G.R. No.

L-31195 June 5, 1973 PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION, NICANOR TOLENTINO, FLORENCIO, PADRIGANO RUFINO, ROXAS MARIANO DE LEON, ASENCION PACIENTE, BONIFACIO VACUNA, BENJAMIN PAGCU and RODULFO MUNSOD, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents. L.S. Osorio & P.B. Castillo and J.C. Espinas & Associates for petitioners. Demetrio B. Salem & Associates for private respondent.

MAKASIAR, J.: The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (hereinafter referred to as PBMEO) is a legitimate labor union composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and petitioners Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner Union. Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in by the workers in the first shift (from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.) as well as those in the regular second and third shifts (from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. and from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., respectively); and that they informed the respondent Company of their proposed demonstration. The questioned order dated September 15, 1969, of Associate Judge Joaquin M. Salvador of the respondent Court reproduced the following stipulation of facts of the parties parties 3. That on March 2, 1969 complainant company learned of the projected mass demonstration at Malacaang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig Police Department to be participated by the first shift (6:00 AM-2:00 PM) workers as well as those working in the regular shifts (7:00 A.M. to 4:00 PM and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) in the morning of March 4, 1969; 4. That a meeting was called by the Company on March 3, 1969 at about 11:00 A.M. at the Company's canteen, and those present were: for the Company: (1) Mr. Arthur L. Ang (2) Atty. S. de Leon, Jr., (3) and all department and section heads. For the PBMEO (1) Florencio Padrigano, (2) Rufino Roxas, (3) Mariano de Leon, (4) Asencion Paciente, (5) Bonifacio Vacuna and (6) Benjamin Pagcu. 5. That the Company asked the union panel to confirm or deny said projected mass demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969. PBMEO thru Benjamin Pagcu who acted as spokesman of the union panel, confirmed the planned demonstration and stated that the demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu explained further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management; 6. That Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager, informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. For which reason, the Company, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon warned the PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly , the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning (March 4, 1969) shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike; 7. That at about 5:00 P.M. on March 3, 1969, another meeting was convoked Company represented by Atty. C.S. de Leon, Jr. The Union panel was composed of: Nicanor Tolentino, Rodolfo Munsod, Benjamin Pagcu and Florencio Padrigano. In this afternoon meeting of March 3, 1969, Company reiterated and appealed to the PBMEO representatives that while all workers may join the Malacaang demonstration, the workers for the first and regular shift of March 4, 1969 should be excused from joining the demonstration and should report for work; and thus utilize the workers in the 2nd and 3rd shifts in order not to violate the provisions of the CBA, particularly Article XXIV: NO LOCKOUT NO STRIKE'. All those who will not follow this warning of the Company shall be dismiss; De Leon reiterated the Company's warning that the officers shall be primarily liable

