I

in affirming the conclusions of the lower court that there was no sexual intercourse
between the parties without making any findings of fact.

II

in holding that the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with
petitioner is a psychological incapacity inasmuch as proof thereof is totally absent.

III

in holding that the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to
have sex with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both.

IV

in affirming the annulment of the marriage between the parties decreed by the lower
court without fully satisfying itself that there was no collusion between them.

We find the petition to be bereft of merit.

Petitioner contends that being the plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-89-3141,
private respondent has the burden of proving the allegations in her complaint;
that since there was no independent evidence to prove the alleged non-
coitus between the parties, there remains no other basis for the court's
conclusion except the admission of petitioner; that public policy should aid acts
intended to validate marriage and should retard acts intended to invalidate
them; that the conclusion drawn by the trial court on the admissions and
confessions of the parties in their pleadings and in the course of the trial is
misplaced since it could have been a product of collusion; and that in actions
for annulment of marriage, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall
always be proved. [3]

Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court reads:

"Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. - Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or

otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court
may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. But in actions for
annulment of marriage or for legal separation the material facts alleged in the
complaint shall always be proved."

The foregoing provision pertains to a judgment on the pleadings. What said

provision seeks to prevent is annulment of marriage without trial. The assailed
decision was not based on such a judgment on the pleadings. When private
respondent testified under oath before the trial court and was cross-examined
by oath before the trial court and was cross-examined by theadverse party, she
thereby presented evidence in the form of a testimony. After such evidence was
presented, it became incumbent upon petitioner to present his side. He
admitted that since their marriage on May 22, 1988, until their separation on
March 15, 1989, there was no sexual intercourse between them.
To prevent collusion between the parties is the reason why, as stated by the
petitioner, the Civil Code provides that no judgment annulling a marriage shall
be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment (Arts.
88 and 101[par. 2]) and the Rules of Court prohibit such annulment without trial
(Sec. 1, Rule 19).
The case has reached this Court because petitioner does not want their
marriage to be annulled. This only shows that there is no collusion between the
parties. When petitioner admitted that he and his wife (private respondent) have
never had sexual contact with each other, he must have been only telling the
truth. We are reproducing the relevant portion of the challenged resolution
denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, penned with magisterial lucidity
by Associate Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes, viz:

"The judgment of the trial court which was affirmed by this Court is not based on a
stipulation of facts. The issue of whether or not the appellant is psychologically
incapacitated to discharge a basic marital obligation was resolved upon a review of
both the documentary and testimonial evidence on record. Appellant admitted that he
did not have sexual relations with his wife after almost ten months of cohabitation,
and it appears that he is not suffering from any physical disability. Such abnormal
reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a
serious personality disorder which to the mind of this Court clearly demonstrates an
'utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage' within
the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code (See Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 112019, January 4, 1995)." [4]

Petitioner further contends that respondent court erred in holding that the
alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have sex
with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both. He points out as
error the failure of the trial court to make "a categorical finding about the alleged
psychological incapacity and an in-depth analysis of the reasons for such
refusal which may not be necessarily due to psychological disorders" because
there might have been other reasons, - i.e., physical disorders, such as aches,
pains or other discomforts, - why private respondent would not want to have
sexual intercourse from May 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989, in a short span of 10
months.
First, it must be stated that neither the trial court nor the respondent court
made a finding on who between petitioner and private respondent refuses to
have sexual contact with the other. The fact remains, however, that there has
never been coitus between them. At any rate, since the action to declare the
marriage void may be filed by either party, i.e., even the psychologically
incapacitated, the question of who refuses to have sex with the other becomes
immaterial.
Petitioner claims that there is no independent evidence on record to show
that any of the parties is suffering from psychological incapacity. Petitioner also
claims that he wanted to have sex with private respondent; that the reason for
private respondent's refusal may not be psychological but physical disorder as
stated above.
We do not agree. Assuming it to be so, petitioner could have discussed with
private respondent or asked her what is ailing her, and why she balks and
avoids him everytime he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. He never
did. At least, there is nothing in the record to show that he had tried to find out
or discover what the problem with his wife could be. What he presented in
evidence is his doctor's Medical Report that there is no evidence of his
impotency and he is capable of erection. Since it is petitioner's claim that the
[5]

reason is not psychological but perhaps physical disorder on the part of private
respondent, it became incumbent upon him to prove such a claim.

"If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic
marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn
refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her
spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity."[6]

Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is
"To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of
children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage." Constant
non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of
the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of
the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological
incapacity.
As aptly stated by the respondent court,

"An examination of the evidence convinces Us that the husband's plea that the wife
did not want carnal intercourse with him does not inspire belief. Since he was not
physically impotent, but he refrained from sexual intercourse during the entire time
(from May 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989) that he occupied the same bed with his wife,
purely out of sympathy for her feelings, he deserves to be doubted for not having
asserted his rights even though she balked (Tompkins vs. Tompkins, 111 Atl. 599,
cited in I Paras, Civil Code, at p. 330). Besides, if it were true that it is the wife who
was suffering from incapacity, the fact that defendant did not go to court and seek the
declaration of nullity weakens his claim. This case was instituted by the wife whose
normal expectations of her marriage were frustrated by her husband's inadequacy.
Considering the innate modesty of the Filipino woman, it is hard to believe that she
would expose her private life to public scrutiny and fabricate testimony against her
husband if it were not necessary to put her life in order and put to rest her marital
status.

"We are not impressed by defendant's claim that what the evidence proved is the
unwillingness or lack of intention to perform the sexual act, which is
not psychological incapacity, and which can be achieved "through proper motivation."
After almost ten months of cohabitation, the admission that the husband is reluctant or
unwilling to perform the sexual act with his wife whom he professes to love very
dearly, and who has not posed any insurmountable resistance to his alleged
approaches, is indicative of a hopeless situation, and of a serious personality disorder
that constitutes psychological incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants
within the contemplation of the Family Code. [7]

While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code), the
sanction therefor is actually the "spontaneous, mutual affection between
husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order" (Cuaderno vs.
Cuaderno, 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with
another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage
is to say "I could not have cared less." This is so because an ungiven self is an
unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is
sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy
is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which
enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family
relations.
It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private
respondent. That is - a shared feeling which between husband and wife must
be experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep
sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way process. An
expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the other
can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely
not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with
love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to
compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.
This Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties
found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated
marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the studied judgment of
respondent appellate court.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, the assailed decision of the
Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects
and the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991

RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner,

vs.
CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT, and
HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and
Management, respondents.

Renato L. Cayetano for and in his own behalf.

Sabina E. Acut, Jr. and Mylene Garcia-Albano co-counsel for petitioner.

PARAS, J.:

We are faced here with a controversy of far-reaching proportions. While ostensibly only legal issues
are involved, the Court's decision in this case would indubitably have a profound effect on the
political aspect of our national existence.

The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C:

There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners

who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at
least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding -elections. However, a
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. (Emphasis supplied)

The aforequoted provision is patterned after Section l(l), Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution which
similarly provides:

There shall be an independent Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and eight

Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age and holders of a college degree. However, a majority
thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years.' (Emphasis supplied)

Regrettably, however, there seems to be no jurisprudence as to what constitutes practice of law as a

legal qualification to an appointive office.

Black defines "practice of law" as:

The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in
court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of
pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It
embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the
law. An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out
 to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in
legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and
collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.)

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. (Land Title Abstract and Trust Co.
v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650) A person is also considered to be in the practice of law
when he:

... for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations
or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an
advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee,
board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle
controversies and there, in such representative capacity performs any act or acts for the
purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated,
one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their
rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside
of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v..C.S.
Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852)

This Court in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v.Agrava, (105 Phil. 173,176-177) stated:

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation
services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to
constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the
work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis supplied)

Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside
of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces
conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation
and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations
and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court
proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many
aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great
capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an
attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the
courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be
drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and
that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to
the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons
possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times
under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys.
(Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion
of the Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service
Assoc. [R.I.] 179 A. 139,144). (Emphasis ours)
The University of the Philippines Law Center in conducting orientation briefing for new lawyers
(1974-1975) listed the dimensions of the practice of law in even broader terms as advocacy,
counselling and public service.

One may be a practicing attorney in following any line of employment in the profession. If
what he does exacts knowledge of the law and is of a kind usual for attorneys engaging in
the active practice of their profession, and he follows some one or more lines of employment
such as this he is a practicing attorney at law within the meaning of the statute. (Barr v.
Cardell, 155 NW 312)

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those
acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render
any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or
skill." (111 ALR 23)

The following records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that it has adopted a liberal
interpretation of the term "practice of law."

MR. FOZ. Before we suspend the session, may I make a manifestation which I forgot to do
during our review of the provisions on the Commission on Audit. May I be allowed to make a
very brief statement?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir).

The Commissioner will please proceed.

MR. FOZ. This has to do with the qualifications of the members of the Commission on Audit.
Among others, the qualifications provided for by Section I is that "They must be Members of
the Philippine Bar" — I am quoting from the provision — "who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years".

To avoid any misunderstanding which would result in excluding members of the Bar who are now
employed in the COA or Commission on Audit, we would like to make the clarification that this
provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer or involve actual
practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers who
are employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective work
within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for appointment as members or commissioners,
even chairman, of the Commission on Audit.

This has been discussed by the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies and we
deem it important to take it up on the floor so that this interpretation may be made available
whenever this provision on the qualifications as regards members of the Philippine Bar engaging in
the practice of law for at least ten years is taken up.

MR. OPLE. Will Commissioner Foz yield to just one question.

MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. OPLE. Is he, in effect, saying that service in the COA by a lawyer is equivalent to the
requirement of a law practice that is set forth in the Article on the Commission on Audit?
 MR. FOZ. We must consider the fact that the work of COA, although it is auditing, will
necessarily involve legal work; it will involve legal work. And, therefore, lawyers who are
employed in COA now would have the necessary qualifications in accordance with the
Provision on qualifications under our provisions on the Commission on Audit. And, therefore,
the answer is yes.

MR. OPLE. Yes. So that the construction given to this is that this is equivalent to the practice
of law.

MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. OPLE. Thank you.

... ( Emphasis supplied)

Section 1(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution, provides, among others, that the Chairman and
two Commissioners of the Commission on Audit (COA) should either be certified public accountants
with not less than ten years of auditing practice, or members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. (emphasis supplied)

Corollary to this is the term "private practitioner" and which is in many ways synonymous with the
word "lawyer." Today, although many lawyers do not engage in private practice, it is still a fact that
the majority of lawyers are private practitioners. (Gary Munneke, Opportunities in Law Careers [VGM
Career Horizons: Illinois], [1986], p. 15).

At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as commonly understood,
means "an individual or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.).
Lawyers who practice alone are often called "sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called
"firms." The firm is usually a partnership and members of the firm are the partners. Some firms may
be organized as professional corporations and the members called shareholders. In either case, the
members of the firm are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there are younger or more
inexperienced salaried attorneyscalled "associates." (Ibid.).

The test that defines law practice by looking to traditional areas of law practice is essentially
tautologous, unhelpful defining the practice of law as that which lawyers do. (Charles W.
Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics [West Publishing Co.: Minnesota, 1986], p. 593). The practice of law
is defined as the performance of any acts . . . in or out of court, commonly understood to be the
practice of law. (State Bar Ass'n v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222, 140 A.2d 863, 870
[1958] [quoting Grievance Comm. v. Payne, 128 Conn. 325, 22 A.2d 623, 626 [1941]). Because
lawyers perform almost every function known in the commercial and governmental realm, such a
definition would obviously be too global to be workable.(Wolfram, op. cit.).

The appearance of a lawyer in litigation in behalf of a client is at once the most publicly familiar role
for lawyers as well as an uncommon role for the average lawyer. Most lawyers spend little time in
courtrooms, and a large percentage spend their entire practice without litigating a case. (Ibid., p.
593). Nonetheless, many lawyers do continue to litigate and the litigating lawyer's role colors much
of both the public image and the self perception of the legal profession. (Ibid.).

In this regard thus, the dominance of litigation in the public mind reflects history, not reality. (Ibid.).
Why is this so? Recall that the late Alexander SyCip, a corporate lawyer, once articulated on the
importance of a lawyer as a business counselor in this wise: "Even today, there are still uninformed
laymen whose concept of an attorney is one who principally tries cases before the courts. The
members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most
developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices than in the
courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation work also know that
in most cases they find themselves spending more time doing what [is] loosely desccribe[d] as
business counseling than in trying cases. The business lawyer has been described as the planner,
the diagnostician and the trial lawyer, the surgeon. I[t] need not [be] stress[ed] that in law, as in
medicine, surgery should be avoided where internal medicine can be effective." (Business Star,
"Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).

In the course of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal
tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients,
and other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig
usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. And even within a narrow
specialty such as tax practice, a lawyer will shift from one legal task or role such as advice-giving to
an importantly different one such as representing a client before an administrative agency.
(Wolfram, supra, p. 687).

By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare
types — a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will
require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client counselling,
advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation. And increasingly lawyers find that the new skills of
evaluation and mediation are both effective for many clients and a source of employment. (Ibid.).

Most lawyers will engage in non-litigation legal work or in litigation work that is constrained in very
important ways, at least theoretically, so as to remove from it some of the salient features of
adversarial litigation. Of these special roles, the most prominent is that of prosecutor. In some
lawyers' work the constraints are imposed both by the nature of the client and by the way in which
the lawyer is organized into a social unit to perform that work. The most common of these roles are
those of corporate practice and government legal service. (Ibid.).

In several issues of the Business Star, a business daily, herein below quoted are emerging trends in
corporate law practice, a departure from the traditional concept of practice of law.

We are experiencing today what truly may be called a revolutionary transformation in

corporate law practice. Lawyers and other professional groups, in particular those members
participating in various legal-policy decisional contexts, are finding that understanding the
major emerging trends in corporation law is indispensable to intelligent decision-making.

Constructive adjustment to major corporate problems of today requires an accurate

understanding of the nature and implications of the corporate law research function
accompanied by an accelerating rate of information accumulation. The recognition of the
need for such improved corporate legal policy formulation, particularly "model-making" and
"contingency planning," has impressed upon us the inadequacy of traditional procedures in
many decisional contexts.

In a complex legal problem the mass of information to be processed, the sorting and
weighing of significant conditional factors, the appraisal of major trends, the necessity of
estimating the consequences of given courses of action, and the need for fast decision and
response in situations of acute danger have prompted the use of sophisticated concepts of
information flow theory, operational analysis, automatic data processing, and electronic
computing equipment. Understandably, an improved decisional structure must stress the
predictive component of the policy-making process, wherein a "model", of the decisional
context or a segment thereof is developed to test projected alternative courses of action in
terms of futuristic effects flowing therefrom.

Although members of the legal profession are regularly engaged in predicting and projecting
the trends of the law, the subject of corporate finance law has received relatively little
organized and formalized attention in the philosophy of advancing corporate legal education.
Nonetheless, a cross-disciplinary approach to legal research has become a vital necessity.

Certainly, the general orientation for productive contributions by those trained primarily in the
law can be improved through an early introduction to multi-variable decisional context and
the various approaches for handling such problems. Lawyers, particularly with either a
master's or doctorate degree in business administration or management, functioning at the
legal policy level of decision-making now have some appreciation for the concepts and
analytical techniques of other professions which are currently engaged in similar types of
complex decision-making.

Truth to tell, many situations involving corporate finance problems would require the services
of an astute attorney because of the complex legal implications that arise from each and
every necessary step in securing and maintaining the business issue raised. (Business Star,
"Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).

In our litigation-prone country, a corporate lawyer is assiduously referred to as the "abogado

de campanilla." He is the "big-time" lawyer, earning big money and with a clientele
composed of the tycoons and magnates of business and industry.

Despite the growing number of corporate lawyers, many people could not explain what it is
that a corporate lawyer does. For one, the number of attorneys employed by a single
corporation will vary with the size and type of the corporation. Many smaller and some large
corporations farm out all their legal problems to private law firms. Many others have in-house
counsel only for certain matters. Other corporation have a staff large enough to handle most
legal problems in-house.

A corporate lawyer, for all intents and purposes, is a lawyer who handles the legal affairs of a
corporation. His areas of concern or jurisdiction may include, inter alia: corporate legal
research, tax laws research, acting out as corporate secretary (in board meetings),
appearances in both courts and other adjudicatory agencies (including the Securities and
Exchange Commission), and in other capacities which require an ability to deal with the law.

At any rate, a corporate lawyer may assume responsibilities other than the legal affairs of the
business of the corporation he is representing. These include such matters as determining
policy and becoming involved in management. ( Emphasis supplied.)

In a big company, for example, one may have a feeling of being isolated from the action, or
not understanding how one's work actually fits into the work of the orgarnization. This can be
frustrating to someone who needs to see the results of his work first hand. In short, a
corporate lawyer is sometimes offered this fortune to be more closely involved in the running
of the business.

Moreover, a corporate lawyer's services may sometimes be engaged by a multinational

corporation (MNC). Some large MNCs provide one of the few opportunities available to
corporate lawyers to enter the international law field. After all, international law is practiced in
a relatively small number of companies and law firms. Because working in a foreign country
is perceived by many as glamorous, tills is an area coveted by corporate lawyers. In most
cases, however, the overseas jobs go to experienced attorneys while the younger attorneys
do their "international practice" in law libraries. (Business Star, "Corporate Law Practice,"
May 25,1990, p. 4).

This brings us to the inevitable, i.e., the role of the lawyer in the realm of finance. To borrow
the lines of Harvard-educated lawyer Bruce Wassertein, to wit: "A bad lawyer is one who
fails to spot problems, a good lawyer is one who perceives the difficulties, and the excellent
lawyer is one who surmounts them." (Business Star, "Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11,
1989, p. 4).

Today, the study of corporate law practice direly needs a "shot in the arm," so to speak. No
longer are we talking of the traditional law teaching method of confining the subject study to
the Corporation Code and the Securities Code but an incursion as well into the intertwining
modern management issues.

Such corporate legal management issues deal primarily with three (3) types of learning: (1)
acquisition of insights into current advances which are of particular significance to the
corporate counsel; (2) an introduction to usable disciplinary skins applicable to a corporate
counsel's management responsibilities; and (3) a devotion to the organization and
management of the legal function itself.

These three subject areas may be thought of as intersecting circles, with a shared area
linking them. Otherwise known as "intersecting managerial jurisprudence," it forms a unifying
theme for the corporate counsel's total learning.

Some current advances in behavior and policy sciences affect the counsel's role. For that
matter, the corporate lawyer reviews the globalization process, including the resulting
strategic repositioning that the firms he provides counsel for are required to make, and the
need to think about a corporation's; strategy at multiple levels. The salience of the nation-
state is being reduced as firms deal both with global multinational entities and simultaneously
with sub-national governmental units. Firms increasingly collaborate not only with public
entities but with each other — often with those who are competitors in other arenas.

Also, the nature of the lawyer's participation in decision-making within the corporation is
rapidly changing. The modem corporate lawyer has gained a new role as a stakeholder — in
some cases participating in the organization and operations of governance through
participation on boards and other decision-making roles. Often these new patterns develop
alongside existing legal institutions and laws are perceived as barriers. These trends are
complicated as corporations organize for global operations. ( Emphasis supplied)

The practising lawyer of today is familiar as well with governmental policies toward the
promotion and management of technology. New collaborative arrangements for promoting
specific technologies or competitiveness more generally require approaches from industry
that differ from older, more adversarial relationships and traditional forms of seeking to
influence governmental policies. And there are lessons to be learned from other countries. In
Europe, Esprit, Eureka and Race are examples of collaborative efforts between
governmental and business Japan's MITI is world famous. (Emphasis supplied)

Following the concept of boundary spanning, the office of the Corporate Counsel comprises
a distinct group within the managerial structure of all kinds of organizations. Effectiveness of
both long-term and temporary groups within organizations has been found to be related to
indentifiable factors in the group-context interaction such as the groups actively revising their
knowledge of the environment coordinating work with outsiders, promoting team
achievements within the organization. In general, such external activities are better
predictors of team performance than internal group processes.

In a crisis situation, the legal managerial capabilities of the corporate lawyer vis-a-vis the
managerial mettle of corporations are challenged. Current research is seeking ways both to
anticipate effective managerial procedures and to understand relationships of financial
liability and insurance considerations. (Emphasis supplied)

Regarding the skills to apply by the corporate counsel, three factors are apropos:

First System Dynamics. The field of systems dynamics has been found an effective tool for
new managerial thinking regarding both planning and pressing immediate problems. An
understanding of the role of feedback loops, inventory levels, and rates of flow, enable users
to simulate all sorts of systematic problems — physical, economic, managerial, social, and
psychological. New programming techniques now make the system dynamics principles
more accessible to managers — including corporate counsels. (Emphasis supplied)

Second Decision Analysis. This enables users to make better decisions involving complexity
and uncertainty. In the context of a law department, it can be used to appraise the settlement
value of litigation, aid in negotiation settlement, and minimize the cost and risk involved in
managing a portfolio of cases. (Emphasis supplied)

Third Modeling for Negotiation Management. Computer-based models can be used directly
by parties and mediators in all lands of negotiations. All integrated set of such tools provide
coherent and effective negotiation support, including hands-on on instruction in these
techniques. A simulation case of an international joint venture may be used to illustrate the
point.

[Be this as it may,] the organization and management of the legal function, concern three
pointed areas of consideration, thus:

Preventive Lawyering. Planning by lawyers requires special skills that comprise a major part
of the general counsel's responsibilities. They differ from those of remedial law. Preventive
lawyering is concerned with minimizing the risks of legal trouble and maximizing legal rights
for such legal entities at that time when transactional or similar facts are being considered
and made.

Managerial Jurisprudence. This is the framework within which are undertaken those activities
of the firm to which legal consequences attach. It needs to be directly supportive of this
nation's evolving economic and organizational fabric as firms change to stay competitive in a
global, interdependent environment. The practice and theory of "law" is not adequate today
to facilitate the relationships needed in trying to make a global economy work.

Organization and Functioning of the Corporate Counsel's Office. The general counsel has
emerged in the last decade as one of the most vibrant subsets of the legal profession. The
corporate counsel hear responsibility for key aspects of the firm's strategic issues, including
structuring its global operations, managing improved relationships with an increasingly
diversified body of employees, managing expanded liability exposure, creating new and
varied interactions with public decision-makers, coping internally with more complex make or
by decisions.
 This whole exercise drives home the thesis that knowing corporate law is not enough to
make one a good general corporate counsel nor to give him a full sense of how the legal
system shapes corporate activities. And even if the corporate lawyer's aim is not the
understand all of the law's effects on corporate activities, he must, at the very least, also gain
a working knowledge of the management issues if only to be able to grasp not only the basic
legal "constitution' or makeup of the modem corporation. "Business Star", "The Corporate
Counsel," April 10, 1991, p. 4).

The challenge for lawyers (both of the bar and the bench) is to have more than a passing
knowledge of financial law affecting each aspect of their work. Yet, many would admit to
ignorance of vast tracts of the financial law territory. What transpires next is a dilemma of
professional security: Will the lawyer admit ignorance and risk opprobrium?; or will he feign
understanding and risk exposure? (Business Star, "Corporate Finance law," Jan. 11, 1989,
p. 4).

Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of
Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on
Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does
not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.

On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as

Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he
assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.

Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's

nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition
praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the
Commission on Elections be declared null and void.

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of
1960 with a grade of 86-55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as
lawyer for more than ten years. (p. 124, Rollo)

After graduating from the College of Law (U.P.) and having hurdled the bar, Atty. Monsod worked in
the law office of his father. During his stint in the World Bank Group (1963-1970), Monsod worked as
an operations officer for about two years in Costa Rica and Panama, which involved getting
acquainted with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic,
and project work of the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines in 1970, he worked with the Meralco
Group, served as chief executive officer of an investment bank and subsequently of a business
conglomerate, and since 1986, has rendered services to various companies as a legal and
economic consultant or chief executive officer. As former Secretary-General (1986) and National
Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL. Monsod's work involved being knowledgeable in election law. He
appeared for NAMFREL in its accreditation hearings before the Comelec. In the field of advocacy,
Monsod, in his personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen's
Conference for Human Development, has worked with the under privileged sectors, such as the
farmer and urban poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for and engaging in affirmative action for the
agrarian reform law and lately the urban land reform bill. Monsod also made use of his legal
knowledge as a member of the Davide Commission, a quast judicial body, which conducted
numerous hearings (1990) and as a member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-1987), and
Chairman of its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, for which he was cited by the
President of the Commission, Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments to
reconcile government functions with individual freedoms and public accountability and the party-list
system for the House of Representative. (pp. 128-129 Rollo) ( Emphasis supplied)

Just a word about the work of a negotiating team of which Atty. Monsod used to be a member.

