Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July 18, 1950

D E C I S I O N

(En Banc)

OZAETA, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

The Senate investigated the purchase by the government of two parcels of land, known as Buenavista and Tambobong estates. An intriguing question that the Senate sought to resolve was the apparent irregularity of the government’s payment to one Ernest Burt, a non-resident American citizen, of the total sum of Php1.5 million for his alleged interest in the two estates that only amounted to Php20,000.00, which he seemed to have forfeited anyway long before. The Senate sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of the government.

Petitioner Jean Arnault, who acted as agent of Ernest Burt in the subject transactions, was one of the witnesses summoned by the Senate to its hearings. In the course of the investigation, the petitioner repeatedly refused to divulge the name of the person to whom he gave the amount of Php440,000.00, which he withdrew from the Php1.5 million proceeds pertaining to Ernest Burt.

Arnault was therefore cited in contempt by the Senate and was committed to the custody of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms for imprisonment until he answers the questions. He thereafter filed a petition for habeas corpus directly with the Supreme Court questioning the validity of his detention.

In re Garcia, G.R. No. _____, August 15, 1961

R E S O L U T I O N

(En Banc)

BARRERA, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Arturo E. Garcia, a Filipino citizen, studied law, became a lawyer and practiced law in Spain. Later, he applied for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without taking the Philippine bar examinations. He cited the provision of the Treaty of Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Philippines and Spain and argued that he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines even without submitting to the required bar examinations.

Tatad v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997

D E C I S I O N

(En Banc)

PUNO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Petitioners assailed §5(b) and §15 of R.A. No. 8180, the Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1996.

§5(b) of the law provided that “tariff duty shall be imposed . . . on imported crude oil at the rate of three percent (3%) and imported refined petroleum products at the rate of seven percent (7%) . . .” On the other hand, §15 provided that “[t]he DOE shall, upon approval of the President, implement the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry not later than March 1997. As far as practicable, the DOE shall time the full deregulation when the prices of crude oil and petroleum products in the world market are declining and when the exchange rate of the peso in relation to the US dollar is stable . . .”

Petitioners argued that §5(b) on tariff differential violates the provision of the Constitution requiring every law to have only one subject which should be expressed in its title.

They also contended that the phrases “as far as practicable,” “decline of crude oil prices in the world market” and “stability of the peso exchange rate to the US dollar” are ambivalent, unclear and inconcrete since they do not provide determinate or determinable standards that can guide the President in his decision to fully deregulate the downstream oil industry.

Petitioners also assailed the President’s E.O. No. 392, which proclaimed the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry in February 1997.  They argued that the Executive misapplied R.A. No. 8180 when it considered the depletion of the OPSF fund as a factor in the implementation of full deregulation.

Finally, they asserted that the law violated §19, Article XII of the Constitution prohibiting monopolies, combinations in restraint of trade and unfair competition

Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936

D E C I S I O N

(En Banc)

LAUREL, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Petitioner Jose Angara was proclaimed winner and took his oath of office as member of the National Assembly of the Commonwealth Government. On December 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed a resolution confirming the election of those who have not been subject of an election protest prior to the adoption of the said resolution.

On December 8, 1935, however, private respondent Pedro Ynsua filed an election protest against the petitioner before the Electoral Commission of the National Assembly. The following day, December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted its own resolution providing that it will not consider any election protest that was not submitted on or before December 9, 1935.

Citing among others the earlier resolution of the National Assembly, the petitioner sought the dismissal of respondent’s protest. The Electoral Commission however denied his motion.

Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000

D E C I S I O N

(En Banc)

BUENA, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America entered into an agreement called the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The agreement was treated as a treaty by the Philippine government and was ratified by then-President Joseph Estrada with the concurrence of 2/3 of the total membership of the Philippine Senate.

The VFA defines the treatment of U.S. troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits, and further defines the rights of the U.S. and the Philippine governments in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and supplies.

Petitioners argued, inter alia, that the VFA violates §25, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate . . . and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.” 

Tañada, et al., v. Angara, et al., G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997

D E C I S I O N

(En Banc)

PANGANIBAN, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

 Petitioners Senators Tañada, et al. questioned the constitutionality of the concurrence by the Philippine Senate of the President’s ratification of the international Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO).  They argued that the WTO Agreement violates the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to “develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . . . (to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods.” Further, they contended that the “national treatment” and “parity provisions” of the WTO Agreement “place nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products,” in contravention of the “Filipino First” policy of our Constitution, and render meaningless the phrase “effectively controlled by Filipinos.”

Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949

D E C I S I O N

(En Banc)

MORAN, C.J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, the Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation, was charged before the Philippine Military Commission of war crimes. He questioned the constitutionality of E.O. No. 68 that created the National War Crimes Office and prescribed rules on the trial of accused war criminals. He contended the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore he is charged of crimes not based on law, national and international. 

Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

D E C I S I O N

(En Banc)

BELLOSILLO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government, the GSIS sold in public auction its stake in Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). Only 2 bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.

Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court to compel the GSIS to allow it to match the bid of Renong Berhad. It invoked the Filipino First Policy enshrined in §10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that “in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.”

Philip Sigfrid Fortun v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 190293, March 20, 2012 (and other consolidated cases)

D E C I S I O N

(En Banc)

ABAD, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

On November 23, 2009, heavily armed men believed led by the ruling Ampatuan family of Maguindanao gunned down and buried under shoveled dirt 57 innocent civilians.  In response to this carnage, President Arroyo issued on November 24, 2009 PP 1946 declaring a state of emergency in Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato City.

On December 4, 2009, President Arroyo issued PP 1959 declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao except for identified areas of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. On December 6, 2009, President Arroyo submitted her report to Congress. On December 9, 2009, Congress convened in joint session to review the validity of the President’s action.  But two days later, or on December 12, 2009, before Congress could act, the President issued PP 1963, lifting martial law and restoring the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870 (and other consolidated petitions), November 3, 2008

D E C I S I O N
(En Banc)

VELASCO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

These consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionality of Sec. 36 of R.A. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, insofar as it requires mandatory drug testing of (1) candidates for public office; (2) students of secondary and tertiary schools; (3) officers and employees of public and private offices; and (4) persons charged before the prosecutor’s office of a crime with an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day.

Lenido Lumanog v. People of the Philippines (and other consolidated cases), G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010

D E C I S I O N
(En Banc)

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Appellants were the accused perpetrators of the ambush-slay of former Chief of the Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine Constabulary (now the Philippine National Police), Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla.

The principal witness for the prosecution was Freddie Alejo, a security guard employed assigned at 211 Katipunan Avenue, Blue Ridge, Quezon City, where the ambush-slay happened. As a purported eyewitness, he testified on what he saw during the fateful day, including the faces of the accused. 

20th Century Fox Film v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988

D E C I S I O N

(3^rd Division)

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Petitioner 20^th Century Fox Film Corporation sought the assistance of the NBI in conducting searches and seizures in connection with the NBI’s anti-film piracy campaign. Petitioner alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films in violation of PD No. 49 (the old Intellectual Property Law).

The NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and subsequently filed three (3) applications for search warrants against the video outlets owned by the private respondents.  The lower court issued the desired search warrants. The NBI, accompanied by the petitioner's agents, raided the video outlets and seized the items described in the three warrants.

Results of the 2011 Bar Examinations Out This Week

ABS-CBNnews.com reports today that the results of the 2011 Bar examinations will be released this Wednesday, February 29, 2012.

Last week, there were reports (rumours) that the result will be out last Tuesday after the Supreme Court en banc session, but that turned out to be a dud for many examinees and their friends and loved ones.

The waiting is an ordeal for the examinees. And as the day of reckoning draws nearer and nearer, there are those who resign to the fates. They wax fatalistic and go que sera sera. But many just want to get over with it so they can already map out their next moves.

Francisco Chavez v. Raul M. Gonzales and National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008

D E C I S I O N
(En Banc)

PUNO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

As a consequence of the public release of copies of the “Hello Garci” compact disc audiotapes involving a wiretapped mobile phone conversation between then-President Gloria Arroyo and Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, respondent DOJ Secretary Gonzales warned reporters that those who had copies of the CD and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act. He also stated that persons possessing or airing said tapes were committing a continuing offense, subject to arrest by anybody. Finally, he stated that he had ordered the National Bureau of Investigation to go after media organizations “found to have caused the spread, the playing and the printing of the contents of a tape.” 

Meanwhile, respondent NTC warned in a press release all radio stations and TV network owners/operators that the conditions of the authorization and permits issued to them by government like the Provisional Authority and/or Certificate of Authority explicitly provides that they shall not use their stations for the broadcasting or telecasting of false information or willful misrepresentation. The NTC stated that the continuous airing or broadcast of the “Hello Garci” taped conversations by radio and TV stations is a continuing violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the conditions of the Provisional Authority and/or Certificate of Authority.  It warned that their broadcast/airing of such false information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be a just cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations issued to the said media establishments.

Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233, February 10, 1936

SUTHERLAND, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

The case of Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233, February 10, 1936, involved a Louisiana law that imposed on publishing companies a license tax of 2% of the gross receipts for the privilege of engaging in advertising in newspapers, magazines or periodicals if their circulation is more than 20,000 copies per week. Nine Louisiana-based publishers of newspapers, with circulations of more than 20,000 copies per week each, filed a suit to enjoin the enforcement against them of the said provision. They assailed the validity of the act on the ground, inter alia, that it abridges the freedom of the press in contravention of the due process clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, June 30, 1971

PER CURIAM:

I.      THE FACTS

In New York Times vs. U.S., 403 U.S. 713, June 30, 1971, the federal government of the U.S. sought to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified Pentagon study entitled “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.”

Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996

D E C I S I O N

PUNO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Several pre-taped episodes of the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” of the religious group Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) were rated “X” – i.e., not for public viewing – by the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television (now MTRCB). These TV programs allegedly “offend[ed] and constitute[d] an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law” because of petitioner INC’s controversial biblical interpretations and its “attacks” against contrary religious beliefs. 

Petitioner INC went to court to question the actions of respondent Board. The RTC ordered the respondent Board to grant petitioner INC the necessary permit for its TV programs. But on appeal by the respondent Board, the CA reversed the RTC. The CA ruled that: (1) the respondent Board has jurisdiction and power to review the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied permit for the exhibition on TV of the three series of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the ground that the materials constitute an attack against another religion. The CA also found the subject TV series “indecent, contrary to law and contrary to good customs.” Dissatisfied with the CA decision, petitioner INC appealed to the Supreme Court.

Philippine Savings Bank v. Senate Impeachment Court, G.R. No. 200238, February 9, 2012

R E S O L U T I O N

(Re Application by Petitioners of a TRO)

I.      THE FACTS

Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank) and its President, Pascual M. Garcia III, filed before the Supreme Court an original civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The TRO was sought to stop the Senate, sitting as impeachment court, from further implementing the Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum, dated February 6, 2012, that it issued against the Branch Manager of PS Bank, Katipunan Branch. The subpoena assailed by petitioners covers the foreign currency denominated accounts allegedly owned by the impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona of the Philippine Supreme Court.

China Banking Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 140687, December 18, 2006

D E C I S I O N

(1^st Division)

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

A complaint for recovery of sums of money and annulment of sales of real properties and shares of stock was filed by Jose Gotianuy against his son-in-law, George Dee, and his daughter, Mary Margaret Dee. Jose Gotianuy accused his daughter Mary Margaret Dee of stealing, among his other properties, US dollar deposits with Citibank N.A. amounting to not less than P35,000,000.00 and US$864,000.00. Mary Margaret Dee received these amounts from Citibank N.A. through checks which she allegedly deposited at China Banking Corporation (China Bank). 

Jose Gotianuy died during the pendency of the case before the trial court. He was substituted by his other daughter, Elizabeth Gotianuy Lo. The latter presented six US Dollar checks withdrawn by Mary Margaret Dee from Jose Gotianuy’s US dollar placement with Citibank. In the course of the trial, the lower court ordered two employees of petitioner China Bank to testify and disclose in whose name the dollar fund was deposited. The CA affirmed the trial court’s order; thus, China Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.

Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 113930, March 5, 1996

D E C I S I O N

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Petitioners, who are corporate officers and members of the Board of Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. were prosecuted in connection with the Pepsi “Number Fever” promotion by handlers of the supposedly winning “349” Pepsi crowns. Of the four cases filed against the petitioners, probable cause was found by the investigating prosecutor only for the crime of estafa, but not for the other alleged offenses.

On 12 April 1993, the information was filed with the trial court without anything accompanying it. A copy of the investigating prosecutor’s Joint Resolution was forwarded to and received by the trial court only on 22 April 1993. However, no affidavits of the witnesses, transcripts of stenographic notes of the proceedings during the preliminary investigation, or other documents submitted in the course thereof were found in the records of the case as of 19 May 1993.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, June 10, 1968

D E C I S I O N

WARREN, C.J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Cleveland, Ohio detective McFadden was on a downtown beat that he had been patrolling for many years when he observed two strangers (Terry and another man, Chilton) at a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who thereafter left swiftly. 