being the organizers of the mass demonstration. The union panel countered that it was rather too late to change their plans inasmuch as the Malacaang demonstration will be held the following morning; and 8. That a certain Mr. Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a cablegram to the Company which was received 9:50 A.M., March 4, 1969, the contents of which are as follows: 'REITERATING REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT EMPLOYEES JOINING DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4, 1969.' (Pars. 3-8, Annex "F", pp. 42-43, rec.) Because the petitioners and their members numbering about 400 proceeded with the demonstration despite the pleas of the respondent Company that the first shift workers should not be required to participate in the demonstration and that the workers in the second and third shifts should be utilized for the demonstration from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. on March 4, 1969, respondent Company prior notice of the mass demonstration on March 4, 1969, with the respondent Court, a charge against petitioners and other employees who composed the first shift, charging them with a "violation of Section 4(a)-6 in relation to Sections 13 and 14, as well as Section 15, all of Republic Act No. 875, and of the CBA providing for 'No Strike and No Lockout.' " (Annex "A", pp. 19-20, rec.). The charge was accompanied by the joint affidavit of Arthur L. Ang and Cesareo de Leon, Jr. (Annex "B", pp. 21-24, rec.). Thereafter, a corresponding complaint was filed, dated April 18, 1969, by Acting Chief Prosecutor Antonio T. Tirona and Acting Prosecutor Linda P. Ilagan (Annex "C", pp. 25-30, rec.) In their answer, dated May 9, 1969, herein petitioners claim that they did not violate the existing CBA because they gave the respondent Company prior notice of the mass demonstration on March 4, 1969; that the said mass demonstration was a valid exercise of their constitutional freedom of speech against the alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen; and that their mass demonstration was not a declaration of strike because it was not directed against the respondent firm (Annex "D", pp. 31-34, rec.) After considering the aforementioned stipulation of facts submitted by the parties, Judge Joaquin M. Salvador, in an order dated September 15, 1969, found herein petitioner PBMEO guilty of bargaining in bad faith and herein petitioners Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu, Nicanor Tolentino and Rodulfo Munsod as directly responsible for perpetrating the said unfair labor practice and were, as a consequence, considered to have lost their status as employees of the respondent Company (Annex "F", pp. 42-56, rec.) Herein petitioners claim that they received on September 23, 1969, the aforesaid order (p. 11, rec.); and that they filed on September 29, 1969, because September 28, 1969 fell on Sunday (p. 59, rec.), a motion for reconsideration of said order dated September 15, 1969, on the ground that it is contrary to law and the evidence, as well as asked for ten (10) days within which to file their arguments pursuant to Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules of the CIR, as amended (Annex "G", pp. 57-60, rec. ) In its opposition dated October 7, 1969, filed on October 11, 1969 (p. 63, rec.), respondent Company averred that herein petitioners received on September 22, 1969, the order dated September 17 (should be September 15), 1969; that under Section 15 of the amended Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations, herein petitioners had five (5) days from September 22, 1969 or until September 27, 1969, within which to file their motion for reconsideration; and that because their motion for reconsideration was two (2) days late, it should be accordingly dismissed, invoking Bien vs. Castillo, 1 which held among others, that a motion for extension of the fiveday period for the filing of a motion for reconsideration should be filed before the said five-day period elapses (Annex "M", pp. 61-64, rec.). Subsequently, herein petitioners filed on October 14, 1969 their written arguments dated October 11, 1969, in support of their motion for reconsideration (Annex "I", pp. 65-73, rec.). In a resolution dated October 9, 1969, the respondent en banc dismissed the motion for reconsideration of herein petitioners for being pro forma as it was filed beyond the reglementary period prescribed by its Rules (Annex "J", pp. 74-75, rec.), which herein petitioners received on October 28, 196 (pp. 12 & 76, rec.). At the bottom of the notice of the order dated October 9, 1969, which was released on October 24, 1969 and addressed to the counsels of the parties (pp. 75-76, rec.), appear the requirements of Sections 15, 16 and 17, as amended, of the Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations, that a motion for reconsideration shall be filed within five (5) days from receipt of its decision or order and that an appeal from the decision, resolution or order of the C.I.R., sitting en banc, shall be perfected within ten (10) days from receipt thereof (p. 76, rec.). On October 31, 1969, herein petitioners filed with the respondent court a petition for relief from the order dated October 9, 1969, on the ground that their failure to file their motion for reconsideration on time was due to excusable negligence and honest mistake committed by the president of the petitioner Union and of the office clerk of their counsel, attaching thereto the affidavits of the said president and clerk (Annexes "K", "K-1" and "K-2", rec.). Without waiting for any resolution on their petition for relief from the order dated October 9, 1969, herein petitioners filed on November 3, 1969, with the Supreme Court, a notice of appeal (Annex "L", pp. 88-89, rec.). I