In a loan agreement, for instance, a negotiating panel acts as a team, and which is
adequately constituted to meet the various contingencies that arise during a negotiation.
Besides top officials of the Borrower concerned, there are the legal officer (such as the legal
counsel), the finance manager, and an operations officer (such as an official involved in
negotiating the contracts) who comprise the members of the team. (Guillermo V. Soliven,
"Loan Negotiating Strategies for Developing Country Borrowers," Staff Paper No. 2, Central
Bank of the Philippines, Manila, 1982, p. 11). (Emphasis supplied)

After a fashion, the loan agreement is like a country's Constitution; it lays down the law as far
as the loan transaction is concerned. Thus, the meat of any Loan Agreement can be
compartmentalized into five (5) fundamental parts: (1) business terms; (2) borrower's
representation; (3) conditions of closing; (4) covenants; and (5) events of default. (Ibid., p.
13).

In the same vein, lawyers play an important role in any debt restructuring program. For aside
from performing the tasks of legislative drafting and legal advising, they score national
development policies as key factors in maintaining their countries' sovereignty. (Condensed
from the work paper, entitled "Wanted: Development Lawyers for Developing Nations,"
submitted by L. Michael Hager, regional legal adviser of the United States Agency for
International Development, during the Session on Law for the Development of Nations at the
Abidjan World Conference in Ivory Coast, sponsored by the World Peace Through Law
Center on August 26-31, 1973). ( Emphasis supplied)

Loan concessions and compromises, perhaps even more so than purely renegotiation
policies, demand expertise in the law of contracts, in legislation and agreement drafting and
in renegotiation. Necessarily, a sovereign lawyer may work with an international business
specialist or an economist in the formulation of a model loan agreement. Debt restructuring
contract agreements contain such a mixture of technical language that they should be
carefully drafted and signed only with the advise of competent counsel in conjunction with
the guidance of adequate technical support personnel. (See International Law Aspects of the
Philippine External Debts, an unpublished dissertation, U.S.T. Graduate School of Law,
1987, p. 321). ( Emphasis supplied)

A critical aspect of sovereign debt restructuring/contract construction is the set of terms and
conditions which determines the contractual remedies for a failure to perform one or more
elements of the contract. A good agreement must not only define the responsibilities of both
parties, but must also state the recourse open to either party when the other fails to
discharge an obligation. For a compleat debt restructuring represents a devotion to that
principle which in the ultimate analysis is sine qua non for foreign loan agreements-an
adherence to the rule of law in domestic and international affairs of whose kind U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said: "They carry no banners, they
beat no drums; but where they are, men learn that bustle and bush are not the equal of quiet
genius and serene mastery." (See Ricardo J. Romulo, "The Role of Lawyers in Foreign
Investments," Integrated Bar of the Philippine Journal, Vol. 15, Nos. 3 and 4, Third and
Fourth Quarters, 1977, p. 265).
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of law". particularly the modern
concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers
of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager,
a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both
the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Besides in the leading case of Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 143 SCRA 327, the Court said:

Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in

which it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee
should possess the qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot
be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been
preferred. This is a political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the
appointing authority can decide. (emphasis supplied)

No less emphatic was the Court in the case of (Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission, 171
SCRA 744) where it stated:

It is well-settled that when the appointee is qualified, as in this case, and all the other legal
requirements are satisfied, the Commission has no alternative but to attest to the
appointment in accordance with the Civil Service Law. The Commission has no authority to
revoke an appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a particular
position. It also has no authority to direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice. To do
so would be an encroachment on the discretion vested upon the appointing authority. An
appointment is essentially within the discretionary power of whomsoever it is vested, subject
to the only condition that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. (
Emphasis supplied)

The appointing process in a regular appointment as in the case at bar, consists of four (4) stages: (1)
nomination; (2) confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; (3) issuance of a commission (in
the Philippines, upon submission by the Commission on Appointments of its certificate of
confirmation, the President issues the permanent appointment; and (4) acceptance e.g., oath-taking,
posting of bond, etc. . . . (Lacson v. Romero, No. L-3081, October 14, 1949; Gonzales, Law on
Public Officers, p. 200)

The power of the Commission on Appointments to give its consent to the nomination of Monsod as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections is mandated by Section 1(2) Sub-Article C, Article IX of
the Constitution which provides:

The Chairman and the Commisioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those
first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years,
and the last Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy
shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Anent Justice Teodoro Padilla's separate opinion, suffice it to say that his definition of the
practice of law is the traditional or stereotyped notion of law practice, as distinguished
from the modern concept of the practice of law, which modern connotation is exactly what
was intended by the eminent framers of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, Justice Padilla's
definition would require generally a habitual law practice, perhaps practised two or three
 times a week and would outlaw say, law practice once or twice a year for ten consecutive
years. Clearly, this is far from the constitutional intent.

Upon the other hand, the separate opinion of Justice Isagani Cruz states that in my written opinion, I
made use of a definition of law practice which really means nothing because the definition says that
law practice " . . . is what people ordinarily mean by the practice of law." True I cited the definition but
only by way of sarcasm as evident from my statement that the definition of law practice by
"traditional areas of law practice is essentially tautologous" or defining a phrase by means of the
phrase itself that is being defined.

Justice Cruz goes on to say in substance that since the law covers almost all situations, most
individuals, in making use of the law, or in advising others on what the law means, are actually
practicing law. In that sense, perhaps, but we should not lose sight of the fact that Mr. Monsod is a
lawyer, a member of the Philippine Bar, who has been practising law for over ten years. This is
different from the acts of persons practising law, without first becoming lawyers.

Justice Cruz also says that the Supreme Court can even disqualify an elected President of the
Philippines, say, on the ground that he lacks one or more qualifications. This matter, I greatly doubt.
For one thing, how can an action or petition be brought against the President? And even assuming
that he is indeed disqualified, how can the action be entertained since he is the incumbent
President?

We now proceed:

The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public hearings on Monsod's
confirmation, implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as required by
law. The judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged power is
beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only where such
grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the Commission's judgment.
In the instant case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court's corrective power, since no
abuse, much less a grave abuse of discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction
and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed, for has been clearly shown.

Additionally, consider the following:

(1) If the Commission on Appointments rejects a nominee by the President, may the
Supreme Court reverse the Commission, and thus in effect confirm the appointment?
Clearly, the answer is in the negative.

(2) In the same vein, may the Court reject the nominee, whom the Commission
has confirmed? The answer is likewise clear.

(3) If the United States Senate (which is the confirming body in the U.S. Congress) decides
to confirm a Presidential nominee, it would be incredible that the U.S. Supreme Court would
still reverse the U.S. Senate.

Finally, one significant legal maxim is:

We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that giveth life.
Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the procurator of Judea asked Delilah
(who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing Samson. Delilah agreed on condition that —

No blade shall touch his skin;

No blood shall flow from his veins.

When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured, the procurator placed an iron rod burning
white-hot two or three inches away from in front of Samson's eyes. This blinded the man. Upon
hearing of what had happened to her beloved, Delilah was beside herself with anger, and fuming
with righteous fury, accused the procurator of reneging on his word. The procurator calmly replied:
"Did any blade touch his skin? Did any blood flow from his veins?" The procurator was clearly relying
on the letter, not the spirit of the agreement.

In view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROWENA S. DISINI, LIANNE IVY P. MEDINA, JANETTE TORAL
and ERNESTO SONIDO, JR., Petitioners,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE and THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondents.

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

These consolidated petitions seek to declare several provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) 10175, the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, unconstitutional and void.

The Facts and the Case

The cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and use of the cyberspace. Using his laptop or
computer, a person can connect to the internet, a system that links him to other computers and
enable him, among other things, to:

1. Access virtual libraries and encyclopedias for all kinds of information that he needs for
research, study, amusement, upliftment, or pure curiosity;

2. Post billboard-like notices or messages, including pictures and videos, for the general
public or for special audiences like associates, classmates, or friends and read postings from
them;

3. Advertise and promote goods or services and make purchases and payments;

4. Inquire and do business with institutional entities like government agencies, banks, stock
exchanges, trade houses, credit card companies, public utilities, hospitals, and schools; and

5. Communicate in writing or by voice with any person through his e-mail address or
telephone.

This is cyberspace, a system that accommodates millions and billions of simultaneous and ongoing
individual accesses to and uses of the internet. The cyberspace is a boon to the need of the current
generation for greater information and facility of communication. But all is not well with the system
since it could not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would want to use cyberspace
technology for mischiefs and crimes. One of them can, for instance, avail himself of the system to
unjustly ruin the reputation of another or bully the latter by posting defamatory statements against
him that people can read.

And because linking with the internet opens up a user to communications from others, the ill-
motivated can use the cyberspace for committing theft by hacking into or surreptitiously accessing
his bank account or credit card or defrauding him through false representations. The wicked can use
the cyberspace, too, for illicit trafficking in sex or for exposing to pornography guileless children who
have access to the internet. For this reason, the government has a legitimate right to regulate the
use of cyberspace and contain and punish wrongdoings.

Notably, there are also those who would want, like vandals, to wreak or cause havoc to the
computer systems and networks of indispensable or highly useful institutions as well as to the laptop
or computer programs and memories of innocent individuals. They accomplish this by sending
electronic viruses or virtual dynamites that destroy those computer systems, networks, programs,
and memories. The government certainly has the duty and the right to prevent these tomfooleries
from happening and punish their perpetrators, hence the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime law for regulating undesirable
cyberspace activities violate certain of their constitutional rights. The government of course asserts
that the law merely seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace activities, punish wrongdoings,
and prevent hurtful attacks on the system.

Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues presented in these cases, on February 5, 2013 the
Court extended the original 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) that it earlier issued on
October 9, 2012, enjoining respondent government agencies from implementing the cybercrime law
until further orders.

The Issues Presented

Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the following provisions of the cybercrime law that
regard certain acts as crimes and impose penalties for their commission as well as provisions that
would enable the government to track down and penalize violators. These provisions are:

a. Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access;

b. Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference;

c. Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting;

d. Section 4(b)(3) on Identity Theft;

e. Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex;

f. Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography;

g. Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications;

h. Section 4(c)(4) on Libel;

i. Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrimes;

j. Section 6 on the Penalty of One Degree Higher;

k. Section 7 on the Prosecution under both the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and R.A. 10175;

l. Section 8 on Penalties;
 m. Section 12 on Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data;

n. Section 13 on Preservation of Computer Data;

o. Section 14 on Disclosure of Computer Data;

p. Section 15 on Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data;

q. Section 17 on Destruction of Computer Data;

r. Section 19 on Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data;

s. Section 20 on Obstruction of Justice;

t. Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC); and

u. Section 26(a) on CICC’s Powers and Functions.

Some petitioners also raise the constitutionality of related Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the
RPC on the crime of libel.

The Rulings of the Court

Section 4(a)(1)

Section 4(a)(1) provides:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:

(1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.

Petitioners contend that Section 4(a)(1) fails to meet the strict scrutiny standard required of laws that
interfere with the fundamental rights of the people and should thus be struck down.

The Court has in a way found the strict scrutiny standard, an American constitutional
construct,1 useful in determining the constitutionality of laws that tend to target a class of things or
persons. According to this standard, a legislative classification that impermissibly interferes with the
exercise of fundamental right or operates to the peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class is
presumed unconstitutional. The burden is on the government to prove that the classification is
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect
such interest.2 Later, the strict scrutiny standard was used to assess the validity of laws dealing with
the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights, as expansion from its
earlier applications to equal protection.3

In the cases before it, the Court finds nothing in Section 4(a)(1) that calls for the application of the
strict scrutiny standard since no fundamental freedom, like speech, is involved in punishing what is
essentially a condemnable act – accessing the computer system of another without right. It is a
universally condemned conduct.4

Petitioners of course fear that this section will jeopardize the work of ethical hackers, professionals
who employ tools and techniques used by criminal hackers but would neither damage the target
systems nor steal information. Ethical hackers evaluate the target system’s security and report back
to the owners the vulnerabilities they found in it and give instructions for how these can be remedied.
Ethical hackers are the equivalent of independent auditors who come into an organization to verify
its bookkeeping records.5

Besides, a client’s engagement of an ethical hacker requires an agreement between them as to the
extent of the search, the methods to be used, and the systems to be tested. This is referred to as the
"get out of jail free card."6Since the ethical hacker does his job with prior permission from the client,
such permission would insulate him from the coverage of Section 4(a)(1).

Section 4(a)(3) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(a)(3) provides:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:

xxxx

(3) Data Interference. – The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of
computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the
introduction or transmission of viruses.

Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(3) suffers from overbreadth in that, while it seeks to discourage
data interference, it intrudes into the area of protected speech and expression, creating a chilling
and deterrent effect on these guaranteed freedoms.

Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to state
regulation, may not be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly, thereby
invading the area of protected freedoms.7 But Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms
at all. It simply punishes what essentially is a form of vandalism,8 the act of willfully destroying
without right the things that belong to others, in this case their computer data, electronic document,
or electronic data message. Such act has no connection to guaranteed freedoms. There is no
freedom to destroy other people’s computer systems and private documents.

All penal laws, like the cybercrime law, have of course an inherent chilling effect, an in terrorem
effect9 or the fear of possible prosecution that hangs on the heads of citizens who are minded to step
beyond the boundaries of what is proper. But to prevent the State from legislating criminal laws
because they instill such kind of fear is to render the state powerless in addressing and penalizing
socially harmful conduct.10 Here, the chilling effect that results in paralysis is an illusion since Section
4(a)(3) clearly describes the evil that it seeks to punish and creates no tendency to intimidate the
free exercise of one’s constitutional rights.
Besides, the overbreadth challenge places on petitioners the heavy burden of proving that under no
set of circumstances will Section 4(a)(3) be valid.11 Petitioner has failed to discharge this burden.

Section 4(a)(6) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(a)(6) provides:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:

xxxx

(6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit,
mislead, destroy the reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain
name is:

(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the
appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration;

(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the registrant, in case
of a personal name; and

(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.

Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(6) or cyber-squatting violates the equal protection clause12 in that,
not being narrowly tailored, it will cause a user using his real name to suffer the same fate as those
who use aliases or take the name of another in satire, parody, or any other literary device. For
example, supposing there exists a well known billionaire-philanthropist named "Julio Gandolfo," the
law would punish for cyber-squatting both the person who registers such name because he claims it
to be his pseudo-name and another who registers the name because it happens to be his real name.
Petitioners claim that, considering the substantial distinction between the two, the law should
recognize the difference.

But there is no real difference whether he uses "Julio Gandolfo" which happens to be his real name
or use it as a pseudo-name for it is the evil purpose for which he uses the name that the law
condemns. The law is reasonable in penalizing him for acquiring the domain name in bad faith to
profit, mislead, destroy reputation, or deprive others who are not ill-motivated of the rightful
opportunity of registering the same. The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 4(a)(6) on
ground of denial of equal protection is baseless.

Section 4(b)(3) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(b)(3) provides:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:

xxxx
b) Computer-related Offenses:

xxxx

(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession,
alteration, or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical,
without right: Provided: that if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one
(1) degree lower.

Petitioners claim that Section 4(b)(3) violates the constitutional rights to due process and to privacy
and correspondence, and transgresses the freedom of the press.

The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a
facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.13 But the
Court acknowledged its existence as early as 1968 in Morfe v. Mutuc,14 it ruled that the right to
privacy exists independently of its identification with liberty; it is in itself fully deserving of
constitutional protection.

Relevant to any discussion of the right to privacy is the concept known as the "Zones of Privacy."
The Court explained in "In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Sabio
v. Senator Gordon"15 the relevance of these zones to the right to privacy:

Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion
is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process. The
meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not only from our conviction that the right to
privacy is a "constitutional right" and "the right most valued by civilized men," but also from our
adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that, "no one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy" and "everyone has the right to the protection of
the law against such interference or attacks."

Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy: (a) the right against unreasonable
searches16 and seizures, which is the basis of the right to be let alone, and (b) the right to privacy of
communication and correspondence.17 In assessing the challenge that the State has impermissibly
intruded into these zones of privacy, a court must determine whether a person has exhibited a
reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by
unreasonable government intrusion.18

The usual identifying information regarding a person includes his name, his citizenship, his
residence address, his contact number, his place and date of birth, the name of his spouse if any,
his occupation, and similar data.19 The law punishes those who acquire or use such identifying
information without right, implicitly to cause damage. Petitioners simply fail to show how government
effort to curb computer-related identity theft violates the right to privacy and correspondence as well
as the right to due process of law.

Also, the charge of invalidity of this section based on the overbreadth doctrine will not hold water
since the specific conducts proscribed do not intrude into guaranteed freedoms like speech. Clearly,
what this section regulates are specific actions: the acquisition, use, misuse or deletion of personal
identifying data of another. There is no fundamental right to acquire another’s personal data.

Further, petitioners fear that Section 4(b)(3) violates the freedom of the press in that journalists
would be hindered from accessing the unrestricted user account of a person in the news to secure
information about him that could be published. But this is not the essence of identity theft that the
law seeks to prohibit and punish. Evidently, the theft of identity information must be intended for an
illegitimate purpose. Moreover, acquiring and disseminating information made public by the user
himself cannot be regarded as a form of theft.

The Court has defined intent to gain as an internal act which can be established through the overt
acts of the offender, and it may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to
another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.20 As
such, the press, whether in quest of news reporting or social investigation, has nothing to fear since
a special circumstance is present to negate intent to gain which is required by this Section.

Section 4(c)(1) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(c)(1) provides:

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses.– The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:

xxxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

(1) Cybersex.– The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of
any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for
favor or consideration.

Petitioners claim that the above violates the freedom of expression clause of the Constitution.21 They
express fear that private communications of sexual character between husband and wife or
consenting adults, which are not regarded as crimes under the penal code, would now be regarded
as crimes when done "for favor" in cyberspace. In common usage, the term "favor" includes
"gracious kindness," "a special privilege or right granted or conceded," or "a token of love (as a
ribbon) usually worn conspicuously."22 This meaning given to the term "favor" embraces socially
tolerated trysts. The law as written would invite law enforcement agencies into the bedrooms of
married couples or consenting individuals.

But the deliberations of the Bicameral Committee of Congress on this section of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act give a proper perspective on the issue. These deliberations show a lack of intent to
penalize a "private showing x x x between and among two private persons x x x although that may
be a form of obscenity to some."23 The understanding of those who drew up the cybercrime law is
that the element of "engaging in a business" is necessary to constitute the illegal cybersex.24 The Act
actually seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white slave trade, and pornography for favor and
consideration. This includes interactive prostitution and pornography, i.e., by webcam.25

The subject of Section 4(c)(1)—lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity—is not
novel. Article 201 of the RPC punishes "obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows."
The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 penalizes those who "maintain or hire a person to
engage in prostitution or pornography."26 The law defines prostitution as any act, transaction,
scheme, or design involving the use of a person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct in exchange for money, profit, or any other consideration.27

The case of Nogales v. People28 shows the extent to which the State can regulate materials that
serve no other purpose than satisfy the market for violence, lust, or pornography.29 The Court
weighed the property rights of individuals against the public welfare. Private property, if containing
pornographic materials, may be forfeited and destroyed. Likewise, engaging in sexual acts privately
through internet connection, perceived by some as a right, has to be balanced with the mandate of
the State to eradicate white slavery and the exploitation of women.

In any event, consenting adults are protected by the wealth of jurisprudence delineating the bounds
of obscenity.30The Court will not declare Section 4(c)(1) unconstitutional where it stands a
construction that makes it apply only to persons engaged in the business of maintaining, controlling,
or operating, directly or indirectly, the lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity with the
aid of a computer system as Congress has intended.

Section 4(c)(2) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(c)(2) provides:

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:

xxxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

xxxx

(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act
No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system:
Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided for in
Republic Act No. 9775.

It seems that the above merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of
200931 (ACPA) to cover identical activities in cyberspace. In theory, nothing prevents the government
from invoking the ACPA when prosecuting persons who commit child pornography using a computer
system. Actually, ACPA’s definition of child pornography already embraces the use of "electronic,
mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means." Notably, no one has questioned this
ACPA provision.

Of course, the law makes the penalty higher by one degree when the crime is committed in
cyberspace. But no one can complain since the intensity or duration of penalty is a legislative
prerogative and there is rational basis for such higher penalty.32 The potential for uncontrolled
proliferation of a particular piece of child pornography when uploaded in the cyberspace is
incalculable.

Petitioners point out that the provision of ACPA that makes it unlawful for any person to "produce,
direct, manufacture or create any form of child pornography"33 clearly relates to the prosecution of
persons who aid and abet the core offenses that ACPA seeks to punish.34 Petitioners are wary that a
person who merely doodles on paper and imagines a sexual abuse of a 16-year-old is not criminally
liable for producing child pornography but one who formulates the idea on his laptop would be.
Further, if the author bounces off his ideas on Twitter, anyone who replies to the tweet could be
considered aiding and abetting a cybercrime.
The question of aiding and abetting the offense by simply commenting on it will be discussed
elsewhere below. For now the Court must hold that the constitutionality of Section 4(c)(2) is not
successfully challenged.

Section 4(c)(3) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(c)(3) provides:

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:

xxxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

xxxx

(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. – The transmission of commercial electronic

communication with the use of computer system which seeks to advertise, sell, or offer for sale
products and services are prohibited unless:

(i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or

(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or administrative
announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or

(iii) The following conditions are present:

(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and reliable
way for the recipient to reject receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-
out) from the same source;

(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the
source of the electronic message; and

(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include

misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the recipients to
read the message.

The above penalizes the transmission of unsolicited commercial communications, also known as
"spam." The term "spam" surfaced in early internet chat rooms and interactive fantasy games. One
who repeats the same sentence or comment was said to be making a "spam." The term referred to a
Monty Python’s Flying Circus scene in which actors would keep saying "Spam, Spam, Spam, and
Spam" when reading options from a menu.35

The Government, represented by the Solicitor General, points out that unsolicited commercial
communications or spams are a nuisance that wastes the storage and network capacities of internet
service providers, reduces the efficiency of commerce and technology, and interferes with the
owner’s peaceful enjoyment of his property. Transmitting spams amounts to trespass to one’s
privacy since the person sending out spams enters the recipient’s domain without prior permission.
The OSG contends that commercial speech enjoys less protection in law.
But, firstly, the government presents no basis for holding that unsolicited electronic ads reduce the
"efficiency of computers." Secondly, people, before the arrival of the age of computers, have already
been receiving such unsolicited ads by mail. These have never been outlawed as nuisance since
people might have interest in such ads. What matters is that the recipient has the option of not
opening or reading these mail ads. That is true with spams. Their recipients always have the option
to delete or not to read them.

To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read his emails, even
unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him. Commercial speech is a separate category of speech
which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed
forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection.36 The State cannot rob him of this right
without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Unsolicited advertisements
are legitimate forms of expression.

Articles 353, 354, and 355 of the Penal Code

Section 4(c)(4) of the Cyber Crime Law

Petitioners dispute the constitutionality of both the penal code provisions on libel as well as Section
4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act on cyberlibel.

The RPC provisions on libel read:

Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause
the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one
who is dead.

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,
even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the
following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any
statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by
public officers in the exercise of their functions.

Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition,
or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be
brought by the offended party.

The libel provision of the cybercrime law, on the other hand, merely incorporates to form part of it the
provisions of the RPC on libel. Thus Section 4(c)(4) reads:

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:
 xxxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

xxxx

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be
devised in the future.

Petitioners lament that libel provisions of the penal code37 and, in effect, the libel provisions of the
cybercrime law carry with them the requirement of "presumed malice" even when the latest
jurisprudence already replaces it with the higher standard of "actual malice" as a basis for
conviction.38 Petitioners argue that inferring "presumed malice" from the accused’s defamatory
statement by virtue of Article 354 of the penal code infringes on his constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of expression.

Petitioners would go further. They contend that the laws on libel should be stricken down as
unconstitutional for otherwise good jurisprudence requiring "actual malice" could easily be
overturned as the Court has done in Fermin v. People39 even where the offended parties happened
to be public figures.

