CORONA VS UNITED HARBOUR PILOT GR NO 127980 CASE DIGEST FACTS: : IN ISSUING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 04-92 (PPA-AO NO.

04-92), LIMITING THE TERM OF APPOINTMENT OF HARBOR PILOTS TO ONE YEAR SUBJECT TO YEARLY RENEWAL OR CANCELLATION ON AUGUST 12, 1992, RESPONDENTS UNITED HARBOUR PILOTS ASSOCIATION AND THE MANILA PILOTS ASSOCIATION, THROUGH CAPT. ALBERTO C. COMPAS, QUESTIONED PPA-AO NO. 04-92 ON DECEMBER 23, 1992, THE OP ISSUED AN ORDER DIRECTING THE PPA TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PPA-AO NO. 0492ON MARCH 17, 1993, THE OP, THROUGH THEN ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS RENATO C. CORONA, DISMISSED THE APPEAL/PETITION AND LIFTED THE RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED EARLIER RESPONDENTS FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND INJUNCTION WITH PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DAMAGES, BEFORE BRANCH 6 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

TO ENJOY THEIR PROFESSION BEFORE THEIR COMPULSORY RETIREMENT

and intimidation, slander, noise barrage and other acts showing disdain for and defiance of University authority. The pending civil case for damages and a criminal case for malicious mischief against petitioner Guzman, cannot, without more, furnish sufficient warrant for his

Diosdado Guzman vs. National University Facts:

expulsion or debarment from re-enrollment. Also, apparent is the omission of respondents to cite this Court to any duly published rule of theirs by which students may be expelled or refused re-enrollment for

Petitioners Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo and Ariel Ramacula, students of respondent National University, seek relief from what they described as their school's "continued and persistent refusal to allow them to enrol."

poor scholastic standing.

To satisfy the demands of procedural due process, the following requisites must be met: 1. the students must be informed in writing of the

In their petition on August 7, 1984 for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction, they alleged that they were denied due to the fact that they were active participation in peaceful mass actions within the premises of the University. The respondents on the other hand claimed that the petitioners failure to enroll for the first semester of the school year 1984-1985 is due to

nature and cause of any accusation against them; 2. they shag have the right to answer the charges

against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; 3. them; 4. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in they shall be informed of the evidence against

ISSUE: WON PPA-AO-04-92 IS CONSTITUTIONAL

their own fault and not because of their alleged exercise of their constitutional and human rights. As regards to Guzman, his academic

their own behalf; and 5. the evidence must be duly considered by the

HELD: THE COURT IS CONVINCED THAT PPA-AO NO. 04-92 WAS ISSUED IN STARK DISREGARD OF RESPONDENTS' RIGHT AGAINST DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT IN ORDER TO FALL WITHIN THE AEGIS OF THIS PROVISION, TWO CONDITIONS MUST CONCUR, NAMELY, THAT THERE IS A DEPRIVATION AND THAT SUCH DEPRIVATION IS DONE WITHOUT PROPER OBSERVANCE OF DUE PROCESS. AS A GENERAL RULE, NOTICE AND HEARING, AS THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, ARE ESSENTIAL ONLY WHEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY EXERCISES ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION. IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS ISSUING RULES AND REGULATIONS, AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY NEED NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE AND HEARING

showing was poor due to his activities in leading boycotts of classes. They said that Guzman is facing criminal charges for malicious mischief before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in connection with the destruction of properties of respondent University. RULING:

investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

The petition was granted wherein the respondents are directed to The petitioners have failures in their records, and are not of good scholastic standing. allow the petitioners (students) to re-enrol without prejudice to any disciplinary proceedings.

Issue:

Whether or Not there is violation of the due process clause.

ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts:

Held: Petitioner Joseph Estrada who was prosecuted to An Act Defining and Immediately apparent from a reading of respondents' comment and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder, assailed that law is so defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the valid from the constitutionally infirm.

THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT PILOTAGE AS A APROFESSION HAS TAKEN ON THE NATURE OF A PROPERTY RIGHT. IT IS READILY APPARENT THAT PPA-AO NO. 04-92 UNDULY RESTRICTS THE RIGHT OF HARBOR PILOTS

memorandum is the fact that they had never conducted proceedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or participated in activities within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein or perpetrated acts of vandalism, coercion

His contentions are mainly based on the effects of the said law that it suffers from the vice of vagueness; it dispenses with the "reasonable

doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions; and it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code saying that it violates the fundamental rights of the accused.

constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional. On its face invalidation of statues results in striking them down entirely on the

ISAE filed a notice of strike. Due to the failure to reach a compromise in the NCMB, the matter reached the DOLE which favored the School. Hence this petition.