Suspecting the two men of ‘casing a job, a stick-up’, the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men mumbled something, whereupon McFadden spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing, and felt in his overcoat pocket – but was unable to remove – a pistol. He removed Terry’s overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton’s outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under Terry’s or Chilton’s outer garments until he felt the guns.

Columbia Pictures v. Flores, G.R. No. 78631, June 29, 1993

D E C I S I O N

(3^rd Division)

MELO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

As a consequence of a complaint filed by the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., NBI agents conducted surveillance operations on certain video establishments, among them respondent FGT Video Network, Inc. (FGT), for “unauthorized sale, rental, reproduction and/or disposition of copyrighted film," a violation of PD 49 (the old Intellectual Property Law). After an NBI agent was able to have copyrighted motion pictures “Cleopatra” (owned by 20th Century Fox) and “The Ten Commandments” (owned by Paramount) reproduced in video format in FGT, the NBI applied for and was able to obtain from the respondent judge the subject Search Warrant No. 45 which reads:

TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:

GREETINGS:

It appearing to the satisfaction of the Undersigned after examining under oath NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes and his witnesses Mr. Danilo Manalang and Ms. Rebecca Benitez-Cruz, that there is a probable cause to believe that Violation of Section 56 P.D. No. 49 as amended by P.D. No. 1988 (otherwise known as the Decree on Protection of Intellectual Property) has been committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that FGT Video Network, Inc., Manuel Mendoza, Alfredo C. Ongyanco, Eric Apolonio, Susan Yang and Eduardo Yotoko are responsible and have in control/possession at No. 4 Epifanio de los Santos corner Connecticut, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila (per attached sketch and list of MPAA member Company Titles) the following properties to wit:

Randolf S. David v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 (and other consolidated cases)

D E C I S I O N

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

On February 24, 2006, as the Filipino nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the EDSA People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017, implemented by G.O. No. 5, declaring a state of national emergency, thus:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution which states that: “The President. . . whenever it becomes necessary, . . . may call out (the) armed forces to prevent or suppress. . .rebellion. . .,” and in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction; and as provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a State of National Emergency.

People v. Rodelio C. Exala, et al., G.R. No. 76005, April 23, 1993

D E C I S I O N

(1^st Division)

BELLOSILLO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

A private jeep driven by accused-appellant Bocalan was stopped at a police checkpoint in Cavite City for routine inspection. With Bocalan were his co-accused Fernandez and Exala. Pfc. Galang, a member of the inspection team, went near the jeep and asked the occupants if there were firearms inside. They answered in the negative. Pfc. Galang proceeded to inspect the vehicle by beaming a flashlight inside. He then noticed a black leather bag measuring about 1 foot wide and 2 feet long with its sides bulging. When he asked what it contained, there was deadening silence from the 3 accused. Nobody answered. Instead, they suddenly became fidgety. Suspicious, Pfc. Galang ordered the bag opened, which was found out to contain marijuana. The 3 accused were thereafter prosecuted and convicted of illegal transportation of marijuana. Accused Bocalan appealed and questioned the legality of the admission of the marijuana as evidence against him since it was seized without a valid search warrant.

Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989 (173 SCRA 211) : The Dissenting Opinions

DISSENTING OPINIONS

[At issue in this case is the validity of military and police checkpoints, and the searches and seizures attendant thereto, vis-a-vis the constitutional right of the people against unreasonable search and seizure.

As indicated in the immediately preceding post, the Supreme Court voted 13-2 to sustain the validity of these checkpoints. It held in part that “[b]etween the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual’s right against a warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.” Justice Padilla reasoned in his ponencia that “at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community.”

The Checkpoints Case : Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989 (173 SCRA 211)

D E C I S I O N

PADILLA, J.:

I.          THE FACTS

On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic and political development of the National Capital Region. As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. 

Petitioners Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, who is a resident of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the Union of Lawyers and Advocates For People’s Rights (ULAP) sought the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and elsewhere as unconstitutional. In the alternative, they prayed that respondents Renato De Villa and the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) be directed to formulate guidelines in the implementation of checkpoints for the protection of the people. Petitioners contended that the checkpoints gave the respondents blanket authority to make searches and seizures without search warrant or court order in violation of the Constitution.