The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b)
publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.40

There is "actual malice" or malice in fact41 when the offender makes the defamatory statement with
the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.42 The reckless
disregard standard used here requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. There must
be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the accused in fact entertained serious doubts as
to the truth of the statement he published. Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to
establish actual malice.43

The prosecution bears the burden of proving the presence of actual malice in instances where such
element is required to establish guilt. The defense of absence of actual malice, even when the
statement turns out to be false, is available where the offended party is a public official or a public
figure, as in the cases of Vasquez (a barangay official) and Borjal (the Executive Director, First
National Conference on Land Transportation). Since the penal code and implicitly, the cybercrime
law, mainly target libel against private persons, the Court recognizes that these laws imply a stricter
standard of "malice" to convict the author of a defamatory statement where the offended party is a
public figure. Society’s interest and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion
of public affairs.44

Parenthetically, the Court cannot accept the proposition that its ruling in Fermin disregarded the
higher standard of actual malice or malice in fact when it found Cristinelli Fermin guilty of committing
libel against complainants who were public figures. Actually, the Court found the presence of malice
in fact in that case. Thus:

It can be gleaned from her testimony that petitioner had the motive to make defamatory imputations
against complainants. Thus, petitioner cannot, by simply making a general denial, convince us that
there was no malice on her part. Verily, not only was there malice in law, the article being malicious
in itself, but there was also malice in fact, as there was motive to talk ill against complainants during
the electoral campaign. (Emphasis ours)
Indeed, the Court took into account the relatively wide leeway given to utterances against public
figures in the above case, cinema and television personalities, when it modified the penalty of
imprisonment to just a fine of ₱6,000.00.

But, where the offended party is a private individual, the prosecution need not prove the presence of
malice. The law explicitly presumes its existence (malice in law) from the defamatory character of
the assailed statement.45 For his defense, the accused must show that he has a justifiable reason for
the defamatory statement even if it was in fact true.46

Petitioners peddle the view that both the penal code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act violate the
country’s obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). They
point out that in Adonis v. Republic of the Philippines,47 the United Nations Human Rights Committee
(UNHRC) cited its General Comment 34 to the effect that penal defamation laws should include the
defense of truth.

But General Comment 34 does not say that the truth of the defamatory statement should constitute
an all-encompassing defense. As it happens, Article 361 recognizes truth as a defense but under the
condition that the accused has been prompted in making the statement by good motives and for
justifiable ends. Thus:

Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in
evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that
it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.

Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be
admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect
to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

Besides, the UNHRC did not actually enjoin the Philippines, as petitioners urge, to decriminalize
libel. It simply suggested that defamation laws be crafted with care to ensure that they do not stifle
freedom of expression.48Indeed, the ICCPR states that although everyone should enjoy freedom of
expression, its exercise carries with it special duties and responsibilities. Free speech is not
absolute. It is subject to certain restrictions, as may be necessary and as may be provided by law.49

The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and
that the government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation. Indeed,
cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code,
already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes
"similar means" for committing libel.

But the Court’s acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the
libelous statement or article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, unheard of when the penal
code provisions on libel were enacted. The culture associated with internet media is distinct from
that of print.

The internet is characterized as encouraging a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style.50 In a

sense, they are a world apart in terms of quickness of the reader’s reaction to defamatory
statements posted in cyberspace, facilitated by one-click reply options offered by the networking site
as well as by the speed with which such reactions are disseminated down the line to other internet
users. Whether these reactions to defamatory statement posted on the internet constitute aiding and
abetting libel, acts that Section 5 of the cybercrime law punishes, is another matter that the Court will
deal with next in relation to Section 5 of the law.

Section 5 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 5 provides:

Sec. 5. Other Offenses. — The following acts shall also constitute an offense:

(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets or
aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts to commit
any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 5 that renders criminally liable any person who
willfully abets or aids in the commission or attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated as
cybercrimes. It suffers from overbreadth, creating a chilling and deterrent effect on protected
expression.

The Solicitor General contends, however, that the current body of jurisprudence and laws on aiding
and abetting sufficiently protects the freedom of expression of "netizens," the multitude that avail
themselves of the services of the internet. He points out that existing laws and jurisprudence
sufficiently delineate the meaning of "aiding or abetting" a crime as to protect the innocent. The
Solicitor General argues that plain, ordinary, and common usage is at times sufficient to guide law
enforcement agencies in enforcing the law.51 The legislature is not required to define every single
word contained in the laws they craft.

Aiding or abetting has of course well-defined meaning and application in existing laws. When a
person aids or abets another in destroying a forest,52 smuggling merchandise into the country,53 or
interfering in the peaceful picketing of laborers,54 his action is essentially physical and so is
susceptible to easy assessment as criminal in character. These forms of aiding or abetting lend
themselves to the tests of common sense and human experience.

But, when it comes to certain cybercrimes, the waters are muddier and the line of sight is somewhat
blurred. The idea of "aiding or abetting" wrongdoings online threatens the heretofore popular and
unchallenged dogmas of cyberspace use.

According to the 2011 Southeast Asia Digital Consumer Report, 33% of Filipinos have accessed the
internet within a year, translating to about 31 million users.55 Based on a recent survey, the
Philippines ranks 6th in the top 10 most engaged countries for social networking.56 Social networking
sites build social relations among people who, for example, share interests, activities, backgrounds,
or real-life connections.57

Two of the most popular of these sites are Facebook and Twitter. As of late 2012, 1.2 billion people
with shared interests use Facebook to get in touch.58 Users register at this site, create a personal
profile or an open book of who they are, add other users as friends, and exchange messages,
including automatic notifications when they update their profile.59 A user can post a statement, a
photo, or a video on Facebook, which can be made visible to anyone, depending on the user’s
privacy settings.
If the post is made available to the public, meaning to everyone and not only to his friends, anyone
on Facebook can react to the posting, clicking any of several buttons of preferences on the
program’s screen such as "Like," "Comment," or "Share." "Like" signifies that the reader likes the
posting while "Comment" enables him to post online his feelings or views about the same, such as
"This is great!" When a Facebook user "Shares" a posting, the original "posting" will appear on his
own Facebook profile, consequently making it visible to his down-line Facebook Friends.

Twitter, on the other hand, is an internet social networking and microblogging service that enables its
users to send and read short text-based messages of up to 140 characters. These are known as
"Tweets." Microblogging is the practice of posting small pieces of digital content—which could be in
the form of text, pictures, links, short videos, or other media—on the internet. Instead of friends, a
Twitter user has "Followers," those who subscribe to this particular user’s posts, enabling them to
read the same, and "Following," those whom this particular user is subscribed to, enabling him to
read their posts. Like Facebook, a Twitter user can make his tweets available only to his Followers,
or to the general public. If a post is available to the public, any Twitter user can "Retweet" a given
posting. Retweeting is just reposting or republishing another person’s tweet without the need of
copying and pasting it.

In the cyberworld, there are many actors: a) the blogger who originates the assailed statement; b)
the blog service provider like Yahoo; c) the internet service provider like PLDT, Smart, Globe, or
Sun; d) the internet café that may have provided the computer used for posting the blog; e) the
person who makes a favorable comment on the blog; and f) the person who posts a link to the blog
site.60 Now, suppose Maria (a blogger) maintains a blog on WordPress.com (blog service provider).
She needs the internet to access her blog so she subscribes to Sun Broadband (Internet Service
Provider).

One day, Maria posts on her internet account the statement that a certain married public official has
an illicit affair with a movie star. Linda, one of Maria’s friends who sees this post, comments online,
"Yes, this is so true! They are so immoral." Maria’s original post is then multiplied by her friends and
the latter’s friends, and down the line to friends of friends almost ad infinitum. Nena, who is a
stranger to both Maria and Linda, comes across this blog, finds it interesting and so shares the link
to this apparently defamatory blog on her Twitter account. Nena’s "Followers" then "Retweet" the link
to that blog site.

Pamela, a Twitter user, stumbles upon a random person’s "Retweet" of Nena’s original tweet and
posts this on her Facebook account. Immediately, Pamela’s Facebook Friends start Liking and
making Comments on the assailed posting. A lot of them even press the Share button, resulting in
the further spread of the original posting into tens, hundreds, thousands, and greater postings.

The question is: are online postings such as "Liking" an openly defamatory statement, "Commenting"
on it, or "Sharing" it with others, to be regarded as "aiding or abetting?" In libel in the physical world,
if Nestor places on the office bulletin board a small poster that says, "Armand is a thief!," he could
certainly be charged with libel. If Roger, seeing the poster, writes on it, "I like this!," that could not be
libel since he did not author the poster. If Arthur, passing by and noticing the poster, writes on it,
"Correct!," would that be libel? No, for he merely expresses agreement with the statement on the
poster. He still is not its author. Besides, it is not clear if aiding or abetting libel in the physical world
is a crime.

But suppose Nestor posts the blog, "Armand is a thief!" on a social networking site. Would a reader
and his Friends or Followers, availing themselves of any of the "Like," "Comment," and "Share"
reactions, be guilty of aiding or abetting libel? And, in the complex world of cyberspace expressions
of thoughts, when will one be liable for aiding or abetting cybercrimes? Where is the venue of the
crime?

Except for the original author of the assailed statement, the rest (those who pressed Like, Comment
and Share) are essentially knee-jerk sentiments of readers who may think little or haphazardly of
their response to the original posting. Will they be liable for aiding or abetting? And, considering the
inherent impossibility of joining hundreds or thousands of responding "Friends" or "Followers" in the
criminal charge to be filed in court, who will make a choice as to who should go to jail for the
outbreak of the challenged posting?

The old parameters for enforcing the traditional form of libel would be a square peg in a round hole
when applied to cyberspace libel. Unless the legislature crafts a cyber libel law that takes into
account its unique circumstances and culture, such law will tend to create a chilling effect on the
millions that use this new medium of communication in violation of their constitutionally-guaranteed
right to freedom of expression.

The United States Supreme Court faced the same issue in Reno v. American Civil Liberties
Union,61 a case involving the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The law
prohibited (1) the knowing transmission, by means of a telecommunications device, of

"obscene or indecent" communications to any recipient under 18 years of age; and (2) the knowing
use of an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age
or to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age communications that, in
context, depict or describe, in terms "patently offensive" as measured by contemporary community
standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.

Those who challenged the Act claim that the law violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of
freedom of speech for being overbroad. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed and ruled:

The vagueness of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C.S. §223, is a matter
of special concern for two reasons. First, the CDA is a content-based regulation of speech. The
vagueness of such a regulation raises special U.S. Const. amend. I concerns because of its obvious
chilling effect on free speech. Second, the CDA is a criminal statute. In addition to the opprobrium
and stigma of a criminal conviction, the CDA threatens violators with penalties including up to two
years in prison for each act of violation. The severity of criminal sanctions may well cause speakers
to remain silent rather than communicate even arguably unlawful words, ideas, and images. As a
practical matter, this increased deterrent effect, coupled with the risk of discriminatory enforcement
of vague regulations, poses greater U.S. Const. amend. I concerns than those implicated by certain
civil regulations.

xxxx

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C.S. § 223, presents a great threat of
censoring speech that, in fact, falls outside the statute's scope. Given the vague contours of the
coverage of the statute, it unquestionably silences some speakers whose messages would be
entitled to constitutional protection. That danger provides further reason for insisting that the statute
not be overly broad. The CDA’s burden on protected speech cannot be justified if it could be avoided
by a more carefully drafted statute. (Emphasis ours)

Libel in the cyberspace can of course stain a person’s image with just one click of the mouse.
Scurrilous statements can spread and travel fast across the globe like bad news. Moreover,
cyberlibel often goes hand in hand with cyberbullying that oppresses the victim, his relatives, and
friends, evoking from mild to disastrous reactions. Still, a governmental purpose, which seeks to
regulate the use of this cyberspace communication technology to protect a person’s reputation and
peace of mind, cannot adopt means that will unnecessarily and broadly sweep, invading the area of
protected freedoms.62

If such means are adopted, self-inhibition borne of fear of what sinister predicaments await internet
users will suppress otherwise robust discussion of public issues. Democracy will be threatened and
with it, all liberties. Penal laws should provide reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement
officials and triers of facts to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.63 The terms "aiding or
abetting" constitute broad sweep that generates chilling effect on those who express themselves
through cyberspace posts, comments, and other messages.64 Hence, Section 5 of the cybercrime
law that punishes "aiding or abetting" libel on the cyberspace is a nullity.

When a penal statute encroaches upon the freedom of speech, a facial challenge grounded on the
void-for-vagueness doctrine is acceptable. The inapplicability of the doctrine must be carefully
delineated. As Justice Antonio T. Carpio explained in his dissent in Romualdez v. Commission on
Elections,65 "we must view these statements of the Court on the inapplicability of the overbreadth and
vagueness doctrines to penal statutes as appropriate only insofar as these doctrines are used to
mount ‘facial’ challenges to penal statutes not involving free speech."

In an "as applied" challenge, the petitioner who claims a violation of his constitutional right can raise
any constitutional ground – absence of due process, lack of fair notice, lack of ascertainable
standards, overbreadth, or vagueness. Here, one can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only
if he asserts a violation of his own rights. It prohibits one from assailing the constitutionality of the
statute based solely on the violation of the rights of third persons not before the court. This rule is
also known as the prohibition against third-party standing.66

But this rule admits of exceptions. A petitioner may for instance mount a "facial" challenge to the
constitutionality of a statute even if he claims no violation of his own rights under the assailed statute
where it involves free speech on grounds of overbreadth or vagueness of the statute.

The rationale for this exception is to counter the "chilling effect" on protected speech that comes
from statutes violating free speech. A person who does not know whether his speech constitutes a
crime under an overbroad or vague law may simply restrain himself from speaking in order to avoid
being charged of a crime. The overbroad or vague law thus chills him into silence.67

As already stated, the cyberspace is an incomparable, pervasive medium of communication. It is

inevitable that any government threat of punishment regarding certain uses of the medium creates a
chilling effect on the constitutionally-protected freedom of expression of the great masses that use it.
In this case, the particularly complex web of interaction on social media websites would give law
enforcers such latitude that they could arbitrarily or selectively enforce the law.

Who is to decide when to prosecute persons who boost the visibility of a posting on the internet by
liking it? Netizens are not given "fair notice" or warning as to what is criminal conduct and what is
lawful conduct. When a case is filed, how will the court ascertain whether or not one netizen’s
comment aided and abetted a cybercrime while another comment did not?

Of course, if the "Comment" does not merely react to the original posting but creates an altogether
new defamatory story against Armand like "He beats his wife and children," then that should be
considered an original posting published on the internet. Both the penal code and the cybercrime law
clearly punish authors of defamatory publications. Make no mistake, libel destroys reputations that
society values. Allowed to cascade in the internet, it will destroy relationships and, under certain
circumstances, will generate enmity and tension between social or economic groups, races, or
religions, exacerbating existing tension in their relationships.

In regard to the crime that targets child pornography, when "Google procures, stores, and indexes
child pornography and facilitates the completion of transactions involving the dissemination of child
pornography," does this make Google and its users aiders and abettors in the commission of child
pornography crimes?68 Byars highlights a feature in the American law on child pornography that the
Cybercrimes law lacks—the exemption of a provider or notably a plain user of interactive computer
service from civil liability for child pornography as follows:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
any information provided by another information content provider and cannot be held civilly liable for
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the
provider or user considers to be obscene...whether or not such material is constitutionally
protected.69

When a person replies to a Tweet containing child pornography, he effectively republishes it whether
wittingly or unwittingly. Does this make him a willing accomplice to the distribution of child
pornography? When a user downloads the Facebook mobile application, the user may give consent
to Facebook to access his contact details. In this way, certain information is forwarded to third
parties and unsolicited commercial communication could be disseminated on the basis of this
information.70 As the source of this information, is the user aiding the distribution of this
communication? The legislature needs to address this clearly to relieve users of annoying fear of
possible criminal prosecution.

Section 5 with respect to Section 4(c)(4) is unconstitutional. Its vagueness raises apprehension on
the part of internet users because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression,
especially since the crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a
fuzzy way. What is more, as the petitioners point out, formal crimes such as libel are not punishable
unless consummated.71 In the absence of legislation tracing the interaction of netizens and their level
of responsibility such as in other countries, Section 5, in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel, Section
4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography,
cannot stand scrutiny.

But the crime of aiding or abetting the commission of cybercrimes under Section 5 should be
permitted to apply to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception,
Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on
Misuse of Devices, Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section 4(b)(1) on Computer-related
Forgery, Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity
Theft, and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these offenses borders on the exercise of the
freedom of expression.

The crime of willfully attempting to commit any of these offenses is for the same reason not
objectionable. A hacker may for instance have done all that is necessary to illegally access another
party’s computer system but the security employed by the system’s lawful owner could frustrate his
effort. Another hacker may have gained access to usernames and passwords of others but fail to
use these because the system supervisor is alerted.72 If Section 5 that punishes any person who
willfully attempts to commit this specific offense is not upheld, the owner of the username and
password could not file a complaint against him for attempted hacking. But this is not right. The
hacker should not be freed from liability simply because of the vigilance of a lawful owner or his
supervisor.
Petitioners of course claim that Section 5 lacks positive limits and could cover the innocent.73 While
this may be true with respect to cybercrimes that tend to sneak past the area of free expression, any
attempt to commit the other acts specified in Section 4(a)(1), Section 4(a)(2), Section 4(a)(3),
Section 4(a)(4), Section 4(a)(5), Section 4(a)(6), Section 4(b)(1), Section 4(b)(2), Section 4(b)(3),
and Section 4(c)(1) as well as the actors aiding and abetting the commission of such acts can be
identified with some reasonable certainty through adroit tracking of their works. Absent concrete
proof of the same, the innocent will of course be spared.

Section 6 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 6 provides:

Sec. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws,
if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be
covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one
(1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws,
as the case may be.

Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through the internet a qualifying
circumstance. As the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial distinction between
crimes committed through the use of information and communications technology and similar crimes
committed using other means. In using the technology in question, the offender often evades
identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater harm. The distinction, therefore,
creates a basis for higher penalties for cybercrimes.

Section 7 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 7 provides:

Sec. 7. Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any
liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.

The Solicitor General points out that Section 7 merely expresses the settled doctrine that a single set
of acts may be prosecuted and penalized simultaneously under two laws, a special law and the
Revised Penal Code. When two different laws define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one does not
bar prosecution of the other although both offenses arise from the same fact, if each crime involves
some important act which is not an essential element of the other.74 With the exception of the crimes
of online libel and online child pornography, the Court would rather leave the determination of the
correct application of Section 7 to actual cases.

Online libel is different. There should be no question that if the published material on print, said to be
libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the subject of two
separate libels. The two offenses, one a violation of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the
other a violation of Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same elements and are in
fact one and the same offense. Indeed, the OSG itself claims that online libel under Section 4(c)(4)
is not a new crime but is one already punished under Article 353. Section 4(c)(4) merely establishes
the computer system as another means of publication.75 Charging the offender under both laws
would be a blatant violation of the proscription against double jeopardy.76

The same is true with child pornography committed online. Section 4(c)(2) merely expands the
ACPA’s scope so as to include identical activities in cyberspace. As previously discussed, ACPA’s
definition of child pornography in fact already covers the use of "electronic, mechanical, digital,
optical, magnetic or any other means." Thus, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(2) and
ACPA would likewise be tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy.

Section 8 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 8 provides:

Sec. 8. Penalties. — Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections
4(a) and 4(b) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least
Two hundred thousand pesos (Ph₱200,000.00) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the
damage incurred or both.

Any person found guilty of the punishable act under Section 4(a)(5) shall be punished with
imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of not more than Five hundred thousand pesos
(Ph₱500,000.00) or both.

If punishable acts in Section 4(a) are committed against critical infrastructure, the penalty of
reclusion temporal or a fine of at least Five hundred thousand pesos (Ph₱500,000.00) up to
maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both, shall be imposed.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall
be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos
(Ph₱200,000.00) but not exceeding One million pesos (Ph₱1,000,000.00) or both.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(2) of this Act shall
be punished with the penalties as enumerated in Republic Act No. 9775 or the "Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009:" Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher
than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a computer system.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(3) shall be
punished with imprisonment of arresto mayor or a fine of at least Fifty thousand pesos
(Ph₱50,000.00) but not exceeding Two hundred fifty thousand pesos (Ph₱250,000.00) or both.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 5 shall be punished
with imprisonment one (1) degree lower than that of the prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine
of at least One hundred thousand pesos (Ph₱100,000.00) but not exceeding Five hundred thousand
pesos (Ph₱500,000.00) or both.

Section 8 provides for the penalties for the following crimes: Sections 4(a) on Offenses Against the
Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability of Computer Data and Systems; 4(b) on Computer-related
Offenses; 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices; when the crime punishable under 4(a) is committed against
critical infrastructure; 4(c)(1) on Cybersex; 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography; 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited
Commercial Communications; and Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting, and Attempt in the Commission
of Cybercrime.

The matter of fixing penalties for the commission of crimes is as a rule a legislative prerogative. Here
the legislature prescribed a measure of severe penalties for what it regards as deleterious
cybercrimes. They appear proportionate to the evil sought to be punished. The power to determine
penalties for offenses is not diluted or improperly wielded simply because at some prior time the act
or omission was but an element of another offense or might just have been connected with another
crime.77 Judges and magistrates can only interpret and apply them and have no authority to modify or
revise their range as determined by the legislative department.

The courts should not encroach on this prerogative of the lawmaking body.78

Section 12 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 12 provides:

Sec. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. — Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall
be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated
with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.

Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or
type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities.

All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a court warrant.

Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection
or recording of the above-stated information.

The court warrant required under this section shall only be issued or granted upon written application
and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce
and the showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed; (2) that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence that will be obtained is essential to the conviction of
any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are
no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.

Petitioners assail the grant to law enforcement agencies of the power to collect or record traffic data
in real time as tending to curtail civil liberties or provide opportunities for official abuse. They claim
that data showing where digital messages come from, what kind they are, and where they are
destined need not be incriminating to their senders or recipients before they are to be protected.
Petitioners invoke the right of every individual to privacy and to be protected from government
snooping into the messages or information that they send to one another.

The first question is whether or not Section 12 has a proper governmental purpose since a law may
require the disclosure of matters normally considered private but then only upon showing that such
requirement has a rational relation to the purpose of the law,79 that there is a compelling State
interest behind the law, and that the provision itself is narrowly drawn.80 In assessing regulations
affecting privacy rights, courts should balance the legitimate concerns of the State against
constitutional guarantees.81

Undoubtedly, the State has a compelling interest in enacting the cybercrime law for there is a need
to put order to the tremendous activities in cyberspace for public good.82 To do this, it is within the
realm of reason that the government should be able to monitor traffic data to enhance its ability to
combat all sorts of cybercrimes.

Chapter IV of the cybercrime law, of which the collection or recording of traffic data is a part, aims to
provide law enforcement authorities with the power they need for spotting, preventing, and
investigating crimes committed in cyberspace. Crime-fighting is a state business. Indeed, as Chief
Justice Sereno points out, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrimes requires signatory countries to
adopt legislative measures to empower state authorities to collect or record "traffic data, in real time,
associated with specified communications."83 And this is precisely what Section 12 does. It
empowers law enforcement agencies in this country to collect or record such data.

But is not evidence of yesterday’s traffic data, like the scene of the crime after it has been
committed, adequate for fighting cybercrimes and, therefore, real-time data is superfluous for that
purpose? Evidently, it is not. Those who commit the crimes of accessing a computer system without
right,84 transmitting viruses,85 lasciviously exhibiting sexual organs or sexual activity for favor or
consideration;86 and producing child pornography87 could easily evade detection and prosecution by
simply moving the physical location of their computers or laptops from day to day. In this digital age,
the wicked can commit cybercrimes from virtually anywhere: from internet cafés, from kindred places
that provide free internet services, and from unregistered mobile internet connectors. Criminals using
cellphones under pre-paid arrangements and with unregistered SIM cards do not have listed
addresses and can neither be located nor identified. There are many ways the cyber criminals can
quickly erase their tracks. Those who peddle child pornography could use relays of computers to
mislead law enforcement authorities regarding their places of operations. Evidently, it is only real-
time traffic data collection or recording and a subsequent recourse to court-issued search and
seizure warrant that can succeed in ferreting them out.