The focal point of the case is the alleged vagueness of the law in the terms it uses. Particularly, this terms are: combination, series and unwarranted. Because of this, the petitioner uses the facial challenge on the validity of the mentioned law.

ground that they might be applied to parties not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected. It is evident that the purported ambiguity of the Plunder Law is more imagined than real. The crime of plunder as a malum in se is deemed to have been resolve in the Congress decision to include it among the heinous crime ISSUE: Whether the foreign-hires should be included in bargaining unit of local- hires.

Issue:

punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Supreme Court holds the plunder law constitutional and petition is dismissed for lacking merit.

Whether or Not the petitioner possesses the locus standi to attack the validity of the law using the facial challenge. G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000 Held: FACTS: On how the law uses the terms combination and series does not constitute vagueness. The petitioners contention that it would not give a fair warning and sufficient notice of what the law seeks to penalize cannot be plausibly argued. Void-for-vagueness doctrine is manifestly misplaced under the petitioners reliance since ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, wherein clarification by a saving clause or construction cannot be invoked. Said doctrine may not invoked in this case since the statute is clear and free from ambiguity. Vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld, not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. On the other hand, over breadth doctrine decrees that governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. Doctrine of strict scrutiny holds that a facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible chilling effect upon protected speech. Furthermore, in the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. A facial challenge to legislative acts is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists. Doctrines mentioned are analytical tools developed for facial challenge of a statute in free speech cases. With respect to such statue, the established rule is that one to who application of a statute is When negotiations for a new CBA were held on June 1995, petitioner ISAE, a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty members of the School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires. This issue, as well as the question of whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit, eventually caused a deadlock between the parties. The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded localhires. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate 25% more than localhires. Private respondent International School, Inc. (School), pursuant to PD 732, is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. The decree authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally or abroad, from Philippine or other nationalities, such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and regulations attending their employment, except laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees. School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) localhires.

RULING: NO. The Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3, specifically provides that labor is entitled to humane conditions of work. These conditions are not restricted to the physical workplace the factory, the office or the field but include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees. Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Article 248 declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. The Constitution enjoins the State to protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare, In Section 18, Article II of the constitution mandates to afford labor full protection. The State has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital. These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good. However, foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the local-hires. A bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.

The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment status. The basic test of an asserted bargaining units acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. In the case at bar, it does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the School also shows that these groups were always treated separately. Foreignhires have limited tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign-hires perform similar functions under the same working conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded certain benefits not granted to local-hires such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel allowances. These benefits are reasonably related to their status as foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the former from the latter. To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not assure either group the exercise of their respective collective bargaining rights. WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. Equal Protection Eligibility to Office after Being 65 Dumlao was the former governor of Nueva Vizcaya. He has retired from his office and he has been receiving retirement benefits therefrom. He filed for reelection to the same office for the 1980 local elections. On the other hand, BP 52 was passed (par 1 thereof) providing disqualification for the likes of Dumlao. Dumlao assailed the BP averring that it is class legislation hence unconstitutional. His petition was joined by Atty. Igot and Salapantan Jr. These two however have different issues. The suits of Igot and Salapantan are more of a taxpayers suit assailing the other provisions of BP 52 regarding the term of office of the elected officials, the length of the campaign and the provision barring persons charged for crimes may not run for public office and that the filing of complaints against them and after preliminary