Petitioners of course point out that the provisions of Section 12 are too broad and do not provide
ample safeguards against crossing legal boundaries and invading the people’s right to privacy. The
concern is understandable. Indeed, the Court recognizes in Morfe v. Mutuc88 that certain
constitutional guarantees work together to create zones of privacy wherein governmental powers
may not intrude, and that there exists an independent constitutional right of privacy. Such right to be
left alone has been regarded as the beginning of all freedoms.89

But that right is not unqualified. In Whalen v. Roe,90 the United States Supreme Court classified
privacy into two categories: decisional privacy and informational privacy. Decisional privacy involves
the right to independence in making certain important decisions, while informational privacy refers to
the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters. It is the latter right—the right to informational
privacy—that those who oppose government collection or recording of traffic data in real-time seek
to protect.

Informational privacy has two aspects: the right not to have private information disclosed, and the
right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion.91 In determining whether or not a matter is
entitled to the right to privacy, this Court has laid down a two-fold test. The first is a subjective test,
where one claiming the right must have an actual or legitimate expectation of privacy over a certain
matter. The second is an objective test, where his or her expectation of privacy must be one society
is prepared to accept as objectively reasonable.92

Since the validity of the cybercrime law is being challenged, not in relation to its application to a
particular person or group, petitioners’ challenge to Section 12 applies to all information and
communications technology (ICT) users, meaning the large segment of the population who use all
sorts of electronic devices to communicate with one another. Consequently, the expectation of
privacy is to be measured from the general public’s point of view. Without reasonable expectation of
privacy, the right to it would have no basis in fact.

As the Solicitor General points out, an ordinary ICT user who courses his communication through a
service provider, must of necessity disclose to the latter, a third person, the traffic data needed for
connecting him to the recipient ICT user. For example, an ICT user who writes a text message
intended for another ICT user must furnish his service provider with his cellphone number and the
cellphone number of his recipient, accompanying the message sent. It is this information that creates
the traffic data. Transmitting communications is akin to putting a letter in an envelope properly
addressed, sealing it closed, and sending it through the postal service. Those who post letters have
no expectations that no one will read the information appearing outside the envelope.

Computer data—messages of all kinds—travel across the internet in packets and in a way that may
be likened to parcels of letters or things that are sent through the posts. When data is sent from any
one source, the content is broken up into packets and around each of these packets is a wrapper or
header. This header contains the traffic data: information that tells computers where the packet
originated, what kind of data is in the packet (SMS, voice call, video, internet chat messages, email,
online browsing data, etc.), where the packet is going, and how the packet fits together with other
packets.93 The difference is that traffic data sent through the internet at times across the ocean do
not disclose the actual names and addresses (residential or office) of the sender and the recipient,
only their coded internet protocol (IP) addresses. The packets travel from one computer system to
another where their contents are pieced back together.

Section 12 does not permit law enforcement authorities to look into the contents of the messages
and uncover the identities of the sender and the recipient.

For example, when one calls to speak to another through his cellphone, the service provider’s
communication’s system will put his voice message into packets and send them to the other
person’s cellphone where they are refitted together and heard. The latter’s spoken reply is sent to
the caller in the same way. To be connected by the service provider, the sender reveals his
cellphone number to the service provider when he puts his call through. He also reveals the
cellphone number to the person he calls. The other ways of communicating electronically follow the
same basic pattern.

In Smith v. Maryland,94 cited by the Solicitor General, the United States Supreme Court reasoned
that telephone users in the ‘70s must realize that they necessarily convey phone numbers to the
telephone company in order to complete a call. That Court ruled that even if there is an expectation
that phone numbers one dials should remain private, such expectation is not one that society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable.

In much the same way, ICT users must know that they cannot communicate or exchange data with
one another over cyberspace except through some service providers to whom they must submit
certain traffic data that are needed for a successful cyberspace communication. The conveyance of
this data takes them out of the private sphere, making the expectation to privacy in regard to them
an expectation that society is not prepared to recognize as reasonable.

The Court, however, agrees with Justices Carpio and Brion that when seemingly random bits of
traffic data are gathered in bulk, pooled together, and analyzed, they reveal patterns of activities
which can then be used to create profiles of the persons under surveillance. With enough traffic
data, analysts may be able to determine a person’s close associations, religious views, political
affiliations, even sexual preferences. Such information is likely beyond what the public may expect to
be disclosed, and clearly falls within matters protected by the right to privacy. But has the procedure
that Section 12 of the law provides been drawn narrowly enough to protect individual rights?

Section 12 empowers law enforcement authorities, "with due cause," to collect or record by technical
or electronic means traffic data in real-time. Petitioners point out that the phrase "due cause" has no
precedent in law or jurisprudence and that whether there is due cause or not is left to the discretion
of the police. Replying to this, the Solicitor General asserts that Congress is not required to define
the meaning of every word it uses in drafting the law.
Indeed, courts are able to save vague provisions of law through statutory construction. But the
cybercrime law, dealing with a novel situation, fails to hint at the meaning it intends for the phrase
"due cause." The Solicitor General suggests that "due cause" should mean "just reason or motive"
and "adherence to a lawful procedure." But the Court cannot draw this meaning since Section 12
does not even bother to relate the collection of data to the probable commission of a particular
crime. It just says, "with due cause," thus justifying a general gathering of data. It is akin to the use of
a general search warrant that the Constitution prohibits.

Due cause is also not descriptive of the purpose for which data collection will be used. Will the law
enforcement agencies use the traffic data to identify the perpetrator of a cyber attack? Or will it be
used to build up a case against an identified suspect? Can the data be used to prevent cybercrimes
from happening?

The authority that Section 12 gives law enforcement agencies is too sweeping and lacks restraint.
While it says that traffic data collection should not disclose identities or content data, such restraint is
but an illusion. Admittedly, nothing can prevent law enforcement agencies holding these data in their
hands from looking into the identity of their sender or receiver and what the data contains. This will
unnecessarily expose the citizenry to leaked information or, worse, to extortion from certain bad
elements in these agencies.

Section 12, of course, limits the collection of traffic data to those "associated with specified
communications." But this supposed limitation is no limitation at all since, evidently, it is the law
enforcement agencies that would specify the target communications. The power is virtually limitless,
enabling law enforcement authorities to engage in "fishing expedition," choosing whatever specified
communication they want. This evidently threatens the right of individuals to privacy.

The Solicitor General points out that Section 12 needs to authorize collection of traffic data "in real
time" because it is not possible to get a court warrant that would authorize the search of what is akin
to a "moving vehicle." But warrantless search is associated with a police officer’s determination of
probable cause that a crime has been committed, that there is no opportunity for getting a warrant,
and that unless the search is immediately carried out, the thing to be searched stands to be
removed. These preconditions are not provided in Section 12.

The Solicitor General is honest enough to admit that Section 12 provides minimal protection to
internet users and that the procedure envisioned by the law could be better served by providing for
more robust safeguards. His bare assurance that law enforcement authorities will not abuse the
provisions of Section 12 is of course not enough. The grant of the power to track cyberspace
communications in real time and determine their sources and destinations must be narrowly drawn
to preclude abuses.95

Petitioners also ask that the Court strike down Section 12 for being violative of the void-for-
vagueness doctrine and the overbreadth doctrine. These doctrines however, have been consistently
held by this Court to apply only to free speech cases. But Section 12 on its own neither regulates nor
punishes any type of speech. Therefore, such analysis is unnecessary.

This Court is mindful that advances in technology allow the government and kindred institutions to
monitor individuals and place them under surveillance in ways that have previously been impractical
or even impossible. "All the forces of a technological age x x x operate to narrow the area of privacy
and facilitate intrusions into it. In modern terms, the capacity to maintain and support this enclave of
private life marks the difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society."96 The Court must
ensure that laws seeking to take advantage of these technologies be written with specificity and
definiteness as to ensure respect for the rights that the Constitution guarantees.
Section 13 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 13 provides:

Sec. 13. Preservation of Computer Data. — The integrity of traffic data and subscriber information
relating to communication services provided by a service provider shall be preserved for a minimum
period of six (6) months from the date of the transaction. Content data shall be similarly preserved
for six (6) months from the date of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its
preservation.

Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension for another six (6) months: Provided,
That once computer data preserved, transmitted or stored by a service provider is used as evidence
in a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider of the transmittal document to the Office of
the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer data until the termination of
the case.

The service provider ordered to preserve computer data shall keep confidential the order and its
compliance.

Petitioners in G.R. 20339197 claim that Section 13 constitutes an undue deprivation of the right to
property. They liken the data preservation order that law enforcement authorities are to issue as a
form of garnishment of personal property in civil forfeiture proceedings. Such order prevents internet
users from accessing and disposing of traffic data that essentially belong to them.

No doubt, the contents of materials sent or received through the internet belong to their authors or
recipients and are to be considered private communications. But it is not clear that a service provider
has an obligation to indefinitely keep a copy of the same as they pass its system for the benefit of
users. By virtue of Section 13, however, the law now requires service providers to keep traffic data
and subscriber information relating to communication services for at least six months from the date
of the transaction and those relating to content data for at least six months from receipt of the order
for their preservation.

Actually, the user ought to have kept a copy of that data when it crossed his computer if he was so
minded. The service provider has never assumed responsibility for their loss or deletion while in its
keep.

At any rate, as the Solicitor General correctly points out, the data that service providers preserve on
orders of law enforcement authorities are not made inaccessible to users by reason of the issuance
of such orders. The process of preserving data will not unduly hamper the normal transmission or
use of the same.

Section 14 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 14 provides:

Sec. 14. Disclosure of Computer Data. — Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court
warrant, shall issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit
subscriber’s information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its possession or control within seventy-
two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and
assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of
investigation.
The process envisioned in Section 14 is being likened to the issuance of a subpoena. Petitioners’
objection is that the issuance of subpoenas is a judicial function. But it is well-settled that the power
to issue subpoenas is not exclusively a judicial function. Executive agencies have the power to issue
subpoena as an adjunct of their investigatory powers.98

Besides, what Section 14 envisions is merely the enforcement of a duly issued court warrant, a
function usually lodged in the hands of law enforcers to enable them to carry out their executive
functions. The prescribed procedure for disclosure would not constitute an unlawful search or
seizure nor would it violate the privacy of communications and correspondence. Disclosure can be
made only after judicial intervention.

Section 15 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 15 provides:

Sec. 15. Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data. — Where a search and seizure
warrant is properly issued, the law enforcement authorities shall likewise have the following powers
and duties.

Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and:

(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium;

(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;

(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;

(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer data storage medium; and

(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or
computer and communications network.

Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order any person who has knowledge about
the functioning of the computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the computer data
therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information, to enable the undertaking of the
search, seizure and examination.

Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of time to complete the examination of
the computer data storage medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a period longer
than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the court.

Petitioners challenge Section 15 on the assumption that it will supplant established search and
seizure procedures. On its face, however, Section 15 merely enumerates the duties of law
enforcement authorities that would ensure the proper collection, preservation, and use of computer
system or data that have been seized by virtue of a court warrant. The exercise of these duties do
not pose any threat on the rights of the person from whom they were taken. Section 15 does not
appear to supersede existing search and seizure rules but merely supplements them.

Section 17 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 17 provides:
Sec. 17. Destruction of Computer Data. — Upon expiration of the periods as provided in Sections 13
and 15, service providers and law enforcement authorities, as the case may be, shall immediately
and completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination.

Section 17 would have the computer data, previous subject of preservation or examination,
destroyed or deleted upon the lapse of the prescribed period. The Solicitor General justifies this as
necessary to clear up the service provider’s storage systems and prevent overload. It would also
ensure that investigations are quickly concluded.

Petitioners claim that such destruction of computer data subject of previous preservation or
examination violates the user’s right against deprivation of property without due process of law. But,
as already stated, it is unclear that the user has a demandable right to require the service provider to
have that copy of the data saved indefinitely for him in its storage system. If he wanted them
preserved, he should have saved them in his computer when he generated the data or received it.
He could also request the service provider for a copy before it is deleted.

Section 19 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 19 empowers the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to computer data:

Sec. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data.— When a computer data is prima facie
found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block
access to such computer data.

Petitioners contest Section 19 in that it stifles freedom of expression and violates the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The Solicitor General concedes that this provision may be
unconstitutional. But since laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, the Court must satisfy itself
that Section 19 indeed violates the freedom and right mentioned.

Computer data99 may refer to entire programs or lines of code, including malware, as well as files that
contain texts, images, audio, or video recordings. Without having to go into a lengthy discussion of
property rights in the digital space, it is indisputable that computer data, produced or created by their
writers or authors may constitute personal property. Consequently, they are protected from
unreasonable searches and seizures, whether while stored in their personal computers or in the
service provider’s systems.

Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right to be secure in one’s papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable. Further, it states that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge. Here, the Government, in effect, seizes and places the
computer data under its control and disposition without a warrant. The Department of Justice order
cannot substitute for judicial search warrant.

The content of the computer data can also constitute speech. In such a case, Section 19 operates
as a restriction on the freedom of expression over cyberspace. Certainly not all forms of speech are
protected. Legislature may, within constitutional bounds, declare certain kinds of expression as
illegal. But for an executive officer to seize content alleged to be unprotected without any judicial
warrant, it is not enough for him to be of the opinion that such content violates some law, for to do so
would make him judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one.100

Not only does Section 19 preclude any judicial intervention, but it also disregards jurisprudential
guidelines established to determine the validity of restrictions on speech. Restraints on free speech
are generally evaluated on one of or a combination of three tests: the dangerous tendency doctrine,
the balancing of interest test, and the clear and present danger rule.101 Section 19, however, merely
requires that the data to be blocked be found prima facie in violation of any provision of the
cybercrime law. Taking Section 6 into consideration, this can actually be made to apply in relation to
any penal provision. It does not take into consideration any of the three tests mentioned above.

The Court is therefore compelled to strike down Section 19 for being violative of the constitutional
guarantees to freedom of expression and against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Section 20 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 20 provides:

Sec. 20. Noncompliance. — Failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV hereof specifically
the orders from law enforcement authorities shall be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree
No. 1829 with imprisonment of prision correctional in its maximum period or a fine of One hundred
thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) or both, for each and every noncompliance with an order issued
by law enforcement authorities.

Petitioners challenge Section 20, alleging that it is a bill of attainder. The argument is that the mere
failure to comply constitutes a legislative finding of guilt, without regard to situations where non-
compliance would be reasonable or valid.

But since the non-compliance would be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.)
1829,102 Section 20 necessarily incorporates elements of the offense which are defined therein. If
Congress had intended for Section 20 to constitute an offense in and of itself, it would not have had
to make reference to any other statue or provision.

P.D. 1829 states:

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to
6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs,
impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of
criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:

x x x.

Thus, the act of non-compliance, for it to be punishable, must still be done "knowingly or willfully."
There must still be a judicial determination of guilt, during which, as the Solicitor General assumes,
defense and justifications for non-compliance may be raised. Thus, Section 20 is valid insofar as it
applies to the provisions of Chapter IV which are not struck down by the Court.

Sections 24 and 26(a) of the Cybercrime Law

Sections 24 and 26(a) provide:

Sec. 24. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center.– There is hereby created, within thirty
(30) days from the effectivity of this Act, an inter-agency body to be known as the Cybercrime
Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), under the administrative supervision of the Office of
the President, for policy coordination among concerned agencies and for the formulation and
enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.
Sec. 26. Powers and Functions.– The CICC shall have the following powers and functions:

(a) To formulate a national cybersecurity plan and extend immediate assistance of real time
commission of cybercrime offenses through a computer emergency response team (CERT); x x x.

Petitioners mainly contend that Congress invalidly delegated its power when it gave the Cybercrime
Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) the power to formulate a national cybersecurity plan
without any sufficient standards or parameters for it to follow.

In order to determine whether there is undue delegation of legislative power, the Court has adopted
two tests: the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be
complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the
delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. The second test mandates adequate
1av vphi1

guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and
prevent the delegation from running riot.103

Here, the cybercrime law is complete in itself when it directed the CICC to formulate and implement
a national cybersecurity plan. Also, contrary to the position of the petitioners, the law gave sufficient
standards for the CICC to follow when it provided a definition of cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools, policies, risk management approaches, actions,
training, best practices, assurance and technologies that can be used to protect cyber environment
and organization and user’s assets.104 This definition serves as the parameters within which CICC
should work in formulating the cybersecurity plan.

Further, the formulation of the cybersecurity plan is consistent with the policy of the law to "prevent
and combat such [cyber] offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution at
both the domestic and international levels, and by providing arrangements for fast and reliable
international cooperation."105 This policy is clearly adopted in the interest of law and order, which has
been considered as sufficient standard.106 Hence, Sections 24 and 26(a) are likewise valid.

WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES:

1. VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

a. Section 4(c)(3) of Republic Act 10175 that penalizes posting of unsolicited

commercial communications;

b. Section 12 that authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time;

and

c. Section 19 of the same Act that authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or
block access to suspected Computer Data.

2. VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL:

a. Section 4(a)(1) that penalizes accessing a computer system without right;

b. Section 4(a)(3) that penalizes data interference, including transmission of viruses;

 c. Section 4(a)(6) that penalizes cyber-squatting or acquiring domain name over the
internet in bad faith to the prejudice of others;

d. Section 4(b)(3) that penalizes identity theft or the use or misuse of identifying
information belonging to another;

e. Section 4(c)(1) that penalizes cybersex or the lascivious exhibition of sexual

organs or sexual activity for favor or consideration;

f. Section 4(c)(2) that penalizes the production of child pornography;

g. Section 6 that imposes penalties one degree higher when crimes defined under
the Revised Penal Code are committed with the use of information and
communications technologies;

h. Section 8 that prescribes the penalties for cybercrimes;

i. Section 13 that permits law enforcement authorities to require service providers to

preserve traffic data and subscriber information as well as specified content data for
six months;

j. Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure of computer data under a court-issued

warrant;

k. Section 15 that authorizes the search, seizure, and examination of computer data
under a court-issued warrant;

l. Section 17 that authorizes the destruction of previously preserved computer data

after the expiration of the prescribed holding periods;

m. Section 20 that penalizes obstruction of justice in relation to cybercrime

investigations;

n. Section 24 that establishes a Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center

(CICC);

o. Section 26(a) that defines the CICC’s Powers and Functions; and

p. Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes libel.

Further, the Court DECLARES:

1. Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel as VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL with respect
to the original author of the post; but VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to others
who simply receive the post and react to it; and

2. Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes
as VA L I D and CONSTITUTIONAL only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access,
Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section 4(a)(4)
on System
Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices, Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section
4(b)(1) on Computer-related Forgery, Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on
Computer-related Identity Theft, and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex; but VOID and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to Sections 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited
Commercial Communications, and 4(c)(4) on online Libel. 1âwphi1

Lastly, the Court RESOLVES to LEAVE THE DETERMINATION of the correct application of Section
7 that authorizes prosecution of the offender under both the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act
10175 to actual cases, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the crimes of:

1. Online libel as to which, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act
10175 and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code constitutes a violation of the proscription
against double jeopardy; as well as

2. Child pornography committed online as to which, charging the offender under both Section
4(c)(2) of Republic Act 10175 and Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of
2009 also constitutes a violation of the same proscription, and, in respect to these, is VOID
and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA JOSE M. VILLEGAS JR. JOSE L. GONZALEZ

REUBEN M. ABANTE and QUINTIN PAREDES SAN DIEGO, Petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR. SECRETARY OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT FLORENCIO B. ABAD, NATIONAL TREASURER ROSALIA V. DE LEON
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by FRANKLIN M. DRILON m his capacity as
SENATE PRESIDENT and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES represented by FELICIANO S.
BELMONTE, JR. in his capacity as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, Respondents.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

"Experience is the oracle of truth."1

-James Madison

Before the Court are consolidated petitions2 taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, all of which
assail the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System. Due to the complexity of the subject matter, the
Court shall heretofore discuss the system‘s conceptual underpinnings before detailing the particulars
of the constitutional challenge.

The Facts

I. Pork Barrel: General Concept.

"Pork Barrel" is political parlance of American -English origin.3 Historically, its usage may be
traced to the degrading ritual of rolling out a barrel stuffed with pork to a multitude of black
slaves who would cast their famished bodies into the porcine feast to assuage their hunger
with morsels coming from the generosity of their well-fed master.4 This practice was later
compared to the actions of American legislators in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of
their districts.5 While the advent of refrigeration has made the actual pork barrel obsolete, it
persists in reference to political bills that "bring home the bacon" to a legislator‘s district and
constituents.6 In a more technical sense, "Pork Barrel" refers to an appropriation of
government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or primarily to bring
money to a representative's district.7Some scholars on the subject further use it to refer to
legislative control of local appropriations.8

In the Philippines, "Pork Barrel" has been commonly referred to as lump-sum, discretionary
funds of Members of the Legislature,9 although, as will be later discussed, its usage would
evolve in reference to certain funds of the Executive.

II. History of Congressional Pork Barrel in the Philippines.

A. Pre-Martial Law Era (1922-1972).

Act 3044,10 or the Public Works Act of 1922, is considered11 as the earliest form of
"Congressional Pork Barrel" in the Philippines since the utilization of the funds
appropriated therein were subjected to post-enactment legislator approval.
 Particularly, in the area of fund release, Section 312 provides that the sums
appropriated for certain public works projects13 "shall be distributed x x x subject to
the approval of a joint committee elected by the Senate and the House of
Representatives. "The committee from each House may also authorize one of its
members to approve the distribution made by the Secretary of Commerce and
Communications."14 Also, in the area of fund realignment, the same section provides
that the said secretary, "with the approval of said joint committee, or of the authorized
members thereof, may, for the purposes of said distribution, transfer unexpended
portions of any item of appropriation under this Act to any other item hereunder."

In 1950, it has been documented15 that post-enactment legislator participation

broadened from the areas of fund release and realignment to the area of project
identification. During that year, the mechanics of the public works act was modified to
the extent that the discretion of choosing projects was transferred from the Secretary
of Commerce and Communications to legislators. "For the first time, the law carried a
list of projects selected by Members of Congress, they ‘being the representatives of
the people, either on their own account or by consultation with local officials or civil
leaders.‘"16 During this period, the pork barrel process commenced with local
government councils, civil groups, and individuals appealing to Congressmen or
Senators for projects. Petitions that were accommodated formed part of a legislator‘s
allocation, and the amount each legislator would eventually get is determined in a
caucus convened by the majority. The amount was then integrated into the
administration bill prepared by the Department of Public Works and Communications.
Thereafter, the Senate and the House of Representatives added their own provisions
to the bill until it was signed into law by the President – the Public Works Act.17 In the
1960‘s, however, pork barrel legislation reportedly ceased in view of the stalemate
between the House of Representatives and the Senate.18

B. Martial Law Era (1972-1986).

While the previous" Congressional Pork Barrel" was apparently discontinued in 1972
after Martial Law was declared, an era when "one man controlled the
legislature,"19 the reprieve was only temporary. By 1982, the Batasang Pambansa
had already introduced a new item in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) called
the" Support for Local Development Projects" (SLDP) under the article on "National
Aid to Local Government Units". Based on reports,20 it was under the SLDP that the
practice of giving lump-sum allocations to individual legislators began, with each
assemblyman receiving ₱500,000.00. Thereafter, assemblymen would communicate
their project preferences to the Ministry of Budget and Management for approval.
Then, the said ministry would release the allocation papers to the Ministry of Local
Governments, which would, in turn, issue the checks to the city or municipal
treasurers in the assemblyman‘s locality. It has been further reported that
"Congressional Pork Barrel" projects under the SLDP also began to cover not only
public works projects, or so- called "hard projects", but also "soft projects",21 or non-
public works projects such as those which would fall under the categories of, among
others, education, health and livelihood.22

C. Post-Martial Law Era:

Corazon Cojuangco Aquino Administration (1986-1992).

 After the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986 and the restoration of Philippine
democracy, "Congressional Pork Barrel" was revived in the form of the "Mindanao
Development Fund" and the "Visayas Development Fund" which were created with
lump-sum appropriations of ₱480 Million and ₱240 Million, respectively, for the
funding of development projects in the Mindanao and Visayas areas in 1989. It has
been documented23 that the clamor raised by the Senators and the Luzon legislators
for a similar funding, prompted the creation of the "Countrywide Development Fund"
(CDF) which was integrated into the 1990 GAA24 with an initial funding of ₱2.3 Billion
to cover "small local infrastructure and other priority community projects."

Under the GAAs for the years 1991 and 1992,25 CDF funds were, with the approval of
the President, to be released directly to the implementing agencies but "subject to
the submission of the required list of projects and activities."Although the GAAs from
1990 to 1992 were silent as to the amounts of allocations of the individual legislators,
as well as their participation in the identification of projects, it has been reported26 that
by 1992, Representatives were receiving ₱12.5 Million each in CDF funds, while
Senators were receiving ₱18 Million each, without any limitation or qualification, and
that they could identify any kind of project, from hard or infrastructure projects such
as roads, bridges, and buildings to "soft projects" such as textbooks, medicines, and
scholarships.27

D. Fidel Valdez Ramos (Ramos) Administration (1992-1998).

The following year, or in 1993,28 the GAA explicitly stated that the release of CDF
funds was to be made upon the submission of the list of projects and activities
identified by, among others, individual legislators. For the first time, the 1993 CDF
Article included an allocation for the Vice-President.29 As such, Representatives were
allocated ₱12.5 Million each in CDF funds, Senators, ₱18 Million each, and the Vice-
President, ₱20 Million.

In 1994,30 1995,31 and 1996,32 the GAAs contained the same provisions on project
identification and fund release as found in the 1993 CDF Article. In addition,
however, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) was directed to submit
reports to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on
Appropriations on the releases made from the funds.33

Under the 199734 CDF Article, Members of Congress and the Vice-President, in
consultation with the implementing agency concerned, were directed to submit to the
DBM the list of 50% of projects to be funded from their respective CDF allocations
which shall be duly endorsed by (a) the Senate President and the Chairman of the
Committee on Finance, in the case of the Senate, and (b) the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, in the
case of the House of Representatives; while the list for the remaining 50% was to be
submitted within six (6) months thereafter. The same article also stated that the
project list, which would be published by the DBM,35 "shall be the basis for the
release of funds" and that "no funds appropriated herein shall be disbursed for
projects not included in the list herein required."

The following year, or in 1998,36 the foregoing provisions regarding the required lists
and endorsements were reproduced, except that the publication of the project list
was no longer required as the list itself sufficed for the release of CDF Funds.
 The CDF was not, however, the lone form of "Congressional Pork Barrel" at that
time. Other forms of "Congressional Pork Barrel" were reportedly fashioned and
inserted into the GAA (called "Congressional Insertions" or "CIs") in order to
perpetuate the ad ministration‘s political agenda.37 It has been articulated that since
CIs "formed part and parcel of the budgets of executive departments, they were not
easily identifiable and were thus harder to monitor." Nonetheless, the lawmakers
themselves as well as the finance and budget officials of the implementing agencies,
as well as the DBM, purportedly knew about the insertions.38 Examples of these CIs
are the Department of Education (DepEd) School Building Fund, the Congressional
Initiative Allocations, the Public Works Fund, the El Niño Fund, and the Poverty
Alleviation Fund.39 The allocations for the School Building Fund, particularly, ―shall
be made upon prior consultation with the representative of the legislative district
concerned.”40 Similarly, the legislators had the power to direct how, where and when
these appropriations were to be spent.41

E. Joseph Ejercito Estrada (Estrada) Administration (1998-2001).

In 1999,42 the CDF was removed in the GAA and replaced by three (3) separate
forms of CIs, namely, the "Food Security Program Fund,"43 the "Lingap Para Sa
Mahihirap Program Fund,"44and the "Rural/Urban Development Infrastructure
Program Fund,"45 all of which contained a special provision requiring "prior
consultation" with the Member s of Congress for the release of the funds.

It was in the year 200046 that the "Priority Development Assistance Fund" (PDAF)
appeared in the GAA. The requirement of "prior consultation with the respective
Representative of the District" before PDAF funds were directly released to the
implementing agency concerned was explicitly stated in the 2000 PDAF Article.
Moreover, realignment of funds to any expense category was expressly allowed, with
the sole condition that no amount shall be used to fund personal services and other
personnel benefits.47 The succeeding PDAF provisions remained the same in view of
the re-enactment48 of the 2000 GAA for the year 2001.

F. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Arroyo) Administration (2001-2010).

The 200249 PDAF Article was brief and straightforward as it merely contained a single
special provision ordering the release of the funds directly to the implementing
agency or local government unit concerned, without further qualifications. The
following year, 2003,50 the same single provision was present, with simply an
expansion of purpose and express authority to realign. Nevertheless, the provisions
in the 2003 budgets of the Department of Public Works and Highways51 (DPWH) and
the DepEd52 required prior consultation with Members of Congress on the aspects of
implementation delegation and project list submission, respectively. In 2004, the
2003 GAA was re-enacted.53

In 2005,54 the PDAF Article provided that the PDAF shall be used "to fund priority
programs and projects under the ten point agenda of the national government and
shall be released directly to the implementing agencies." It also introduced the
program menu concept,55 which is essentially a list of general programs and
implementing agencies from which a particular PDAF project may be subsequently
chosen by the identifying authority. The 2005 GAA was re-enacted56 in 2006 and
hence, operated on the same bases. In similar regard, the program menu concept
was consistently integrated into the 2007,57 2008,58 2009,59 and 201060 GAAs.
 Textually, the PDAF Articles from 2002 to 2010 were silent with respect to the
specific amounts allocated for the individual legislators, as well as their participation
in the proposal and identification of PDAF projects to be funded. In contrast to the
PDAF Articles, however, the provisions under the DepEd School Building Program
and the DPWH budget, similar to its predecessors, explicitly required prior
consultation with the concerned Member of Congress61anent certain aspects of
project implementation.

Significantly, it was during this era that provisions which allowed formal participation
of non-governmental organizations (NGO) in the implementation of government
projects were introduced. In the Supplemental Budget for 2006, with respect to the
appropriation for school buildings, NGOs were, by law, encouraged to participate.
For such purpose, the law stated that "the amount of at least ₱250 Million of the
₱500 Million allotted for the construction and completion of school buildings shall be
made available to NGOs including the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of
Commerce and Industry, Inc. for its "Operation Barrio School" program, with
capability and proven track records in the construction of public school buildings x x
x."62 The same allocation was made available to NGOs in the 2007 and 2009 GAAs
under the DepEd Budget.63 Also, it was in 2007 that the Government Procurement
Policy Board64 (GPPB) issued Resolution No. 12-2007 dated June 29, 2007 (GPPB
Resolution 12-2007), amending the implementing rules and regulations65 of RA
9184,66 the Government Procurement Reform Act, to include, as a form of negotiated
procurement,67 the procedure whereby the Procuring Entity68(the implementing
agency) may enter into a memorandum of agreement with an NGO, provided that "an
appropriation law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted out
to NGOs."69

G. Present Administration (2010-Present).

Differing from previous PDAF Articles but similar to the CDF Articles, the
201170 PDAF Article included an express statement on lump-sum amounts allocated
for individual legislators and the Vice-President: Representatives were given ₱70
Million each, broken down into ₱40 Million for "hard projects" and ₱30 Million for "soft
projects"; while ₱200 Million was given to each Senator as well as the Vice-
President, with a ₱100 Million allocation each for "hard" and "soft projects." Likewise,
a provision on realignment of funds was included, but with the qualification that it
may be allowed only once. The same provision also allowed the Secretaries of
Education, Health, Social Welfare and Development, Interior and Local Government,
Environment and Natural Resources, Energy, and Public Works and Highways to
realign PDAF Funds, with the further conditions that: (a) realignment is within the
same implementing unit and same project category as the original project, for
infrastructure projects; (b) allotment released has not yet been obligated for the
original scope of work, and (c) the request for realignment is with the concurrence of
the legislator concerned.71

In the 201272 and 201373 PDAF Articles, it is stated that the "identification of projects
and/or designation of beneficiaries shall conform to the priority list, standard or
design prepared by each implementing agency (priority list requirement) x x x."
However, as practiced, it would still be the individual legislator who would choose
and identify the project from the said priority list.74
 Provisions on legislator allocations75 as well as fund realignment76 were included in
the 2012 and 2013 PDAF Articles; but the allocation for the Vice-President, which
was pegged at ₱200 Million in the 2011 GAA, had been deleted. In addition, the
2013 PDAF Article now allowed LGUs to be identified as implementing agencies if
they have the technical capability to implement the projects.77 Legislators were also
allowed to identify programs/projects, except for assistance to indigent patients and
scholarships, outside of his legislative district provided that he secures the written
concurrence of the legislator of the intended outside-district, endorsed by the
Speaker of the House.78 Finally, any realignment of PDAF funds, modification and
revision of project identification, as well as requests for release of funds, were all
required to be favorably endorsed by the House Committee on Appropriations and
the Senate Committee on Finance, as the case may be.79

III. History of Presidential Pork Barrel in the Philippines.

While the term "Pork Barrel" has been typically associated with lump-sum, discretionary
funds of Members of Congress, the present cases and the recent controversies on the
matter have, however, shown that the term‘s usage has expanded to include certain funds of
the President such as the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund.

On the one hand, the Malampaya Funds was created as a special fund under Section 880 of
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 910,81 issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos)
on March 22, 1976. In enacting the said law, Marcos recognized the need to set up a special
fund to help intensify, strengthen, and consolidate government efforts relating to the
exploration, exploitation, and development of indigenous energy resources vital to economic
growth.82 Due to the energy-related activities of the government in the Malampaya natural
gas field in Palawan, or the "Malampaya Deep Water Gas-to-Power Project",83 the special
fund created under PD 910 has been currently labeled as Malampaya Funds.

On the other hand the Presidential Social Fund was created under Section 12, Title IV84 of
PD 1869,85 or the Charter of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR).
PD 1869 was similarly issued by Marcos on July 11, 1983. More than two (2) years after, he
amended PD 1869 and accordingly issued PD 1993 on October 31, 1985,86 amending
Section 1287 of the former law. As it stands, the Presidential Social Fund has been described
as a special funding facility managed and administered by the Presidential Management
Staff through which the President provides direct assistance to priority programs and projects
not funded under the regular budget. It is sourced from the share of the government in the
aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR.88

IV. Controversies in the Philippines.

Over the decades, "pork" funds in the Philippines have increased tremendously,89 owing in no
small part to previous Presidents who reportedly used the "Pork Barrel" in order to gain
congressional support.90 It was in 1996 when the first controversy surrounding the "Pork
Barrel" erupted. Former Marikina City Representative Romeo Candazo (Candazo), then an
anonymous source, "blew the lid on the huge sums of government money that regularly went
into the pockets of legislators in the form of kickbacks."91 He said that "the kickbacks were
‘SOP‘ (standard operating procedure) among legislators and ranged from a low 19 percent to
a high 52 percent of the cost of each project, which could be anything from dredging, rip
rapping, sphalting, concreting, and construction of school buildings."92 "Other sources of
kickbacks that Candazo identified were public funds intended for medicines and textbooks. A
few days later, the tale of the money trail became the banner story of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer issue of August 13, 1996, accompanied by an illustration of a roasted pig."93 "The
publication of the stories, including those about congressional initiative allocations of certain
lawmakers, including ₱3.6 Billion for a Congressman, sparked public outrage."94

Thereafter, or in 2004, several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF as
enacted in the 2004 GAA for being unconstitutional. Unfortunately, for lack of "any pertinent
evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of kickbacks has become a
common exercise of unscrupulous Members of Congress," the petition was dismissed.95

Recently, or in July of the present year, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) began its
probe into allegations that "the government has been defrauded of some ₱10 Billion over the
past 10 years by a syndicate using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and various
government agencies for scores of ghost projects."96 The investigation was spawned by
sworn affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers who declared that JLN Corporation – "JLN"
standing for Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) – had swindled billions of pesos from the public
coffers for "ghost projects" using no fewer than 20 dummy NGOs for an entire decade. While
the NGOs were supposedly the ultimate recipients of PDAF funds, the whistle-blowers
declared that the money was diverted into Napoles‘ private accounts.97 Thus, after its
investigation on the Napoles controversy, criminal complaints were filed before the Office of
the Ombudsman, charging five (5) lawmakers for Plunder, and three (3) other lawmakers for
Malversation, Direct Bribery, and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Also
recommended to be charged in the complaints are some of the lawmakers‘ chiefs -of-staff or
representatives, the heads and other officials of three (3) implementing agencies, and the
several presidents of the NGOs set up by Napoles.98

On August 16, 2013, the Commission on Audit (CoA) released the results of a three-year
audit investigation99covering the use of legislators' PDAF from 2007 to 2009, or during the
last three (3) years of the Arroyo administration. The purpose of the audit was to determine
the propriety of releases of funds under PDAF and the Various Infrastructures including
Local Projects (VILP)100 by the DBM, the application of these funds and the implementation of
projects by the appropriate implementing agencies and several government-owned-and-
controlled corporations (GOCCs).101 The total releases covered by the audit amounted to
₱8.374 Billion in PDAF and ₱32.664 Billion in VILP, representing 58% and 32%,
respectively, of the total PDAF and VILP releases that were found to have been made
nationwide during the audit period.102 Accordingly, the Co A‘s findings contained in its Report
No. 2012-03 (CoA Report), entitled "Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and
Various Infrastructures including Local Projects (VILP)," were made public, the highlights of
which are as follows:103

● Amounts released for projects identified by a considerable number of legislators

significantly exceeded their respective allocations.

● Amounts were released for projects outside of legislative districts of sponsoring

members of the Lower House.

● Total VILP releases for the period exceeded the total amount appropriated under
the 2007 to 2009 GAAs.

● Infrastructure projects were constructed on private lots without these having been
turned over to the government.
 ● Significant amounts were released to implementing agencies without the latter‘s
endorsement and without considering their mandated functions, administrative and
technical capabilities to implement projects.

● Implementation of most livelihood projects was not undertaken by the

implementing agencies themselves but by NGOs endorsed by the proponent
legislators to which the Funds were transferred.

● The funds were transferred to the NGOs in spite of the absence of any
appropriation law or ordinance.

● Selection of the NGOs were not compliant with law and regulations.

● Eighty-Two (82) NGOs entrusted with implementation of seven hundred seventy

two (772) projects amount to ₱6.156 Billion were either found questionable, or
submitted questionable/spurious documents, or failed to liquidate in whole or in part
their utilization of the Funds.

● Procurement by the NGOs, as well as some implementing agencies, of goods and

services reportedly used in the projects were not compliant with law.

As for the "Presidential Pork Barrel", whistle-blowers alleged that" at least ₱900 Million from
royalties in the operation of the Malampaya gas project off Palawan province intended for
agrarian reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy NGO."104 According to incumbent CoA
Chairperson Maria Gracia Pulido Tan (CoA Chairperson), the CoA is, as of this writing, in the
process of preparing "one consolidated report" on the Malampaya Funds.105

V. The Procedural Antecedents.

Spurred in large part by the findings contained in the CoA Report and the Napoles
controversy, several petitions were lodged before the Court similarly seeking that the "Pork
Barrel System" be declared unconstitutional. To recount, the relevant procedural
antecedents in these cases are as follows:

On August 28, 2013, petitioner Samson S. Alcantara (Alcantara), President of the Social Justice
Society, filed a Petition for Prohibition of even date under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Alcantara
Petition), seeking that the "Pork Barrel System" be declared unconstitutional, and a writ of prohibition
be issued permanently restraining respondents Franklin M. Drilon and Feliciano S. Belmonte, Jr., in
their respective capacities as the incumbent Senate President and Speaker of the House of
Representatives, from further taking any steps to enact legislation appropriating funds for the "Pork
Barrel System," in whatever form and by whatever name it may be called, and from approving further
releases pursuant thereto.106 The Alcantara Petition was docketed as G.R. No. 208493.

On September 3, 2013, petitioners Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica, Jose L. Gonzalez, Reuben M.
Abante, Quintin Paredes San Diego (Belgica, et al.), and Jose M. Villegas, Jr. (Villegas) filed an
Urgent Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition With Prayer For The Immediate Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated August 27, 2013 under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court (Belgica Petition), seeking that the annual "Pork Barrel System," presently
embodied in the provisions of the GAA of 2013 which provided for the 2013 PDAF, and the
Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary funds, such as the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential
Social Fund,107 be declared unconstitutional and null and void for being acts constituting grave abuse
of discretion. Also, they pray that the Court issue a TRO against respondents Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.,
Florencio B. Abad (Secretary Abad) and Rosalia V. De Leon, in their respective capacities as the
incumbent Executive Secretary, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM),
and National Treasurer, or their agents, for them to immediately cease any expenditure under the
aforesaid funds. Further, they pray that the Court order the foregoing respondents to release to the
CoA and to the public: (a) "the complete schedule/list of legislators who have availed of their PDAF
and VILP from the years 2003 to 2013, specifying the use of the funds, the project or activity and the
recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto"; and (b) "the use of the Executive‘s
lump-sum, discretionary funds, including the proceeds from the x x x Malampaya Funds and
remittances from the PAGCOR x x x from 2003 to 2013, specifying the x x x project or activity and
the recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto."108 Also, they pray for the "inclusion
in budgetary deliberations with the Congress of all presently off-budget, lump-sum, discretionary
funds including, but not limited to, proceeds from the Malampaya Funds and remittances from the
PAGCOR."109 The Belgica Petition was docketed as G.R. No. 208566.110

Lastly, on September 5, 2013, petitioner Pedrito M. Nepomuceno (Nepomuceno), filed a Petition

dated August 23, 2012 (Nepomuceno Petition), seeking that the PDAF be declared unconstitutional,
and a cease and desist order be issued restraining President Benigno Simeon S. Aquino III
(President Aquino) and Secretary Abad from releasing such funds to Members of Congress and,
instead, allow their release to fund priority projects identified and approved by the Local
Development Councils in consultation with the executive departments, such as the DPWH, the
Department of Tourism, the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation, and
Communication and the National Economic Development Authority.111 The Nepomuceno Petition was
docketed as UDK-14951.112

On September 10, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution of even date (a) consolidating all cases; (b)
requiring public respondents to comment on the consolidated petitions; (c) issuing a TRO
(September 10, 2013 TRO) enjoining the DBM, National Treasurer, the Executive Secretary, or any
of the persons acting under their authority from releasing (1) the remaining PDAF allocated to
Members of Congress under the GAA of 2013, and (2) Malampaya Funds under the phrase "for
such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" pursuant to Section 8 of PD 910
but not for the purpose of "financing energy resource development and exploitation programs and
projects of the government‖ under the same provision; and (d) setting the consolidated cases for
Oral Arguments on October 8, 2013.

On September 23, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Consolidated Comment
(Comment) of even date before the Court, seeking the lifting, or in the alternative, the partial lifting
with respect to educational and medical assistance purposes, of the Court‘s September 10, 2013
TRO, and that the consolidated petitions be dismissed for lack of merit.113

On September 24, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution of even date directing petitioners to reply to
the Comment.

Petitioners, with the exception of Nepomuceno, filed their respective replies to the Comment: (a) on
September 30, 2013, Villegas filed a separate Reply dated September 27, 2013 (Villegas Reply); (b)
on October 1, 2013, Belgica, et al. filed a Reply dated September 30, 2013 (Belgica Reply); and (c)
on October 2, 2013, Alcantara filed a Reply dated October 1, 2013.

On October 1, 2013, the Court issued an Advisory providing for the guidelines to be observed by the
parties for the Oral Arguments scheduled on October 8, 2013. In view of the technicality of the
issues material to the present cases, incumbent Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza (Solicitor
General) was directed to bring with him during the Oral Arguments representative/s from the DBM
and Congress who would be able to competently and completely answer questions related to,
among others, the budgeting process and its implementation. Further, the CoA Chairperson was
appointed as amicus curiae and thereby requested to appear before the Court during the Oral
Arguments.

On October 8 and 10, 2013, the Oral Arguments were conducted. Thereafter, the Court directed the
parties to submit their respective memoranda within a period of seven (7) days, or until October 17,
2013, which the parties subsequently did.

The Issues Before the Court

Based on the pleadings, and as refined during the Oral Arguments, the following are the main issues
for the Court‘s resolution:

I. Procedural Issues.

Whether or not (a) the issues raised in the consolidated petitions involve an actual and justiciable
controversy; (b) the issues raised in the consolidated petitions are matters of policy not subject to
judicial review; (c) petitioners have legal standing to sue; and (d) the Court‘s Decision dated August
19, 1994 in G.R. Nos. 113105, 113174, 113766, and 113888, entitled "Philippine Constitution
Association v. Enriquez"114 (Philconsa) and Decision dated April 24, 2012 in G.R. No. 164987,
entitled "Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty v. Secretary of Budget and Management"115 (LAMP)
bar the re-litigatio n of the issue of constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System" under the principles
of res judicata and stare decisis.

II. Substantive Issues on the "Congressional Pork Barrel."

Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar thereto
are unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles of/constitutional provisions on (a)
separation of powers; (b) non-delegability of legislative power; (c) checks and balances; (d)
accountability; (e) political dynasties; and (f) local autonomy.

III. Substantive Issues on the "Presidential Pork Barrel."

Whether or not the phrases (a) "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the
President" under Section 8 of PD 910,116 relating to the Malampaya Funds, and (b) "to finance the
priority infrastructure development projects and to finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed
facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the
Philippines" under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, relating to the Presidential
Social Fund, are unconstitutional insofar as they constitute undue delegations of legislative power.

These main issues shall be resolved in the order that they have been stated. In addition, the Court
shall also tackle certain ancillary issues as prompted by the present cases.

The Court’s Ruling

The petitions are partly granted.

I. Procedural Issues.

The prevailing rule in constitutional litigation is that no question involving the constitutionality or
validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the Court unless there is
compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry,117 namely: (a) there must be an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (b) the person challenging the act must have
the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; (c) the question of constitutionality
must be raised at the earliest opportunity ; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis
mota of the case.118 Of these requisites, case law states that the first two are the most
important119and, therefore, shall be discussed forthwith.

A. Existence of an Actual Case or Controversy.

By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or controversy.120 This
is embodied in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which pertinently states that "judicial
power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable x x x." Jurisprudence provides that an actual case or
controversy is one which "involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims,
susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or
dispute.121 In other words, "there must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and
enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence."122 Related to the requirement of an actual
case or controversy is the requirement of "ripeness," meaning that the questions raised for
constitutional scrutiny are already ripe for adjudication. "A question is ripe for adjudication when the
act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. It is a
prerequisite that something had then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a
court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or
threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged action."123 "Withal, courts will decline to pass
upon constitutional issues through advisory opinions, bereft as they are of authority to resolve
hypothetical or moot questions."124

Based on these principles, the Court finds that there exists an actual and justiciable controversy in
these cases.

The requirement of contrariety of legal rights is clearly satisfied by the antagonistic positions of the
parties on the constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System." Also, the questions in these consolidated
cases are ripe for adjudication since the challenged funds and the provisions allowing for their
utilization – such as the 2013 GAA for the PDAF, PD 910 for the Malampaya Funds and PD 1869,
as amended by PD 1993, for the Presidential Social Fund – are currently existing and operational;
hence, there exists an immediate or threatened injury to petitioners as a result of the unconstitutional
use of these public funds.

As for the PDAF, the Court must dispel the notion that the issues related thereto had been rendered
moot and academic by the reforms undertaken by respondents. A case becomes moot when there is
no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon
the merits.125 Differing from this description, the Court observes that respondents‘ proposed line-item
budgeting scheme would not terminate the controversy nor diminish the useful purpose for its
resolution since said reform is geared towards the 2014 budget, and not the 2013 PDAF Article
which, being a distinct subject matter, remains legally effective and existing. Neither will the
President‘s declaration that he had already "abolished the PDAF" render the issues on PDAF moot
precisely because the Executive branch of government has no constitutional authority to nullify or
annul its legal existence. By constitutional design, the annulment or nullification of a law may be
done either by Congress, through the passage of a repealing law, or by the Court, through a
declaration of unconstitutionality. Instructive on this point is the following exchange between
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Justice Carpio) and the Solicitor General during the Oral
Arguments:126
Justice Carpio: The President has taken an oath to faithfully execute the law,127 correct? Solicitor
General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Carpio: And so the President cannot refuse to implement the General Appropriations Act,
correct?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: Well, that is our answer, Your Honor. In the case, for example of the
PDAF, the President has a duty to execute the laws but in the face of the outrage over PDAF, the
President was saying, "I am not sure that I will continue the release of the soft projects," and that
started, Your Honor. Now, whether or not that … (interrupted)

Justice Carpio: Yeah. I will grant the President if there are anomalies in the project, he has the
power to stop the releases in the meantime, to investigate, and that is Section 38 of Chapter 5 of
Book 6 of the Revised Administrative Code128 x x x. So at most the President can suspend, now if the
President believes that the PDAF is unconstitutional, can he just refuse to implement it?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: No, Your Honor, as we were trying to say in the specific case of the
PDAF because of the CoA Report, because of the reported irregularities and this Court can take
judicial notice, even outside, outside of the COA Report, you have the report of the whistle-blowers,
the President was just exercising precisely the duty ….

xxxx

Justice Carpio: Yes, and that is correct. You‘ve seen the CoA Report, there are anomalies, you stop
and investigate, and prosecute, he has done that. But, does that mean that PDAF has been
repealed?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: No, Your Honor x x x.

xxxx

Justice Carpio: So that PDAF can be legally abolished only in two (2) cases. Congress passes a law
to repeal it, or this Court declares it unconstitutional, correct?