investigation would already disqualify them from office. In general, Dumlao invoked equal protection in the eye of the law. ISSUE: Whether or not the there is cause of action. HELD: The SC pointed out the procedural lapses of this case for this case would never have been merged. Dumlaos cause is different from Igots. They have separate issues. Further, this case does not meet all the requisites so that itd be eligible for judicial review. There are standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the function of judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case. In this case, only the 3rd requisite was met. The SC ruled however that the provision barring persons charged for crimes may not run for public office and that the filing of complaints against them and after preliminary investigation would already disqualify them from office as null and void. The assertion that Sec 4 of BP 52 is contrary to the safeguard of equal protection is neither well taken. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. If the groupings are based on reasonable and real differentiations, one class can be treated and regulated differently from another class. For purposes of public service, employees 65 years of age, have been validly classified differently from younger employees. Employees attaining that age are subject to compulsory retirement, while those of younger ages are not so compulsorily retirable. In respect of election to provincial, city, or municipal positions, to require that candidates should not be more than 65 years of age at the time they assume office, if applicable to everyone, might or might not be a reasonable classification although, as the Solicitor General has intimated, a good policy of the law should be to promote the emergence of younger blood in our political elective echelons. On the other hand, it might be that persons more than 65 years old may also be good elective local officials. Retirement from government service may or may not be a reasonable disqualification for elective local officials. For one thing, there can also be retirees from government service at ages, say below 65. It may neither be reasonable to disqualify retirees, aged 65, for a 65-year old retiree could be a good local official just like one, aged 65, who is not a retiree.

But, in the case of a 65-year old elective local official (Dumalo), who has retired from a provincial, city or municipal office, there is reason to disqualify him from running for the same office from which he had retired, as provided for in the challenged provision.

GSIS v. MONTESCLAROS

FACTS: Milagros assail unconstitutionality of section 18 PD 1146 being violative of due process and equal protection clause. When her husband died, she filed in GSIS for claim for survivorship pension. GSIS denied claim, it said surviving spouse has no right of survivorship pension if the surviving spouse contracted the marriage with the pensioner within three years before the pensioner qualified for the pension.

HELD: There is denial of due process when it outrightly denies the claim for survivorship. There is outright confiscation of benefits due the surviving spouse without giving her an opportunity to be heard. There is also violation of equal protection. A proviso requiring certain number of years of togetherness in marriage before the employees death is valid to prevent sham marriages contracted for monetary gains. Here, it is 3 years before pensioner qualified for the pension. Under this, even if the dependent spouse married the pensioner more than 3 years before the pensioners death, the dependent spouse would still not receive survivorship pension if the marriage took place within 3 years before the pensioner qualified for pension. The object of prohibition is vague. There is no reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose intended.

Eastern Broadcasting Corp (DYRE) v. Dans Jr. 137 SCRA 628 L-59329 July 19, 1985

(3) The decision must have something to support itself.

Borjal v Court of Appeals 301 SCRA 1 January 14, 1999

(4) Evidence must be substantial (reasonable evidence that is adequate to support conclusion)

Facts: A civil action for damages based on libel was filed before the court against Borjal and Soliven for writing and publishing articles that are allegedly derogatory and offensive against Francisco

Facts: A petition was filed to reopen the Radio Station DYRE. DYRE was summarily closed on grounds of national security. The radio station was allegedly used to incite people to sedition. Petitioner, DYRE contends that they were denied due process. There was no hearing to establish factual evidence for the closure. Furthermore, the closure of the radio station violates freedom of expression. Before the court could even promulgate a decision upon the Issue raised, Petitioner, through its president Mr. Rene Espina, filed a motion to withdraw the petition. The rights of the station were sold to a new owner, Manuel Pastrana; who is no longer interested in pursuing the case. Despite the case becoming moot and academic, (because there are no longer interested parties, thus the dismissal of the case) the Supreme Court still finds that there is need to pass a RESOLUTION for the guidance of inferior courts and administrative tribunals in matters as this case.

(5) Decision must be based on the evidence presented at hearing

Wenceslao, attacking among others the solicitation letters he send to support a conference to be launch concerning resolving matters on

(6) The tribunal body must act on its own independent consideration of law and facts and not simply accept subordinates views

transportation crisis that is tainted with anomalous activities. Wenceslao however was never named in any of the articles nor was the conference he was organizing. The lower court ordered petitioners to

(7) Court must render decision in such a manner that the proceeding can know the various issued involved and reasons for decisions rendered.

indemnify the private respondent for damages which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. A petition for review was filed before the SC contending that private respondent was not sufficiently identified to be

The court stresses that while there is no controlling and precise definition of Due Process, it gives an unavoidable standard that government actions must conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty and property is valid.

the subject of the published articles.

Issue: Whether or not there are sufficient grounds to constitute guilt of petitioners for libel.

The closure of the radio station is like wise a violation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression. The court

Held: In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the person attacked or defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the libelous publication. These requisites have not been complied with in the case at bar. The element of identifiability was not met since it was Wenceslaso who revealed he was the organizer of said conference and had he not done so the public would not have known.