Solictor General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Carpio: The President has no power to legally abolish PDAF. (Emphases supplied)

Even on the assumption of mootness, jurisprudence, nevertheless, dictates that "the moot and
academic‘ principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the Court in resolving a
case." The Court will decide cases, otherwise moot, if: first, there is a grave violation of the
Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading
review.129

The applicability of the first exception is clear from the fundamental posture of petitioners – they
essentially allege grave violations of the Constitution with respect to, inter alia, the principles of
separation of powers, non-delegability of legislative power, checks and balances, accountability and
local autonomy.
The applicability of the second exception is also apparent from the nature of the interests involved

– the constitutionality of the very system within which significant amounts of public funds have been
and continue to be utilized and expended undoubtedly presents a situation of exceptional character
as well as a matter of paramount public interest. The present petitions, in fact, have been lodged at a
time when the system‘s flaws have never before been magnified. To the Court‘s mind, the
coalescence of the CoA Report, the accounts of numerous whistle-blowers, and the government‘s
own recognition that reforms are needed "to address the reported abuses of the
PDAF"130 demonstrates a prima facie pattern of abuse which only underscores the importance of the
matter. It is also by this finding that the Court finds petitioners‘ claims as not merely theorized,
speculative or hypothetical. Of note is the weight accorded by the Court to the findings made by the
CoA which is the constitutionally-mandated audit arm of the government. In Delos Santos v. CoA,131 a
recent case wherein the Court upheld the CoA‘s disallowance of irregularly disbursed PDAF funds, it
was emphasized that:

The COA is endowed with enough latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow irregular,
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. It is
tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and
ultimately the people's, property. The exercise of its general audit power is among the constitutional
mechanisms that gives life to the check and balance system inherent in our form of government.

It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially
one which is constitutionally-created, such as the CoA, not only on the basis of the doctrine of
separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce.
Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision
and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of
discretion. It is only when the CoA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, that this Court entertains a petition
questioning its rulings. x x x. (Emphases supplied)

Thus, if only for the purpose of validating the existence of an actual and justiciable controversy in
these cases, the Court deems the findings under the CoA Report to be sufficient.

The Court also finds the third exception to be applicable largely due to the practical need for a
definitive ruling on the system‘s constitutionality. As disclosed during the Oral Arguments, the CoA
Chairperson estimates that thousands of notices of disallowances will be issued by her office in
connection with the findings made in the CoA Report. In this relation, Associate Justice Marvic Mario
Victor F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) pointed out that all of these would eventually find their way to the
courts.132 Accordingly, there is a compelling need to formulate controlling principles relative to the
issues raised herein in order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, not just for the expeditious
resolution of the anticipated disallowance cases, but more importantly, so that the government may
be guided on how public funds should be utilized in accordance with constitutional principles.

Finally, the application of the fourth exception is called for by the recognition that the preparation and
passage of the national budget is, by constitutional imprimatur, an affair of annual occurrence.133 The
relevance of the issues before the Court does not cease with the passage of a "PDAF -free budget
for 2014."134 The evolution of the "Pork Barrel System," by its multifarious iterations throughout the
course of history, lends a semblance of truth to petitioners‘ claim that "the same dog will just
resurface wearing a different collar."135 In Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary,136 the government had
already backtracked on a previous course of action yet the Court used the "capable of repetition but
evading review" exception in order "to prevent similar questions from re- emerging."137 The situation
similarly holds true to these cases. Indeed, the myriad of issues underlying the manner in which
certain public funds are spent, if not resolved at this most opportune time, are capable of repetition
and hence, must not evade judicial review.

B. Matters of Policy: the Political Question Doctrine.

The "limitation on the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies‖ carries the
assurance that "the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of
government."138 Essentially, the foregoing limitation is a restatement of the political question doctrine
which, under the classic formulation of Baker v. Carr,139applies when there is found, among others, "a
textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department,"
"a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it" or "the impossibility of
deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non- judicial discretion." Cast
against this light, respondents submit that the "the political branches are in the best position not only
to perform budget-related reforms but also to do them in response to the specific demands of their
constituents" and, as such, "urge the Court not to impose a solution at this stage."140

The Court must deny respondents‘ submission.

Suffice it to state that the issues raised before the Court do not present political but legal questions
which are within its province to resolve. A political question refers to "those questions which, under
the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the
Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure."141 The intrinsic constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System" is not an issue dependent
upon the wisdom of the political branches of government but rather a legal one which the
Constitution itself has commanded the Court to act upon. Scrutinizing the contours of the system
along constitutional lines is a task that the political branches of government are incapable of
rendering precisely because it is an exercise of judicial power. More importantly, the present
Constitution has not only vested the Judiciary the right to exercise judicial power but essentially
makes it a duty to proceed therewith. Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution cannot be any
clearer: "The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law. It includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government." In Estrada v. Desierto,142 the expanded concept of
judicial power under the 1987 Constitution and its effect on the political question doctrine was
explained as follows:143

To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine
when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of government. Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the "thou shalt
not's" of the Constitution directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction. With the new provision,
however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing. x x x
(Emphases supplied)

It must also be borne in mind that ― when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; does not in reality nullify
or invalidate an act of the legislature or the executive, but only asserts the solemn and sacred
obligation assigned to it by the Constitution."144 To a great extent, the Court is laudably cognizant of
the reforms undertaken by its co-equal branches of government. But it is by constitutional force that
the Court must faithfully perform its duty. Ultimately, it is the Court‘s avowed intention that a
resolution of these cases would not arrest or in any manner impede the endeavors of the two other
branches but, in fact, help ensure that the pillars of change are erected on firm constitutional
grounds. After all, it is in the best interest of the people that each great branch of government, within
its own sphere, contributes its share towards achieving a holistic and genuine solution to the
problems of society. For all these reasons, the Court cannot heed respondents‘ plea for judicial
restraint.

C. Locus Standi.

"The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome
of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Unless a
person is injuriously affected in any of his constitutional rights by the operation of statute or
ordinance, he has no standing."145

Petitioners have come before the Court in their respective capacities as citizen-taxpayers and
accordingly, assert that they "dutifully contribute to the coffers of the National Treasury."146 Clearly, as
taxpayers, they possess the requisite standing to question the validity of the existing "Pork Barrel
System" under which the taxes they pay have been and continue to be utilized. It is undeniable that
petitioners, as taxpayers, are bound to suffer from the unconstitutional usage of public funds, if the
Court so rules. Invariably, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public
funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that
public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law,147 as in these
cases.

Moreover, as citizens, petitioners have equally fulfilled the standing requirement given that the
issues they have raised may be classified as matters "of transcendental importance, of overreaching
significance to society, or of paramount public interest."148 The CoA Chairperson‘s statement during
the Oral Arguments that the present controversy involves "not merely a systems failure" but a
"complete breakdown of controls"149 amplifies, in addition to the matters above-discussed, the
seriousness of the issues involved herein. Indeed, of greater import than the damage caused by the
illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the
enforcement of an invalid statute.150 All told, petitioners have sufficient locus standi to file the instant
cases.

D. Res Judicata and Stare Decisis.

Res judicata (which means a "matter adjudged") and stare decisis non quieta et movere (or simply,
stare decisis which means "follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled") are
general procedural law principles which both deal with the effects of previous but factually similar
dispositions to subsequent cases. For the cases at bar, the Court examines the applicability of these
principles in relation to its prior rulings in Philconsa and LAMP.

The focal point of res judicata is the judgment. The principle states that a judgment on the merits in a
previous case rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction would bind a subsequent case if,
between the first and second actions, there exists an identity of parties, of subject matter, and of
causes of action.151 This required identity is not, however, attendant hereto since Philconsa and
LAMP, respectively involved constitutional challenges against the 1994 CDF Article and 2004 PDAF
Article, whereas the cases at bar call for a broader constitutional scrutiny of the entire "Pork Barrel
System." Also, the ruling in LAMP is essentially a dismissal based on a procedural technicality –
and, thus, hardly a judgment on the merits – in that petitioners therein failed to present any
"convincing proof x x x showing that, indeed, there were direct releases of funds to the Members of
Congress, who actually spend them according to their sole discretion" or "pertinent evidentiary
support to demonstrate the illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of kickbacks and has become a
common exercise of unscrupulous Members of Congress." As such, the Court up held, in view of the
presumption of constitutionality accorded to every law, the 2004 PDAF Article, and saw "no need to
review or reverse the standing pronouncements in the said case." Hence, for the foregoing reasons,
the res judicata principle, insofar as the Philconsa and LAMP cases are concerned, cannot apply.

On the other hand, the focal point of stare decisis is the doctrine created. The principle, entrenched
under Article 8152 of the Civil Code, evokes the general rule that, for the sake of certainty, a
conclusion reached in one case should be doctrinally applied to those that follow if the facts are
substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle
of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided
alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the
parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of
stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to re-litigate the same issue.153

Philconsa was the first case where a constitutional challenge against a Pork Barrel provision, i.e.,
the 1994 CDF Article, was resolved by the Court. To properly understand its context, petitioners‘
posturing was that "the power given to the Members of Congress to propose and identify projects
and activities to be funded by the CDF is an encroachment by the legislature on executive power,
since said power in an appropriation act is in implementation of the law" and that "the proposal and
identification of the projects do not involve the making of laws or the repeal and amendment thereof,
the only function given to the Congress by the Constitution."154 In deference to the foregoing
submissions, the Court reached the following main conclusions: one, under the Constitution, the
power of appropriation, or the "power of the purse," belongs to Congress; two, the power of
appropriation carries with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the
appropriation law and it can be detailed and as broad as Congress wants it to be; and, three, the
proposals and identifications made by Members of Congress are merely recommendatory. At once,
it is apparent that the Philconsa resolution was a limited response to a separation of powers
problem, specifically on the propriety of conferring post-enactment identification authority to
Members of Congress. On the contrary, the present cases call for a more holistic examination of (a)
the inter-relation between the CDF and PDAF Articles with each other, formative as they are of the
entire "Pork Barrel System" as well as (b) the intra-relation of post-enactment measures contained
within a particular CDF or PDAF Article, including not only those related to the area of project
identification but also to the areas of fund release and realignment. The complexity of the issues and
the broader legal analyses herein warranted may be, therefore, considered as a powerful
countervailing reason against a wholesale application of the stare decisis principle.

In addition, the Court observes that the Philconsa ruling was actually riddled with inherent
constitutional inconsistencies which similarly countervail against a full resort to stare decisis. As may
be deduced from the main conclusions of the case, Philconsa‘s fundamental premise in allowing
Members of Congress to propose and identify of projects would be that the said identification
authority is but an aspect of the power of appropriation which has been constitutionally lodged in
Congress. From this premise, the contradictions may be easily seen. If the authority to identify
projects is an aspect of appropriation and the power of appropriation is a form of legislative power
thereby lodged in Congress, then it follows that: (a) it is Congress which should exercise such
authority, and not its individual Members; (b) such authority must be exercised within the prescribed
procedure of law passage and, hence, should not be exercised after the GAA has already been
passed; and (c) such authority, as embodied in the GAA, has the force of law and, hence, cannot be
merely recommendatory. Justice Vitug‘s Concurring Opinion in the same case sums up the
Philconsa quandary in this wise: "Neither would it be objectionable for Congress, by law, to
appropriate funds for such specific projects as it may be minded; to give that authority, however, to
the individual members of Congress in whatever guise, I am afraid, would be constitutionally
impermissible." As the Court now largely benefits from hindsight and current findings on the matter,
among others, the CoA Report, the Court must partially abandon its previous ruling in Philconsa
insofar as it validated the post-enactment identification authority of Members of Congress on the
guise that the same was merely recommendatory. This postulate raises serious constitutional
inconsistencies which cannot be simply excused on the ground that such mechanism is "imaginative
as it is innovative." Moreover, it must be pointed out that the recent case of Abakada Guro Party List
v. Purisima155(Abakada) has effectively overturned Philconsa‘s allowance of post-enactment legislator
participation in view of the separation of powers principle. These constitutional inconsistencies and
the Abakada rule will be discussed in greater detail in the ensuing section of this Decision.

As for LAMP, suffice it to restate that the said case was dismissed on a procedural technicality and,
hence, has not set any controlling doctrine susceptible of current application to the substantive
issues in these cases. In fine, stare decisis would not apply.

II. Substantive Issues.

A. Definition of Terms.

Before the Court proceeds to resolve the substantive issues of these cases, it must first define the
terms "Pork Barrel System," "Congressional Pork Barrel," and "Presidential Pork Barrel" as they are
essential to the ensuing discourse.

Petitioners define the term "Pork Barrel System" as the "collusion between the Legislative and
Executive branches of government to accumulate lump-sum public funds in their offices with
unchecked discretionary powers to determine its distribution as political largesse."156 They assert that
the following elements make up the Pork Barrel System: (a) lump-sum funds are allocated through
the appropriations process to an individual officer; (b) the officer is given sole and broad discretion in
determining how the funds will be used or expended; (c) the guidelines on how to spend or use the
funds in the appropriation are either vague, overbroad or inexistent; and (d) projects funded are
intended to benefit a definite constituency in a particular part of the country and to help the political
careers of the disbursing official by yielding rich patronage benefits.157 They further state that the
Pork Barrel System is comprised of two (2) kinds of discretionary public funds: first, the
Congressional (or Legislative) Pork Barrel, currently known as the PDAF;158 and, second, the
Presidential (or Executive) Pork Barrel, specifically, the Malampaya Funds under PD 910 and the
Presidential Social Fund under PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993.159

Considering petitioners‘ submission and in reference to its local concept and legal history, the Court
defines the Pork Barrel System as the collective body of rules and practices that govern the manner
by which lump-sum, discretionary funds, primarily intended for local projects, are utilized through the
respective participations of the Legislative and Executive branches of government, including its
members. The Pork Barrel System involves two (2) kinds of lump-sum discretionary funds:

First, there is the Congressional Pork Barrel which is herein defined as a kind of lump-sum,
discretionary fund wherein legislators, either individually or collectively organized into committees,
are able to effectively control certain aspects of the fund’s utilization through various post-enactment
measures and/or practices. In particular, petitioners consider the PDAF, as it appears under the
2013 GAA, as Congressional Pork Barrel since it is, inter alia, a post-enactment measure that allows
individual legislators to wield a collective power;160 and
Second, there is the Presidential Pork Barrel which is herein defined as a kind of lump-sum,
discretionary fund which allows the President to determine the manner of its utilization. For reasons
earlier stated,161 the Court shall delimit the use of such term to refer only to the Malampaya Funds
and the Presidential Social Fund.

With these definitions in mind, the Court shall now proceed to discuss the substantive issues of
these cases.

B. Substantive Issues on the Congressional Pork Barrel.

1. Separation of Powers.

a. Statement of Principle.

The principle of separation of powers refers to the constitutional demarcation of the three
fundamental powers of government. In the celebrated words of Justice Laurel in Angara v. Electoral
Commission,162 it means that the "Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines,
allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the
government."163 To the legislative branch of government, through Congress,164belongs the power to
make laws; to the executive branch of government, through the President,165 belongs the power to
enforce laws; and to the judicial branch of government, through the Court,166 belongs the power to
interpret laws. Because the three great powers have been, by constitutional design, ordained in this
respect, "each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere."167 Thus, "the legislature has no authority to
execute or construe the law, the executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and the
judiciary has no power to make or execute the law."168 The principle of separation of powers and its
concepts of autonomy and independence stem from the notion that the powers of government must
be divided to avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch; the division, it is hoped, would
avoid any single branch from lording its power over the other branches or the citizenry.169 To achieve
this purpose, the divided power must be wielded by co-equal branches of government that are
equally capable of independent action in exercising their respective mandates. Lack of
independence would result in the inability of one branch of government to check the arbitrary or self-
interest assertions of another or others.170

Broadly speaking, there is a violation of the separation of powers principle when one branch of
government unduly encroaches on the domain of another. US Supreme Court decisions instruct that
the principle of separation of powers may be violated in two (2) ways: firstly, "one branch may
interfere impermissibly with the other’s performance of its constitutionally assigned function";171 and
"alternatively, the doctrine may be violated when one branch assumes a function that more properly
is entrusted to another."172 In other words, there is a violation of the principle when there is
impermissible (a) interference with and/or (b) assumption of another department‘s functions.

The enforcement of the national budget, as primarily contained in the GAA, is indisputably a function
both constitutionally assigned and properly entrusted to the Executive branch of government. In
Guingona, Jr. v. Hon. Carague173 (Guingona, Jr.), the Court explained that the phase of budget
execution "covers the various operational aspects of budgeting" and accordingly includes "the
evaluation of work and financial plans for individual activities," the "regulation and release of funds"
as well as all "other related activities" that comprise the budget execution cycle.174 This is rooted in
the principle that the allocation of power in the three principal branches of government is a grant of
all powers inherent in them.175 Thus, unless the Constitution provides otherwise, the Executive
department should exclusively exercise all roles and prerogatives which go into the implementation
of the national budget as provided under the GAA as well as any other appropriation law.
In view of the foregoing, the Legislative branch of government, much more any of its members,
should not cross over the field of implementing the national budget since, as earlier stated, the same
is properly the domain of the Executive. Again, in Guingona, Jr., the Court stated that "Congress
enters the picture when it deliberates or acts on the budget proposals of the President. Thereafter,
Congress, "in the exercise of its own judgment and wisdom, formulates an appropriation act
precisely following the process established by the Constitution, which specifies that no money may
be paid from the Treasury except in accordance with an appropriation made by law." Upon approval
and passage of the GAA, Congress‘ law -making role necessarily comes to an end and from there
the Executive‘s role of implementing the national budget begins. So as not to blur the constitutional
boundaries between them, Congress must "not concern it self with details for implementation by the
Executive."176

The foregoing cardinal postulates were definitively enunciated in Abakada where the Court held that
"from the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any
of its members to play any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle
of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional."177 It must be clarified, however, that since the
restriction only pertains to "any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law," Congress may
still exercise its oversight function which is a mechanism of checks and balances that the
Constitution itself allows. But it must be made clear that Congress‘ role must be confined to mere
oversight. Any post-enactment-measure allowing legislator participation beyond oversight is bereft of
any constitutional basis and hence, tantamount to impermissible interference and/or assumption of
executive functions. As the Court ruled in Abakada:178

Any post-enactment congressional measure x x x should be limited to scrutiny and investigation. In 1âwphi1

particular, congressional oversight must be confined to the following:

(1) scrutiny based primarily on Congress‘ power of appropriation and the budget hearings
conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before and
be heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their departments and its power
of confirmation; and

(2) investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of
Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the
Constitution. (Emphases supplied)

b. Application.

In these cases, petitioners submit that the Congressional Pork Barrel – among others, the 2013
PDAF Article – "wrecks the assignment of responsibilities between the political branches" as it is
designed to allow individual legislators to interfere "way past the time it should have ceased" or,
particularly, "after the GAA is passed."179 They state that the findings and recommendations in the
CoA Report provide "an illustration of how absolute and definitive the power of legislators wield over
project implementation in complete violation of the constitutional principle of separation of
powers."180 Further, they point out that the Court in the Philconsa case only allowed the CDF to exist
on the condition that individual legislators limited their role to recommending projects and not if they
actually dictate their implementation.181

For their part, respondents counter that the separations of powers principle has not been violated
since the President maintains "ultimate authority to control the execution of the GAA‖ and that he
"retains the final discretion to reject" the legislators‘ proposals.182 They maintain that the Court, in
Philconsa, "upheld the constitutionality of the power of members of Congress to propose and identify
projects so long as such proposal and identification are recommendatory."183 As such, they claim that
"everything in the Special Provisions [of the 2013 PDAF Article follows the Philconsa framework, and
hence, remains constitutional."184

The Court rules in favor of petitioners.

As may be observed from its legal history, the defining feature of all forms of Congressional Pork
Barrel would be the authority of legislators to participate in the post-enactment phases of project
implementation.

At its core, legislators – may it be through project lists,185 prior consultations186 or program menus187 –
have been consistently accorded post-enactment authority to identify the projects they desire to be
funded through various Congressional Pork Barrel allocations. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the
statutory authority of legislators to identify projects post-GAA may be construed from the import of
Special Provisions 1 to 3 as well as the second paragraph of Special Provision 4. To elucidate,
Special Provision 1 embodies the program menu feature which, as evinced from past PDAF Articles,
allows individual legislators to identify PDAF projects for as long as the identified project falls under a
general program listed in the said menu. Relatedly, Special Provision 2 provides that the
implementing agencies shall, within 90 days from the GAA is passed, submit to Congress a more
detailed priority list, standard or design prepared and submitted by implementing agencies from
which the legislator may make his choice. The same provision further authorizes legislators to
identify PDAF projects outside his district for as long as the representative of the district concerned
concurs in writing. Meanwhile, Special Provision 3 clarifies that PDAF projects refer to "projects to be
identified by legislators"188 and thereunder provides the allocation limit for the total amount of projects
identified by each legislator. Finally, paragraph 2 of Special Provision 4 requires that any
modification and revision of the project identification "shall be submitted to the House Committee on
Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance for favorable endorsement to the DBM or the
implementing agency, as the case may be." From the foregoing special provisions, it cannot be
seriously doubted that legislators have been accorded post-enactment authority to identify PDAF
projects.

Aside from the area of project identification, legislators have also been accorded post-enactment
authority in the areas of fund release and realignment. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the statutory
authority of legislators to participate in the area of fund release through congressional committees is
contained in Special Provision 5 which explicitly states that "all request for release of funds shall be
supported by the documents prescribed under Special Provision No. 1 and favorably endorsed by
House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance, as the case may be";
while their statutory authority to participate in the area of fund realignment is contained in: first ,
paragraph 2, Special Provision 4189 which explicitly state s, among others, that "any realignment of
funds shall be submitted to the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on
Finance for favorable endorsement to the DBM or the implementing agency, as the case may be‖ ;
and, second , paragraph 1, also of Special Provision 4 which authorizes the "Secretaries of
Agriculture, Education, Energy, Interior and Local Government, Labor and Employment, Public
Works and Highways, Social Welfare and Development and Trade and Industry190 x x x to approve
realignment from one project/scope to another within the allotment received from this Fund, subject
to among others (iii) the request is with the concurrence of the legislator concerned."

Clearly, these post-enactment measures which govern the areas of project identification, fund
release and fund realignment are not related to functions of congressional oversight and, hence,
allow legislators to intervene and/or assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget
execution. Indeed, by virtue of the foregoing, legislators have been, in one form or another,
authorized to participate in – as Guingona, Jr. puts it – "the various operational aspects of
budgeting," including "the evaluation of work and financial plans for individual activities" and the
"regulation and release of funds" in violation of the separation of powers principle. The fundamental
rule, as categorically articulated in Abakada, cannot be overstated – from the moment the law
becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any
role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers
and is thus unconstitutional.191 That the said authority is treated as merely recommendatory in nature
does not alter its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition, to repeat, covers any role in the
implementation or enforcement of the law. Towards this end, the Court must therefore abandon its
ruling in Philconsa which sanctioned the conduct of legislator identification on the guise that the
same is merely recommendatory and, as such, respondents‘ reliance on the same falters altogether.