Issue:

stresses that all forms of media, whether print or broadcast are entitled to this constitutional right. Although the government still has the right

Whether or not due process was exercised in the case of DYRE.

to be protected against broadcasts which incite the listeners to violently overthrow it. The test for the limitation of freedom of

Whether or not the closure of DYRE is a violation of the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Expression.

expression is the clear and present danger rule. If in the circumstances that the media is used in such nature as to create this danger that will bring in such evils, then the law has the right to prevent

Held: The court finds that the closure of the Radio Station in 1980 as null and void. The absence of a hearing is a violation of Constitutional Rights. The primary requirements in administrative proceedings are laid down in the case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relation (69 Phil.635). The Ang Tibay Doctrine should be followed before any broadcast station may be closed. The Ang Tibay Doctrine provides the following requirements:

it. However, Radio and television may not be used to organize a rebellion or signal a start of widespread uprising. The freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy. The people continues to have the right to be informed on public affairs and broadcast media continues to have the pervasive influence to the people being the most accessible form of media. Therefore, broadcast stations deserve the the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process and freedom of expression The concept of privileged communications is implicit in the freedom of the press and that privileged communications must be protective of public opinion. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable

(1) The right to hearing, includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence presented.

clauses of the Constitution.

(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented

imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the

comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.

sidewalks, magazines,publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public at the University belt along C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila, in the presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and

charged as being obscene may fall." Another is whether it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency. Ultimately "whether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances of the case and that the question is to be decided by the "judgment of the aggregate sense of the community reached by it." The government authorities in the instant case have not shown the required

The questioned article dealt with matters of public interest as the declared objective of the conference, the composition of its members and participants, and the manner by which it was intended to be funded no doubt lend to its activities as being genuinely imbued with public interest. Respondent is also deemed to be a public figure and even otherwise is involved in a public issue. The court held that freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed and protected with the reminder among media members to practice highest ethical standards in the exercise thereof. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A privileged communication may be either:

members

of

various

student

organizations.

Among the publications seized, and later burned, was "Pinoy Playboy"magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita.

proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature First of all, they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography, and (2) authorizing them to carry out

Plaintiff filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera, as superintendent of Western Police District of the City ofManila, seeking to enjoin said defendants and their agents from confiscating plaintiffs magazines or from preventing the sale or circulation thereof claiming that the magazine is a decent, artistic and educational magazine which is not per se obscene, and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of

a search and seizure, by way of a search warrant. The court provides that the authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in their opinion an obscenity seizure is in order and that;

1. The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are obscene and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action; 2. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed obscene. The question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judges sound discretion;

1. Absolutely privileged communication those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. An example is found in Sec. 11, Art.VI, of the 1987 Constitution which exempts a member of Congress from liability for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof.

speech and of the press. Plaintiff also filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order against indiscriminate seizure, confiscation and pending burning hearing of on plaintiff's the "Pinoy petition

Playboy"Magazines,

for preliminary injunction. The Court granted the temporary restraining order. The case was set for trial upon the lapse of the TRO. RTC ruled

2.

Qualifiedly

privileged

communications those

containing

that the seizure was valid. This was affirmed by the CA.

defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made without good intention justifiable motive. To this genre belong "private communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks." Issue: Whether or Not the seizure violative of the freedom of expression of the petitioner.

Held: Freedom of the press is not without restraint as the state has the PITA VS. COURT OF APPEALS [178 SCRA 362; G.R. NO.80806; 5 OCT 1989] right to protect society from pornographic literature that is offensive to public morals, as indeed we have laws punishing the author, publishers and sellers of obscene publications. However, It is easier said than done Facts: On December 1 and 3, 1983, pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing, elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group, Auxilliary Services Bureau, Western Police District, INP of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila, seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila to say, that if the pictures here in question were used not exactly for art's sake but rather for commercial purposes, the pictures are not entitled to any constitutional protection. Using the Kottinger rule: the test of obscenity is "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article

MTRCB GR FACTS:

v. No.