Besides, it must be pointed out that respondents have nonetheless failed to substantiate their
position that the identification authority of legislators is only of recommendatory import. Quite the
contrary, respondents – through the statements of the Solicitor General during the Oral Arguments –
have admitted that the identification of the legislator constitutes a mandatory requirement before his
PDAF can be tapped as a funding source, thereby highlighting the indispensability of the said act to
the entire budget execution process:192

Justice Bernabe: Now, without the individual legislator’s identification of the project, can the PDAF of
the legislator be utilized?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: No, Your Honor.

Justice Bernabe: It cannot?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: It cannot… (interrupted)

Justice Bernabe: So meaning you should have the identification of the project by the individual
legislator?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor.

xxxx

Justice Bernabe: In short, the act of identification is mandatory?

Solictor General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor. In the sense that if it is not done and then there is no
identification.

xxxx

Justice Bernabe: Now, would you know of specific instances when a project was implemented
without the identification by the individual legislator?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: I do not know, Your Honor; I do not think so but I have no specific
examples. I would doubt very much, Your Honor, because to implement, there is a need for a SARO
and the NCA. And the SARO and the NCA are triggered by an identification from the legislator.

xxxx
Solictor General Jardeleza: What we mean by mandatory, Your Honor, is we were replying to a
question, "How can a legislator make sure that he is able to get PDAF Funds?" It is mandatory in the
sense that he must identify, in that sense, Your Honor. Otherwise, if he does not identify, he cannot
avail of the PDAF Funds and his district would not be able to have PDAF Funds, only in that sense,
Your Honor. (Emphases supplied)

Thus, for all the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby declares the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all
other provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of post-enactment authority
in the implementation or enforcement of the budget, unrelated to congressional oversight, as
violative of the separation of powers principle and thus unconstitutional. Corollary thereto, informal
practices, through which legislators have effectively intruded into the proper phases of budget
execution, must be deemed as acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction and, hence, accorded the same unconstitutional treatment. That such informal practices
do exist and have, in fact, been constantly observed throughout the years has not been substantially
disputed here. As pointed out by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice Sereno)
during the Oral Arguments of these cases:193
Chief Justice Sereno:

Now, from the responses of the representative of both, the DBM and two (2) Houses of Congress, if
we enforces the initial thought that I have, after I had seen the extent of this research made by my
staff, that neither the Executive nor Congress frontally faced the question of constitutional
compatibility of how they were engineering the budget process. In fact, the words you have been
using, as the three lawyers of the DBM, and both Houses of Congress has also been using is
surprise; surprised that all of these things are now surfacing. In fact, I thought that what the 2013
PDAF provisions did was to codify in one section all the past practice that had been done since
1991. In a certain sense, we should be thankful that they are all now in the PDAF Special Provisions.
x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Ultimately, legislators cannot exercise powers which they do not have, whether through formal
measures written into the law or informal practices institutionalized in government agencies, else the
Executive department be deprived of what the Constitution has vested as its own.

2. Non-delegability of Legislative Power.

a. Statement of Principle.

As an adjunct to the separation of powers principle,194 legislative power shall be exclusively exercised
by the body to which the Constitution has conferred the same. In particular, Section 1, Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution states that such power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines
which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum.195 Based on this provision, it is clear that only
Congress, acting as a bicameral body, and the people, through the process of initiative and
referendum, may constitutionally wield legislative power and no other. This premise embodies the
principle of non-delegability of legislative power, and the only recognized exceptions thereto would
be: (a) delegated legislative power to local governments which, by immemorial practice, are allowed
to legislate on purely local matters;196 and (b) constitutionally-grafted exceptions such as the authority
of the President to, by law, exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national
policy in times of war or other national emergency,197or fix within specified limits, and subject to such
limitations and restrictions as Congress may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage
and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development
program of the Government.198
Notably, the principle of non-delegability should not be confused as a restriction to delegate rule-
making authority to implementing agencies for the limited purpose of either filling up the details of
the law for its enforcement (supplementary rule-making) or ascertaining facts to bring the law into
actual operation (contingent rule-making).199The conceptual treatment and limitations of delegated
rule-making were explained in the case of People v. Maceren200 as follows:

The grant of the rule-making power to administrative agencies is a relaxation of the principle of
separation of powers and is an exception to the nondelegation of legislative powers. Administrative
regulations or "subordinate legislation" calculated to promote the public interest are necessary
because of "the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental
regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the law."

xxxx

Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the rule-making power must be confined to details for
regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. The power
cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not
covered by the statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned. (Emphases supplied)

b. Application.

In the cases at bar, the Court observes that the 2013 PDAF Article, insofar as it confers post-
enactment identification authority to individual legislators, violates the principle of non-delegability
since said legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation,
which – as settled in Philconsa – is lodged in Congress.201 That the power to appropriate must be
exercised only through legislation is clear from Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
which states that: "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law." To understand what constitutes an act of appropriation, the Court, in
Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice and Insular Auditor202 (Bengzon), held that the power of
appropriation involves (a) the setting apart by law of a certain sum from the public revenue for (b) a
specified purpose. Essentially, under the 2013 PDAF Article, individual legislators are given a
personal lump-sum fund from which they are able to dictate (a) how much from such fund would go
to (b) a specific project or beneficiary that they themselves also determine. As these two (2) acts
comprise the exercise of the power of appropriation as described in Bengzon, and given that the
2013 PDAF Article authorizes individual legislators to perform the same, undoubtedly, said
legislators have been conferred the power to legislate which the Constitution does not, however,
allow. Thus, keeping with the principle of non-delegability of legislative power, the Court hereby
declares the 2013 PDAF Article, as well as all other forms of Congressional Pork Barrel which
contain the similar legislative identification feature as herein discussed, as unconstitutional.

3. Checks and Balances.

a. Statement of Principle; Item-Veto Power.

The fact that the three great powers of government are intended to be kept separate and distinct
does not mean that they are absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The
Constitution has also provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government.203

A prime example of a constitutional check and balance would be the President’s power to veto an
item written into an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill submitted to him by Congress for approval
through a process known as "bill presentment." The President‘s item-veto power is found in Section
27(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which reads as follows:

Sec. 27. x x x.

xxxx

(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation,
revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

The presentment of appropriation, revenue or tariff bills to the President, wherein he may exercise
his power of item-veto, forms part of the "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered,
procedures" for law-passage as specified under the Constitution.204 As stated in Abakada, the final
step in the law-making process is the "submission of the bill to the President for approval. Once
approved, it takes effect as law after the required publication."205

Elaborating on the President‘s item-veto power and its relevance as a check on the legislature, the
Court, in Bengzon, explained that:206

The former Organic Act and the present Constitution of the Philippines make the Chief Executive an
integral part of the law-making power. His disapproval of a bill, commonly known as a veto, is
essentially a legislative act. The questions presented to the mind of the Chief Executive are precisely
the same as those the legislature must determine in passing a bill, except that his will be a broader
point of view.

The Constitution is a limitation upon the power of the legislative department of the government, but
in this respect it is a grant of power to the executive department. The Legislature has the affirmative
power to enact laws; the Chief Executive has the negative power by the constitutional exercise of
which he may defeat the will of the Legislature. It follows that the Chief Executive must find his
authority in the Constitution. But in exercising that authority he may not be confined to rules of strict
construction or hampered by the unwise interference of the judiciary. The courts will indulge every
intendment in favor of the constitutionality of a veto in the same manner as they will presume the
constitutionality of an act as originally passed by the Legislature. (Emphases supplied)

The justification for the President‘s item-veto power rests on a variety of policy goals such as to
prevent log-rolling legislation,207 impose fiscal restrictions on the legislature, as well as to fortify the
executive branch‘s role in the budgetary process.208 In Immigration and Naturalization Service v.
Chadha, the US Supreme Court characterized the President‘s item-power as "a salutary check upon
the legislative body, calculated to guard the community against the effects of factions, precipitancy,
or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence a majority of that
body"; phrased differently, it is meant to "increase the chances in favor of the community against the
passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or design."209

For the President to exercise his item-veto power, it necessarily follows that there exists a proper
"item" which may be the object of the veto. An item, as defined in the field of appropriations, pertains
to "the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the appropriation or of the bill." In
the case of Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice of the Philippine Islands,210 the US Supreme Court
characterized an item of appropriation as follows:

An item of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which, in itself, is a specific appropriation of
money, not some general provision of law which happens to be put into an appropriation bill.
(Emphases supplied)
On this premise, it may be concluded that an appropriation bill, to ensure that the President may be
able to exercise his power of item veto, must contain "specific appropriations of money" and not only
"general provisions" which provide for parameters of appropriation.

Further, it is significant to point out that an item of appropriation must be an item characterized by
singular correspondence – meaning an allocation of a specified singular amount for a specified
singular purpose, otherwise known as a "line-item."211 This treatment not only allows the item to be
consistent with its definition as a "specific appropriation of money" but also ensures that the
President may discernibly veto the same. Based on the foregoing formulation, the existing Calamity
Fund, Contingent Fund and the Intelligence Fund, being appropriations which state a specified
amount for a specific purpose, would then be considered as "line- item" appropriations which are
rightfully subject to item veto. Likewise, it must be observed that an appropriation may be validly
apportioned into component percentages or values; however, it is crucial that each percentage or
value must be allocated for its own corresponding purpose for such component to be considered as
a proper line-item. Moreover, as Justice Carpio correctly pointed out, a valid appropriation may even
have several related purposes that are by accounting and budgeting practice considered as one
purpose, e.g., MOOE (maintenance and other operating expenses), in which case the related
purposes shall be deemed sufficiently specific for the exercise of the President‘s item veto power.
Finally, special purpose funds and discretionary funds would equally square with the constitutional
mechanism of item-veto for as long as they follow the rule on singular correspondence as herein
discussed. Anent special purpose funds, it must be added that Section 25(4), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution requires that the "special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is
intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer,
or t o be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein." Meanwhile, with respect to
discretionary funds, Section 2 5(6), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution requires that said funds "shall
be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines as may be prescribed by law."

In contrast, what beckons constitutional infirmity are appropriations which merely provide for a
singular lump-sum amount to be tapped as a source of funding for multiple purposes. Since such
appropriation type necessitates the further determination of both the actual amount to be expended
and the actual purpose of the appropriation which must still be chosen from the multiple purposes
stated in the law, it cannot be said that the appropriation law already indicates a "specific
appropriation of money‖ and hence, without a proper line-item which the President may veto. As a
practical result, the President would then be faced with the predicament of either vetoing the entire
appropriation if he finds some of its purposes wasteful or undesirable, or approving the entire
appropriation so as not to hinder some of its legitimate purposes. Finally, it may not be amiss to
state that such arrangement also raises non-delegability issues considering that the implementing
authority would still have to determine, again, both the actual amount to be expended and the actual
purpose of the appropriation. Since the foregoing determinations constitute the integral aspects of
the power to appropriate, the implementing authority would, in effect, be exercising legislative
prerogatives in violation of the principle of non-delegability.

b. Application.

In these cases, petitioners claim that "in the current x x x system where the PDAF is a lump-sum
appropriation, the legislator‘s identification of the projects after the passage of the GAA denies the
President the chance to veto that item later on."212 Accordingly, they submit that the "item veto power
of the President mandates that appropriations bills adopt line-item budgeting" and that "Congress
cannot choose a mode of budgeting which effectively renders the constitutionally-given power of the
President useless."213
On the other hand, respondents maintain that the text of the Constitution envisions a process which
is intended to meet the demands of a modernizing economy and, as such, lump-sum appropriations
are essential to financially address situations which are barely foreseen when a GAA is enacted.
They argue that the decision of the Congress to create some lump-sum appropriations is
constitutionally allowed and textually-grounded.214

The Court agrees with petitioners.

Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of ₱24.79 Billion only appears as a collective allocation
limit since the said amount would be further divided among individual legislators who would then
receive personal lump-sum allocations and could, after the GAA is passed, effectively appropriate
PDAF funds based on their own discretion. As these intermediate appropriations are made by
legislators only after the GAA is passed and hence, outside of the law, it necessarily means that the
actual items of PDAF appropriation would not have been written into the General Appropriations Bill
and thus effectuated without veto consideration. This kind of lump-sum/post-enactment legislative
identification budgeting system fosters the creation of a budget within a budget" which subverts the
prescribed procedure of presentment and consequently impairs the President‘s power of item veto.
As petitioners aptly point out, the above-described system forces the President to decide between
(a) accepting the entire ₱24.79 Billion PDAF allocation without knowing the specific projects of the
legislators, which may or may not be consistent with his national agenda and (b) rejecting the whole
PDAF to the detriment of all other legislators with legitimate projects.215

Moreover, even without its post-enactment legislative identification feature, the 2013 PDAF Article
would remain constitutionally flawed since it would then operate as a prohibited form of lump-sum
appropriation above-characterized. In particular, the lump-sum amount of ₱24.79 Billion would be
treated as a mere funding source allotted for multiple purposes of spending, i.e., scholarships,
medical missions, assistance to indigents, preservation of historical materials, construction of roads,
flood control, etc. This setup connotes that the appropriation law leaves the actual amounts and
purposes of the appropriation for further determination and, therefore, does not readily indicate a
discernible item which may be subject to the President‘s power of item veto.

In fact, on the accountability side, the same lump-sum budgeting scheme has, as the CoA
Chairperson relays, "limited state auditors from obtaining relevant data and information that would
aid in more stringently auditing the utilization of said Funds."216 Accordingly, she recommends the
adoption of a "line by line budget or amount per proposed program, activity or project, and per
implementing agency."217

Hence, in view of the reasons above-stated, the Court finds the 2013 PDAF Article, as well as all
Congressional Pork Barrel Laws of similar operation, to be unconstitutional. That such budgeting
system provides for a greater degree of flexibility to account for future contingencies cannot be an
excuse to defeat what the Constitution requires. Clearly, the first and essential truth of the matter is
that unconstitutional means do not justify even commendable ends.218

c. Accountability.

Petitioners further relate that the system under which various forms of Congressional Pork Barrel
operate defies public accountability as it renders Congress incapable of checking itself or its
Members. In particular, they point out that the Congressional Pork Barrel "gives each legislator a
direct, financial interest in the smooth, speedy passing of the yearly budget" which turns them "from
fiscalizers" into "financially-interested partners."219 They also claim that the system has an effect on
re- election as "the PDAF excels in self-perpetuation of elective officials." Finally, they add that the
"PDAF impairs the power of impeachment" as such "funds are indeed quite useful, ‘to well,
accelerate the decisions of senators.‘"220

The Court agrees in part.

The aphorism forged under Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which states that "public
office is a public trust," is an overarching reminder that every instrumentality of government should
exercise their official functions only in accordance with the principles of the Constitution which
embodies the parameters of the people‘s trust. The notion of a public trust connotes
accountability,221 hence, the various mechanisms in the Constitution which are designed to exact
accountability from public officers.

Among others, an accountability mechanism with which the proper expenditure of public funds may
be checked is the power of congressional oversight. As mentioned in Abakada,222 congressional
oversight may be performed either through: (a) scrutiny based primarily on Congress‘ power of
appropriation and the budget hearings conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of
departments to appear before and be heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their
departments and its power of confirmation;223 or (b) investigation and monitoring of the
implementation of laws pursuant to the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.224

The Court agrees with petitioners that certain features embedded in some forms of Congressional
Pork Barrel, among others the 2013 PDAF Article, has an effect on congressional oversight. The fact
that individual legislators are given post-enactment roles in the implementation of the budget makes
it difficult for them to become disinterested "observers" when scrutinizing, investigating or monitoring
the implementation of the appropriation law. To a certain extent, the conduct of oversight would be
tainted as said legislators, who are vested with post-enactment authority, would, in effect, be
checking on activities in which they themselves participate. Also, it must be pointed out that this very
same concept of post-enactment authorization runs afoul of Section 14, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution which provides that:

Sec. 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel
before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative
bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any
franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary,
during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for
his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. (Emphasis
supplied)

Clearly, allowing legislators to intervene in the various phases of project implementation – a matter
before another office of government – renders them susceptible to taking undue advantage of their
own office.

The Court, however, cannot completely agree that the same post-enactment authority and/or the
individual legislator‘s control of his PDAF per se would allow him to perpetuate himself in office.
Indeed, while the Congressional Pork Barrel and a legislator‘s use thereof may be linked to this area
of interest, the use of his PDAF for re-election purposes is a matter which must be analyzed based
on particular facts and on a case-to-case basis.

Finally, while the Court accounts for the possibility that the close operational proximity between
legislators and the Executive department, through the former‘s post-enactment participation, may
affect the process of impeachment, this matter largely borders on the domain of politics and does not
strictly concern the Pork Barrel System‘s intrinsic constitutionality. As such, it is an improper subject
of judicial assessment.

In sum, insofar as its post-enactment features dilute congressional oversight and violate Section 14,
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, thus impairing public accountability, the 2013 PDAF Article and
other forms of Congressional Pork Barrel of similar nature are deemed as unconstitutional.

4. Political Dynasties.

One of the petitioners submits that the Pork Barrel System enables politicians who are members of
political dynasties to accumulate funds to perpetuate themselves in power, in contravention of
Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution225 which states that:

Sec. 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit
political dynasties as may be defined by law. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

At the outset, suffice it to state that the foregoing provision is considered as not self-executing due to
the qualifying phrase "as may be defined by law." In this respect, said provision does not, by and of
itself, provide a judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies guideline for legislative
or executive action.226 Therefore, since there appears to be no standing law which crystallizes the
policy on political dynasties for enforcement, the Court must defer from ruling on this issue.

In any event, the Court finds the above-stated argument on this score to be largely speculative since
it has not been properly demonstrated how the Pork Barrel System would be able to propagate
political dynasties.

5. Local Autonomy.

The State‘s policy on local autonomy is principally stated in Section 25, Article II and Sections 2 and
3, Article X of the 1987 Constitution which read as follows:

ARTICLE II

Sec. 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.

ARTICLE X

Sec. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.

Sec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the
different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the
qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of
local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.

Pursuant thereto, Congress enacted RA 7160,227 otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of
1991" (LGC), wherein the policy on local autonomy had been more specifically explicated as follows:

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and
political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them
to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners
in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive
and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby
local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The
process of decentralization shall proceed from the National Government to the local government
units.

xxxx

(c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic
consultations with appropriate local government units, nongovernmental and people‘s organizations,
and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their
respective jurisdictions. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

The above-quoted provisions of the Constitution and the LGC reveal the policy of the State to
empower local government units (LGUs) to develop and ultimately, become self-sustaining and
effective contributors to the national economy. As explained by the Court in Philippine Gamefowl
Commission v. Intermediate Appellate Court:228

This is as good an occasion as any to stress the commitment of the Constitution to the policy of local
autonomy which is intended to provide the needed impetus and encouragement to the development
of our local political subdivisions as "self - reliant communities." In the words of Jefferson, "Municipal
corporations are the small republics from which the great one derives its strength." The vitalization of
local governments will enable their inhabitants to fully exploit their resources and more important,
imbue them with a deepened sense of involvement in public affairs as members of the body politic.
This objective could be blunted by undue interference by the national government in purely local
affairs which are best resolved by the officials and inhabitants of such political units. The decision we
reach today conforms not only to the letter of the pertinent laws but also to the spirit of the
Constitution.229 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

In the cases at bar, petitioners contend that the Congressional Pork Barrel goes against the
constitutional principles on local autonomy since it allows district representatives, who are national
officers, to substitute their judgments in utilizing public funds for local development.230 The Court
agrees with petitioners.

Philconsa described the 1994 CDF as an attempt "to make equal the unequal" and that "it is also a
recognition that individual members of Congress, far more than the President and their
congressional colleagues, are likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective
constituents and the priority to be given each project."231 Drawing strength from this pronouncement,
previous legislators justified its existence by stating that "the relatively small projects implemented
under the Congressional Pork Barrel complement and link the national development goals to the
countryside and grassroots as well as to depressed areas which are overlooked by central agencies
which are preoccupied with mega-projects.232 Similarly, in his August 23, 2013 speech on the
"abolition" of PDAF and budgetary reforms, President Aquino mentioned that the Congressional Pork
Barrel was originally established for a worthy goal, which is to enable the representatives to identify
projects for communities that the LGU concerned cannot afford.233

Notwithstanding these declarations, the Court, however, finds an inherent defect in the system which
actually belies the avowed intention of "making equal the unequal." In particular, the Court observes
that the gauge of PDAF and CDF allocation/division is based solely on the fact of office, without
taking into account the specific interests and peculiarities of the district the legislator represents. In
this regard, the allocation/division limits are clearly not based on genuine parameters of equality,
wherein economic or geographic indicators have been taken into consideration. As a result, a district
representative of a highly-urbanized metropolis gets the same amount of funding as a district
representative of a far-flung rural province which would be relatively "underdeveloped" compared to
the former. To add, what rouses graver scrutiny is that even Senators and Party-List
Representatives – and in some years, even the Vice-President – who do not represent any locality,
receive funding from the Congressional Pork Barrel as well. These certainly are anathema to the
Congressional Pork Barrel‘s original intent which is "to make equal the unequal." Ultimately, the
PDAF and CDF had become personal funds under the effective control of each legislator and given
unto them on the sole account of their office.

The Court also observes that this concept of legislator control underlying the CDF and PDAF
conflicts with the functions of the various Local Development Councils (LDCs) which are already
legally mandated to "assist the corresponding sanggunian in setting the direction of economic and
social development, and coordinating development efforts within its territorial
jurisdiction."234 Considering that LDCs are instrumentalities whose functions are essentially geared
towards managing local affairs,235 their programs, policies and resolutions should not be overridden
nor duplicated by individual legislators, who are national officers that have no law-making authority
except only when acting as a body. The undermining effect on local autonomy caused by the post-
enactment authority conferred to the latter was succinctly put by petitioners in the following wise:236

With PDAF, a Congressman can simply bypass the local development council and initiate projects
on his own, and even take sole credit for its execution. Indeed, this type of personality-driven project
identification has not only contributed little to the overall development of the district, but has even
contributed to "further weakening infrastructure planning and coordination efforts of the government."

Thus, insofar as individual legislators are authorized to intervene in purely local matters and thereby
subvert genuine local autonomy, the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other similar forms of
Congressional Pork Barrel is deemed unconstitutional.

With this final issue on the Congressional Pork Barrel resolved, the Court now turns to the
substantive issues involving the Presidential Pork Barrel.

C. Substantive Issues on the Presidential Pork Barrel.

1. Validity of Appropriation.

Petitioners preliminarily assail Section 8 of PD 910 and Section 12 of PD1869 (now, amended by PD
1993), which respectively provide for the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund, as
invalid appropriations laws since they do not have the "primary and specific" purpose of authorizing
the release of public funds from the National Treasury. Petitioners submit that Section 8 of PD 910 is
not an appropriation law since the "primary and specific‖ purpose of PD 910 is the creation of an
Energy Development Board and Section 8 thereof only created a Special Fund incidental
thereto.237 In similar regard, petitioners argue that Section 12 of PD 1869 is neither a valid
appropriations law since the allocation of the Presidential Social Fund is merely incidental to the
"primary and specific" purpose of PD 1869 which is the amendment of the Franchise and Powers of
PAGCOR.238 In view of the foregoing, petitioners suppose that such funds are being used without any
valid law allowing for their proper appropriation in violation of Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution which states that: "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of
an appropriation made by law."239

The Court disagrees.

"An appropriation made by law‖ under the contemplation of Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution exists when a provision of law (a) sets apart a determinate or determinable240 amount of
money and (b) allocates the same for a particular public purpose. These two minimum designations
of amount and purpose stem from the very definition of the word "appropriation," which means "to
allot, assign, set apart or apply to a particular use or purpose," and hence, if written into the law,
demonstrate that the legislative intent to appropriate exists. As the Constitution "does not provide or
prescribe any particular form of words or religious recitals in which an authorization or appropriation
by Congress shall be made, except that it be ‘made by law,‘" an appropriation law may – according
to Philconsa – be "detailed and as broad as Congress wants it to be" for as long as the intent to
appropriate may be gleaned from the same. As held in the case of Guingona, Jr.:241

There is no provision in our Constitution that provides or prescribes any particular form of words or
religious recitals in which an authorization or appropriation by Congress shall be made, except that it
be "made by law," such as precisely the authorization or appropriation under the questioned
presidential decrees. In other words, in terms of time horizons, an appropriation may be made
impliedly (as by past but subsisting legislations) as well as expressly for the current fiscal year (as by
enactment of laws by the present Congress), just as said appropriation may be made in general as
well as in specific terms. The Congressional authorization may be embodied in annual laws, such as
a general appropriations act or in special provisions of laws of general or special application which
appropriate public funds for specific public purposes, such as the questioned decrees. An
appropriation measure is sufficient if the legislative intention clearly and certainly appears from the
language employed (In re Continuing Appropriations, 32 P. 272), whether in the past or in the
present. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

Likewise, as ruled by the US Supreme Court in State of Nevada v. La Grave:242

To constitute an appropriation there must be money placed in a fund applicable to the designated
purpose. The word appropriate means to allot, assign, set apart or apply to a particular use or
purpose. An appropriation in the sense of the constitution means the setting apart a portion of the
public funds for a public purpose. No particular form of words is necessary for the purpose, if the
intention to appropriate is plainly manifested. (Emphases supplied)

Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court cannot sustain the argument that the appropriation must be
the "primary and specific" purpose of the law in order for a valid appropriation law to exist. To
reiterate, if a legal provision designates a determinate or determinable amount of money and
allocates the same for a particular public purpose, then the legislative intent to appropriate becomes
apparent and, hence, already sufficient to satisfy the requirement of an "appropriation made by law"
under contemplation of the Constitution.

Section 8 of PD 910 pertinently provides:

Section 8. Appropriations. x x x

All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board from any and all sources including receipts from service
contracts and agreements such as application and processing fees, signature bonus, discovery
bonus, production bonus; all money collected from concessionaires, representing unspent work
obligations, fines and penalties under the Petroleum Act of 1949; as well as the government share
representing royalties, rentals, production share on service contracts and similar payments on the
exploration, development and exploitation of energy resources, shall form part of a Special Fund to
be used to finance energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the
government and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President. (Emphases
supplied)
Whereas Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, reads:

Sec. 12. Special Condition of Franchise. — After deducting five (5%) percent as Franchise Tax, the
Fifty (50%) percent share of the Government in the aggregate gross earnings of the Corporation
from this Franchise, or 60% if the aggregate gross earnings be less than ₱150,000,000.00 shall be
set aside and shall accrue to the General Fund to finance the priority infrastructure development
projects and to finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may
be directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines. (Emphases supplied)

Analyzing the legal text vis-à-vis the above-mentioned principles, it may then be concluded that (a)
Section 8 of PD 910, which creates a Special Fund comprised of "all fees, revenues, and receipts of
the Energy Development Board from any and all sources" (a determinable amount) "to be used to
finance energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government and
for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" (a specified public purpose),
and (b) Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, which similarly sets aside, "after deducting
five (5%) percent as Franchise Tax, the Fifty (50%) percent share of the Government in the
aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR, or 60%, if the aggregate gross earnings be less than
₱150,000,000.00" (also a determinable amount) "to finance the priority infrastructure development
projects and x x x the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be
directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines" (also a specified public
purpose), are legal appropriations under Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

In this relation, it is apropos to note that the 2013 PDAF Article cannot be properly deemed as a
legal appropriation under the said constitutional provision precisely because, as earlier stated, it
contains post-enactment measures which effectively create a system of intermediate appropriations.
These intermediate appropriations are the actual appropriations meant for enforcement and since
they are made by individual legislators after the GAA is passed, they occur outside the law. As such,
the Court observes that the real appropriation made under the 2013 PDAF Article is not the ₱24.79
Billion allocated for the entire PDAF, but rather the post-enactment determinations made by the
individual legislators which are, to repeat, occurrences outside of the law. Irrefragably, the 2013
PDAF Article does not constitute an "appropriation made by law" since it, in its truest sense, only
authorizes individual legislators to appropriate in violation of the non-delegability principle as afore-
discussed.

2. Undue Delegation.

On a related matter, petitioners contend that Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation of
legislative power since the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the
President" gives the President "unbridled discretion to determine for what purpose the funds will be
used."243 Respondents, on the other hand, urged the Court to apply the principle of ejusdem generis
to the same section and thus, construe the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the President" to refer only to other purposes related "to energy resource development
and exploitation programs and projects of the government."244

The Court agrees with petitioners‘ submissions.

While the designation of a determinate or determinable amount for a particular public purpose is
sufficient for a legal appropriation to exist, the appropriation law must contain adequate legislative
guidelines if the same law delegates rule-making authority to the Executive245 either for the purpose
of (a) filling up the details of the law for its enforcement, known as supplementary rule-making, or (b)
ascertaining facts to bring the law into actual operation, referred to as contingent rule-
making.246 There are two (2) fundamental tests to ensure that the legislative guidelines for delegated
rule-making are indeed adequate. The first test is called the "completeness test." Case law states
that a law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate. On the other hand, the second test is called the "sufficient standard
test." Jurisprudence holds that a law lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate‘s authority and prevent
the delegation from running riot.247 To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the
delegate‘s authority, announce the legislative policy, and identify the conditions under which it is to
be implemented.248

In view of the foregoing, the Court agrees with petitioners that the phrase "and for such other
purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" under Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an
undue delegation of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient standard to
adequately determine the limits of the President‘s authority with respect to the purpose for which the
Malampaya Funds may be used. As it reads, the said phrase gives the President wide latitude to use
the Malampaya Funds for any other purpose he may direct and, in effect, allows him to unilaterally
appropriate public funds beyond the purview of the law. That the subject phrase may be confined
only to "energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government"
under the principle of ejusdem generis, meaning that the general word or phrase is to be construed
to include – or be restricted to – things akin to, resembling, or of the same kind or class as those
specifically mentioned,249 is belied by three (3) reasons: first, the phrase "energy resource
development and exploitation programs and projects of the government" states a singular and
general class and hence, cannot be treated as a statutory reference of specific things from which the
general phrase "for such other purposes" may be limited; second, the said phrase also exhausts the
class it represents, namely energy development programs of the government;250 and, third, the
Executive department has, in fact, used the Malampaya Funds for non-energy related purposes
under the subject phrase, thereby contradicting respondents‘ own position that it is limited only to
"energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government."251 Thus,
while Section 8 of PD 910 may have passed the completeness test since the policy of energy
development is clearly deducible from its text, the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be
hereafter directed by the President" under the same provision of law should nonetheless be stricken
down as unconstitutional as it lies independently unfettered by any sufficient standard of the
delegating law. This notwithstanding, it must be underscored that the rest of Section 8, insofar as it
allows for the use of the Malampaya Funds "to finance energy resource development and
exploitation programs and projects of the government," remains legally effective and subsisting.
Truth be told, the declared unconstitutionality of the aforementioned phrase is but an assurance that
the Malampaya Funds would be used – as it should be used – only in accordance with the avowed
purpose and intention of PD 910.

As for the Presidential Social Fund, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Section 12 of PD
1869 has already been amended by PD 1993 which thus moots the parties‘ submissions on the
same.252 Nevertheless, since the amendatory provision may be readily examined under the current
parameters of discussion, the Court proceeds to resolve its constitutionality.

Primarily, Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, indicates that the Presidential Social
Fund may be used "to first, finance the priority infrastructure development projects and second, to
finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and
authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines." The Court finds that while the second
indicated purpose adequately curtails the authority of the President to spend the Presidential Social
Fund only for restoration purposes which arise from calamities, the first indicated purpose, however,
gives him carte blanche authority to use the same fund for any infrastructure project he may so
determine as a "priority". Verily, the law does not supply a definition of "priority in frastructure
development projects" and hence, leaves the President without any guideline to construe the same.
To note, the delimitation of a project as one of "infrastructure" is too broad of a classification since
the said term could pertain to any kind of facility. This may be deduced from its lexicographic
definition as follows: "the underlying framework of a system, especially public services and facilities
(such as highways, schools, bridges, sewers, and water-systems) needed to support commerce as
well as economic and residential development."253 In fine, the phrase "to finance the priority
infrastructure development projects" must be stricken down as unconstitutional since – similar to the
above-assailed provision under Section 8 of PD 910 – it lies independently unfettered by any
sufficient standard of the delegating law. As they are severable, all other provisions of Section 12 of
PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, remains legally effective and subsisting.

D. Ancillary Prayers. 1.

Petitioners’ Prayer to be Furnished Lists and Detailed Reports.

Aside from seeking the Court to declare the Pork Barrel System unconstitutional – as the Court did
so in the context of its pronouncements made in this Decision – petitioners equally pray that the
Executive Secretary and/or the DBM be ordered to release to the CoA and to the public: (a) "the
complete schedule/list of legislators who have availed of their PDAF and VILP from the years 2003
to 2013, specifying the use of the funds, the project or activity and the recipient entities or
individuals, and all pertinent data thereto" (PDAF Use Schedule/List);254 and (b) "the use of the
Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary funds, including the proceeds from the x x x Malampaya Funds
and remittances from the PAGCOR x x x from 2003 to 2013, specifying the x x x project or activity
and the recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto"255 (Presidential Pork Use
Report). Petitioners‘ prayer is grounded on Section 28, Article II and Section 7, Article III of the 1987
Constitution which read as follows:

ARTICLE II

Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a
policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

ARTICLE III Sec. 7.

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions,
as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

The Court denies petitioners‘ submission.

Case law instructs that the proper remedy to invoke the right to information is to file a petition for
mandamus. As explained in the case of Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission:256

While the manner of examining public records may be subject to reasonable regulation by the
government agency in custody thereof, the duty to disclose the information of public concern, and to
afford access to public records cannot be discretionary on the part of said agencies. Certainly, its
performance cannot be made contingent upon the discretion of such agencies. Otherwise, the
enjoyment of the constitutional right may be rendered nugatory by any whimsical exercise of agency
discretion. The constitutional duty, not being discretionary, its performance may be compelled by a
writ of mandamus in a proper case.
But what is a proper case for Mandamus to issue? In the case before Us, the public right to be
enforced and the concomitant duty of the State are unequivocably set forth in the Constitution.

The decisive question on the propriety of the issuance of the writ of mandamus in this case is,
whether the information sought by the petitioner is within the ambit of the constitutional guarantee.
(Emphases supplied)

Corollarily, in the case of Valmonte v. Belmonte Jr.257 (Valmonte), it has been clarified that the right to
information does not include the right to compel the preparation of "lists, abstracts, summaries and
the like." In the same case, it was stressed that it is essential that the "applicant has a well -defined,
clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of defendant to
perform the act required." Hence, without the foregoing substantiations, the Court cannot grant a
particular request for information. The pertinent portions of Valmonte are hereunder quoted:258

Although citizens are afforded the right to information and, pursuant thereto, are entitled to "access
to official records," the Constitution does not accord them a right to compel custodians of official
records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information on
matters of public concern.

It must be stressed that it is essential for a writ of mandamus to issue that the applicant has a well-
defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of
defendant to perform the act required. The corresponding duty of the respondent to perform the
required act must be clear and specific Lemi v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-20768, November 29,1968,126
SCRA 203; Ocampo v. Subido, G.R. No. L-28344, August 27, 1976, 72 SCRA 443.

The request of the petitioners fails to meet this standard, there being no duty on the part of
respondent to prepare the list requested. (Emphases supplied)

In these cases, aside from the fact that none of the petitions are in the nature of mandamus actions,
the Court finds that petitioners have failed to establish a "a well-defined, clear and certain legal right"
to be furnished by the Executive Secretary and/or the DBM of their requested PDAF Use
Schedule/List and Presidential Pork Use Report. Neither did petitioners assert any law or
administrative issuance which would form the bases of the latter‘s duty to furnish them with the
documents requested. While petitioners pray that said information be equally released to the CoA, it
must be pointed out that the CoA has not been impleaded as a party to these cases nor has it filed
any petition before the Court to be allowed access to or to compel the release of any official
document relevant to the conduct of its audit investigations. While the Court recognizes that the
information requested is a matter of significant public concern, however, if only to ensure that the
parameters of disclosure are properly foisted and so as not to unduly hamper the equally important
interests of the government, it is constrained to deny petitioners‘ prayer on this score, without
prejudice to a proper mandamus case which they, or even the CoA, may choose to pursue through a
separate petition.

It bears clarification that the Court‘s denial herein should only cover petitioners‘ plea to be furnished
with such schedule/list and report and not in any way deny them, or the general public, access to
official documents which are already existing and of public record. Subject to reasonable regulation
and absent any valid statutory prohibition, access to these documents should not be proscribed.
Thus, in Valmonte, while the Court denied the application for mandamus towards the preparation of
the list requested by petitioners therein, it nonetheless allowed access to the documents sought for
by the latter, subject, however, to the custodian‘s reasonable regulations,viz.:259
In fine, petitioners are entitled to access to the documents evidencing loans granted by the GSIS,
subject to reasonable regulations that the latter may promulgate relating to the manner and hours of
examination, to the end that damage to or loss of the records may be avoided, that undue
interference with the duties of the custodian of the records may be prevented and that the right of
other persons entitled to inspect the records may be insured Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,
supra at p. 538, quoting Subido v. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 387. The petition, as to the second and third
alternative acts sought to be done by petitioners, is meritorious.

However, the same cannot be said with regard to the first act sought by petitioners, i.e.,

"to furnish petitioners the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the
UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately before the February 7
election thru the intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos."

The Court, therefore, applies the same treatment here.

2. Petitioners’ Prayer to Include Matters in Congressional Deliberations.

Petitioners further seek that the Court "order the inclusion in budgetary deliberations with the
Congress of all presently, off-budget, lump sum, discretionary funds including but not limited to,
proceeds from the x x x Malampaya Fund, remittances from the PAGCOR and the PCSO or the
Executive‘s Social Funds."260

Suffice it to state that the above-stated relief sought by petitioners covers a matter which is generally
left to the prerogative of the political branches of government. Hence, lest the Court itself overreach,
it must equally deny their prayer on this score.

3. Respondents’ Prayer to Lift TRO; Consequential Effects of Decision.

The final issue to be resolved stems from the interpretation accorded by the DBM to the concept of
released funds. In response to the Court‘s September 10, 2013 TRO that enjoined the release of the
remaining PDAF allocated for the year 2013, the DBM issued Circular Letter No. 2013-8 dated
September 27, 2013 (DBM Circular 2013-8) which pertinently reads as follows:

3.0 Nonetheless, PDAF projects funded under the FY 2013 GAA, where a Special Allotment
Release Order (SARO) has been issued by the DBM and such SARO has been obligated by the
implementing agencies prior to the issuance of the TRO, may continually be implemented and
disbursements thereto effected by the agencies concerned.

Based on the text of the foregoing, the DBM authorized the continued implementation and
disbursement of PDAF funds as long as they are: first, covered by a SARO; and, second, that said
SARO had been obligated by the implementing agency concerned prior to the issuance of the
Court‘s September 10, 2013 TRO.

Petitioners take issue with the foregoing circular, arguing that "the issuance of the SARO does not
yet involve the release of funds under the PDAF, as release is only triggered by the issuance of a
Notice of Cash Allocation [(NCA)]."261 As such, PDAF disbursements, even if covered by an obligated
SARO, should remain enjoined.

For their part, respondents espouse that the subject TRO only covers "unreleased and unobligated
allotments." They explain that once a SARO has been issued and obligated by the implementing
agency concerned, the PDAF funds covered by the same are already "beyond the reach of the TRO
because they cannot be considered as ‘remaining PDAF.‘" They conclude that this is a reasonable
interpretation of the TRO by the DBM.262

The Court agrees with petitioners in part.

At the outset, it must be observed that the issue of whether or not the Court‘s September 10, 2013
TRO should be lifted is a matter rendered moot by the present Decision. The unconstitutionality of
the 2013 PDAF Article as declared herein has the consequential effect of converting the temporary
injunction into a permanent one. Hence, from the promulgation of this Decision, the release of the
remaining PDAF funds for 2013, among others, is now permanently enjoined.

The propriety of the DBM‘s interpretation of the concept of "release" must, nevertheless, be resolved
as it has a practical impact on the execution of the current Decision. In particular, the Court must
resolve the issue of whether or not PDAF funds covered by obligated SAROs, at the time this
Decision is promulgated, may still be disbursed following the DBM‘s interpretation in DBM Circular
2013-8.

On this score, the Court agrees with petitioners‘ posturing for the fundamental reason that funds
covered by an obligated SARO are yet to be "released" under legal contemplation. A SARO, as
defined by the DBM itself in its website, is "aspecific authority issued to identified agencies to incur
obligations not exceeding a given amount during a specified period for the purpose indicated. It shall
cover expenditures the release of which is subject to compliance with specific laws or regulations, or
is subject to separate approval or clearance by competent authority."263

Based on this definition, it may be gleaned that a SARO only evinces the existence of an obligation
and not the directive to pay. Practically speaking, the SARO does not have the direct and immediate
effect of placing public funds beyond the control of the disbursing authority. In fact, a SARO may
even be withdrawn under certain circumstances which will prevent the actual release of funds. On
the other hand, the actual release of funds is brought about by the issuance of the NCA,264 which is
subsequent to the issuance of a SARO. As may be determined from the statements of the DBM
representative during the Oral Arguments:265

Justice Bernabe: Is the notice of allocation issued simultaneously with the SARO?

xxxx

Atty. Ruiz: It comes after. The SARO, Your Honor, is only the go signal for the agencies to obligate
or to enter into commitments. The NCA, Your Honor, is already the go signal to the treasury for us to
be able to pay or to liquidate the amounts obligated in the SARO; so it comes after. x x x The NCA,
Your Honor, is the go signal for the MDS for the authorized government-disbursing banks to,
therefore, pay the payees depending on the projects or projects covered by the SARO and the NCA.

Justice Bernabe: Are there instances that SAROs are cancelled or revoked?

Atty. Ruiz: Your Honor, I would like to instead submit that there are instances that the SAROs issued
are withdrawn by the DBM.

Justice Bernabe: They are withdrawn?

Atty. Ruiz: Yes, Your Honor x x x. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

Thus, unless an NCA has been issued, public funds should not be treated as funds which have been
"released." In this respect, therefore, the disbursement of 2013 PDAF funds which are only covered
by obligated SAROs, and without any corresponding NCAs issued, must, at the time of this
Decision’s promulgation, be enjoined and consequently reverted to the unappropriated surplus of the
general fund. Verily, in view of the declared unconstitutionality of the 2013 PDAF Article, the funds
appropriated pursuant thereto cannot be disbursed even though already obligated, else the Court
sanctions the dealing of funds coming from an unconstitutional source.

This same pronouncement must be equally applied to (a) the Malampaya Funds which have been
obligated but not released – meaning, those merely covered by a SARO – under the phrase "and for
such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" pursuant to Section 8 of PD
910; and (b) funds sourced from the Presidential Social Fund under the phrase "to finance the
priority infrastructure development projects" pursuant to Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD
1993, which were altogether declared by the Court as unconstitutional. However, these funds should
not be reverted to the general fund as afore-stated but instead, respectively remain under the
Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund to be utilized for their corresponding special
purposes not otherwise declared as unconstitutional.

E. Consequential Effects of Decision.

As a final point, it must be stressed that the Court‘s pronouncement anent the unconstitutionality of
(a) the 2013 PDAF Article and its Special Provisions, (b) all other Congressional Pork Barrel
provisions similar thereto, and (c) the phrases (1) "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the President" under Section 8 of PD 910, and (2) "to finance the priority infrastructure
development projects" under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, must only be treated
as prospective in effect in view of the operative fact doctrine.

To explain, the operative fact doctrine exhorts the recognition that until the judiciary, in an
appropriate case, declares the invalidity of a certain legislative or executive act, such act is
presumed constitutional and thus, entitled to obedience and respect and should be properly
enforced and complied with. As explained in the recent case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
San Roque Power Corporation,266 the doctrine merely "reflects awareness that precisely because the
judiciary is the governmental organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or
executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of
judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of
fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such
adjudication."267 "In the language of an American Supreme Court decision: ‘The actual existence of a
statute, prior to such a determination of unconstitutionality, is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot justly be ignored.‘"268

For these reasons, this Decision should be heretofore applied prospectively.

Conclusion

The Court renders this Decision to rectify an error which has persisted in the chronicles of our
history. In the final analysis, the Court must strike down the Pork Barrel System as unconstitutional
in view of the inherent defects in the rules within which it operates. To recount, insofar as it has
allowed legislators to wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight, post-enactment authority in vital
areas of budget execution, the system has violated the principle of separation of powers; insofar as it
has conferred unto legislators the power of appropriation by giving them personal, discretionary
funds from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine, it has
similarly violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power ; insofar as it has created a
system of budgeting wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has flouted the
prescribed procedure of presentment and, in the process, denied the President the power to veto
items ; insofar as it has diluted the effectiveness of congressional oversight by giving legislators a
stake in the affairs of budget execution, an aspect of governance which they may be called to
monitor and scrutinize, the system has equally impaired public accountability ; insofar as it has
authorized legislators, who are national officers, to intervene in affairs of purely local nature, despite
the existence of capable local institutions, it has likewise subverted genuine local autonomy ; and
again, insofar as it has conferred to the President the power to appropriate funds intended by law for
energy-related purposes only to other purposes he may deem fit as well as other public funds under
the broad classification of "priority infrastructure development projects," it has once more
transgressed the principle of non-delegability.

For as long as this nation adheres to the rule of law, any of the multifarious unconstitutional methods
and mechanisms the Court has herein pointed out should never again be adopted in any system of
governance, by any name or form, by any semblance or similarity, by any influence or effect.
Disconcerting as it is to think that a system so constitutionally unsound has monumentally endured,
the Court urges the people and its co-stewards in government to look forward with the optimism of
change and the awareness of the past. At a time of great civic unrest and vociferous public debate,
the Court fervently hopes that its Decision today, while it may not purge all the wrongs of society nor
bring back what has been lost, guides this nation to the path forged by the Constitution so that no
one may heretofore detract from its cause nor stray from its course. After all, this is the Court‘s
bounden duty and no other‘s.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. In view of the constitutional violations
discussed in this Decision, the Court hereby declares as UNCONSTITUTIONAL: (a) the entire 2013
PDAF Article; (b) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as
the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which authorize/d
legislators – whether individually or collectively organized into committees – to intervene, assume or
participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not
limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund
release and/or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight; (c) all legal
provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and
CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which confer/red personal, lump-sum
allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves
determine; (d) all informal practices of similar import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to
be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (e) the phrases
(1) "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" under Section 8 of
Presidential Decree No. 910 and (2) "to finance the priority infrastructure development projects"
under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993, for
both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative
power.

Accordingly, the Court‘s temporary injunction dated September 10, 2013 is hereby declared to be
PERMANENT. Thus, the disbursement/release of the remaining PDAF funds allocated for the year
2013, as well as for all previous years, and the funds sourced from (1) the Malampaya Funds under
the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" pursuant to
Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910, and (2) the Presidential Social Fund under the phrase "to
finance the priority infrastructure development projects" pursuant to Section 12 of Presidential
Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993, which are, at the time this Decision
is promulgated, not covered by Notice of Cash Allocations (NCAs) but only by Special Allotment
Release Orders (SAROs), whether obligated or not, are hereby ENJOINED. The remaining PDAF
funds covered by this permanent injunction shall not be disbursed/released but instead reverted to
the unappropriated surplus of the general fund, while the funds under the Malampaya Funds and the
Presidential Social Fund shall remain therein to be utilized for their respective special purposes not
otherwise declared as unconstitutional.

On the other hand, due to improper recourse and lack of proper substantiation, the Court hereby
DENIES petitioners‘ prayer seeking that the Executive Secretary and/or the Department of Budget
and Management be ordered to provide the public and the Commission on Audit complete
lists/schedules or detailed reports related to the availments and utilization of the funds subject of
these cases. Petitioners‘ access to official documents already available and of public record which
are related to these funds must, however, not be prohibited but merely subjected to the custodian‘s
reasonable regulations or any valid statutory prohibition on the same. This denial is without prejudice
to a proper mandamus case which they or the Commission on Audit may choose to pursue through
a separate petition.

The Court also DENIES petitioners prayer to order the inclusion of the funds subject of these cases
in the budgetary deliberations of Congress as the same is a matter left to the prerogative of the
political branches of government.

Finally, the Court hereby DIRECTS all prosecutorial organs of the government to, within the bounds
of reasonable dispatch, investigate and accordingly prosecute all government officials and/or private
individuals for possible criminal offenses related to the irregular, improper and/or unlawful
disbursement/utilization of all funds under the Pork Barrel System.

This Decision is immediately executory but prospective in effect.

SO ORDERED.