ABS-CBN

and 155282

Loren

Legarda (2005) IN RE Emil (Emiliano) P. JURADO Ex Rel.: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) Posted on June 20, 2013 by winnieclaire

allegedly hosted a party; and six unnamed justices of this Court who reportedly spent a prepaid vacation in Hong Kong with their families. The Chief Justice issued an administrative order Creating an Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate Reports of Corruption in the Judiciary, to S

An episode of The Inside Story entitled Prosti-tuition, produced by Loren Legarda was aired by ABS-CBN depicting female students moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. Philippine Womens University (PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved. MTRCB alleged that the episode besmirched the name of the PWU and respondents did not submit The Inside Story to MTRCB for review and exhibited the same without its permission, violating Sec. 7 of PD 1986, Sec. 3, Chapter III and Sec. 7, Chapter IV of MTRCB Rules and Regulations.

tandard Facts: Jurado, a journalist who writes in a newspaper of general circulation, the Manila Standard. He describes himself as a columnist, who incidentally happens to be a lawyer,, had been writing about alleged improperties and irregularities in the judiciary over several months (from about October, 1992 to March, 1993). Other journalists had also been making reports or comments on the same subject. At the same time, anonymous communications were being extensively circulated, by hand and through the mail, about alleged venality and corruption in the courts. And all these were being repeatedly and

investigate the said reports of corruption in the judiciary. A letter affidavit was also received from the public utility, denying the allegations in Jurados column. The Supreme Court then issued a resolution ordering that the matter dealt with in the letter and affidavit of the public utility company be docketed and acted upon as an official Court proceeding for the determination of whether or not the allegations made by Jurado are true. HELD: Jurados actuations, in the context in which they were done, demonstrate gross irresponsibility, and indifference to factual accuracy and the injury that he might cause to the name and reputation of those of whom he wrote. They constitute contempt of court, directly tending as they do to degrade or abase the administration of justice and the

MTRCB declared that all subsequent programs of the The Inside Story and all other programs of the ABS-CBN Ch. 2 of the same category shall be submitted to the Board of Review and Approval before showing. On appeal, RTC ruled that Sections 3 (c) (d), 4, 7 and 11 of P. D. No. 1986 and Sections 3, 7 and 28 (a) of the MTRCB Rules and Regulations are unconstitutional for violating the freedom of expression and of the press guaranteed by the Constitution

insistently adverted to by certain sectors of society. Events Directly Giving Rise to the Proceeding at Bar. The seed of the proceeding at bar was sown by the decision promulgated by this Court on August 27, 1992, in the so-called controversial case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Eastern Telephone Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), G.R. No, 94374. In that decision the Court was sharply divided; the vote was 9 to 4, in favor of

judges engaged in that function. By doing them, he has placed himself beyond the circle of reputable, decent and responsible journalists who live by their Code or the Golden Rule and who strive at all times to maintain the prestige and nobility of their calling. Although honest utterances, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and deliberately published about a public official, should enjoy a like immunity. The knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection. The Civil Code, in its Article 19 lays down the norm for the proper exercise of any right, constitutional or otherwise, viz.: ARTICLE 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. The provision is reflective of the universally accepted precept of abuse of rights, one of the most dominant principles which must be deemed always implied in any system of law. Requirement to exercise bona fide care in ascertaining the truth of the statements when publishing statements which are clearly defamatory to identifiable judges or other public officials.

ISSUE : Whether or not there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry so as to proceed with the issue on constitutionality.

the petitioner PLDT. Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., wrote the opinion for the majority. In connection with this case, G.R. No. 94374, the Philippine Daily

RULING: NO. There is no need to resolve whether certain provisions of PD 1986 and MTRCB Rules and Regulations contravene the Constitution. 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: 1) proper party 2)actual case or controversy 3) question raised at the earliest possible opportunity and 4) that the decision on the constitutional or legal question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. The fourth requisite is wanting. MTRCB did not disapprove or ban the showing of the program nor did it cancel respondents permit. The latter was merely penalized for their failure to submit the program to MTRCB for its review and approval. Therefore, the issue of constitutionality is not necessary to the determination of the case itself.

Inquirer and one or two other newspapers published, on January 28, 1993, a report of the purported affidavit of a Mr. David Miles Yerkes, an alleged expert in linguistics. This gentleman, it appears, had been commissioned by one of the parties in the case, Eastern Telephone Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), to examine and analyze the decision of Justice Gutierrez in relation to a few of his prior ponencias and the writings of one of the lawyers of PLDT, Mr. Eliseo Alampay, to ascertain if the decision had been written, in whole or in part, by the latter. Yerkes proffered the conclusion that the Gutierrez decision looks, reads and sounds like the writing of the PLDTs counsel, Thus, he speaks of the Magnificent Seven, by merely referring to undisclosed regional trial court judges in Makati; the Magnificent Seven in the Supreme Court, as some undesignated justices who supposedly vote as one; the Dirty Dozen, as unidentified trial judges in Makati and three other cities. He adverts to an anonymous group of justices and judges for whom a bank

Judges, by becoming such, are rightly regarded as voluntarily subjecting themselves to norms of conduct which embody more stringent standards of honesty, integrity, and competence than are commonly required from private persons. Nevertheless, persons who seek or accept appointment to the Judiciary cannot reasonably be regarded as having forfeited any right to private honor and reputation. For to so rule will be to discourage all save those who feel no need to maintain their self-respect from becoming judges. The public interest involved in freedom of speech and the individual interest of judges (and for that matter, all other public officials) in the maintenance of private honor and reputation need to be accommodated one to the other. And the point of adjustment or accommodation between these two legitimate interests is precisely found in the norm which requires those who, invoking freedom of speech, publish statements which are clearly defamatory to identifiable judges or other public officials to exercise bona fide care in ascertaining the truth of the statements they publish. The norm does not require that a journalist guarantee the truth of what he says or publishes. But the norm does prohibit the reckless disregard of private reputation by publishing or circulating defamatory statements without any bona fide effort to ascertain the truth thereof.

Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law. But the same cannot be invoked as defense to the primacy of the Philippine Constitution which upholds and guarantees the rights to free speech and peacable assembly. At the same time, the City Ordinance issued by respondent mayor cannot be invoked if the application thereof would collide with a constitutionally guaranteed right/s.

free speech in school is not always absolute. The court upheld the right of students for the freedom of expression but it does not rule out disciplinary actions of the school on the conduct of their students. Further, Sec. 7 of the of the Campus Journalism Act provides that the school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles they write EXCEPT when such article materially disrupts class work of involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. Therefore the court ruled that the power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to suspend or expel. It is a necessary corollary

Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v CA 348 SCRA 265 December 15, 2000

to the enforcement of rules and regulations and the maintenance of a safe and orderly educational environment conducive tolearning. That

Facts: The members of the editorial board of the Miriam College Foundations school paper were subjected to disciplinary sanction by the College Discipline Committee after letters of complaint were filed before the Board following the publication of the school paper that contains obscene, vulgar, and sexually explicit contents. Prior to the disciplinary sanction to the defendants they were required to submit a written statement to answer the complaints against them to the Discipline Committee but the defendants, instead of doing so wrote to the Committee to transfer the case to the DECS which they alleged to have the jurisdiction over the issue. Pushing through with the investigation ex parte the Committee found the defendants guilty and imposed upon them disciplinary sanctions. Defendants filed before the court for prohibition with preliminary injunction on said decision of the

power, like the power to suspend or expel, is an inherent part of the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning guaranteed by the Constitution. The court held that Miriam College has the authority to hear and decide the cases filed against respondent students.

Reyes v Bagatsing

Committee questioning the jurisdiction of said Discipline Board over the defendants.

Retired Justice Reyes in behalf of the members of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit to rally from Luneta Park until the front gate of the US embassy which is less than two blocks apart. The permit has been denied by then Manila mayor Bagatsing. The mayor claimed that there have been intelligence reports that indicated that the rally would be infiltrated by lawless elements. He also issued City Ordinance No. 7295 to prohibit the staging of rallies within the 500 meter radius of the US embassy. Bagatsing pointed out that it was his intention to provide protection to the US embassy from such lawless elements in pursuant to Art 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. And that under our constitution we adhere to generally accepted principles of international law. ISSUE: Whether or not a constitutional right is being violated by the mayors ordinance. HELD: Indeed, the receiving state is tasked for the protection of foreign diplomats from any lawless element. And indeed the Vienna Held: The court resolved the issue before it by looking through the power of DECS and the Disciplinary Committee in imposing sanctions upon the defendants. Section 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees all institutions of higher learning academic freedom. This institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. Such duty gives the institution the right to discipline its students and inculcate upon them good values, ideals and attitude. The right of students to Issue: WON the Discipline Board of Miriam College has jurisdiction over the defendants.