There is need of briefly restating basic concepts and principles which underlie the issues posed by the case at bar. (1) In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human personality is the central core as well as the cardinal article of faith of our civilization. The inviolable character of man as an individual must be "protected to the largest possible extent in his thoughts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person." 2 (2) The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles." 3 In the pithy language of Mr. Justice Robert Jackson, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw "certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's rights to life, liberty and property, to free speech, or free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." 4 Laski proclaimed that "the happiness of the individual, not the well-being of the State, was the criterion by which its behaviour was to be judged. His interests, not its power, set the limits to the authority it was entitled to exercise." 5 (3) The freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the right to petition are included among the immunities reserved by the sovereign people, in the rhetorical aphorism of Justice Holmes, to protect the ideas that we abhor or hate more than the ideas we cherish; or as Socrates insinuated, not only to protect the minority who want to talk, but also to benefit the majority who refuse to listen. 6 And as Justice Douglas cogently stresses it, the liberties of one are the liberties of all; and the liberties of one are not safe unless the liberties of all are protected. 7 (4) The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the periodic establishment of the government through their suffrage but also in the administration of public affairs as well as in the discipline of abusive public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights so that he can appeal to the appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and protection as well as for the imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring public officers and employees. (5) While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized. 8 Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive," permitting government regulation only "with narrow specificity." 9 Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are extinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit the power of government and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the tyranny of officials, of majorities, of the influential and powerful, and of oligarchs political, economic or otherwise. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; 10 and such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." 11 The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or purpose that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights. 12 On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. So it has been stressed in the main opinion of Mr. Justice Fernando in Gonzales vs. Comelec and reiterated by the writer of the opinion in Imbong vs. Ferrer. 13 It should be added that Mr. Justice Barredo inGonzales vs. Comelec, supra, like Justices Douglas, Black and Goldberg in N.Y. Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 14believes that the freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances are absolute when directed against public officials or "when exercised in relation to our right to choose the men and women by whom we shall be governed," 15 even as Mr. Justice Castro relies on the balancing-of-interests test. 16 Chief Justice Vinson is partial to the improbable danger rule formulated by Chief Judge Learned Hand, viz. whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free expression as is necessary to avoid the danger. 17 II The respondent Court of Industrial Relations, after opining that the mass demonstration was not a declaration of strike, concluded that by their "concerted act and the occurrence temporary stoppage of work," herein petitioners are guilty bargaining in bad faith and hence violated the collective bargaining agreement with private respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., inc.. Set against and

tested by foregoing principles governing a democratic society, such conclusion cannot be sustained. The demonstration held petitioners on March 4, 1969 before Malacaang was against alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen, not against their employer, herein private respondent firm, said demonstrate was purely and completely an exercise of their freedom expression in general and of their right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances in particular before appropriate governmental agency, the Chief Executive, again the police officers of the municipality of Pasig. They exercise their civil and political rights for their mutual aid protection from what they believe were police excesses. As matter of fact, it was the duty of herein private respondent firm to protect herein petitioner Union and its members fro the harassment of local police officers. It was to the interest herein private respondent firm to rally to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report to work free from harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits. Herein respondent employer did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local police. Was it securing peace for itself at the expenses of its workers? Was it also intimidated by the local police or did it encourage the local police to terrorize or vex its workers? Its failure to defend its own employees all the more weakened the position of its laborers the alleged oppressive police who might have been all the more emboldened thereby subject its lowly employees to further indignities. In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression well as their right of assembly and of petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the employees and laborers of herein private respondent firm were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only the weapons afforded them by the Constitution the untrammelled enjoyment of their basic human rights. The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of its employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the preservation merely of their property rights. Such apprehended loss or damage would not spell the difference between the life and death of the firm or its owners or its management. The employees' pathetic situation was a stark reality abused, harassment and persecuted as they believed they were by the peace officers of the municipality. As above intimated, the condition in which the employees found themselves vis-a-vis the local police of Pasig, was a matter that vitally affected their right to individual existence as well as that of their families. Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. The wounds fester and the scars remain to humiliate him to his dying day, even as he cries in anguish for retribution, denial of which is like rubbing salt on bruised tissues. As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances over property rights has been sustained. 18 Emphatic reiteration of this basic tenet as a coveted boon at once the shield and armor of the dignity and worth of the human personality, the all-consuming ideal of our enlightened civilization becomes Our duty, if freedom and social justice have any meaning at all for him who toils so that capital can produce economic goods that can generate happiness for all. To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition. 19 The collective bargaining agreement which fixes the working shifts of the employees, according to the respondent Court Industrial Relations, in effect imposes on the workers the "duty ... to observe regular working hours." The strain construction of the Court of Industrial Relations that a stipulated working shifts deny the workers the right to stage mass demonstration against police abuses during working hours, constitutes a virtual tyranny over the mind and life the workers and deserves severe condemnation. Renunciation of the freedom should not be predicated on such a slender ground. The mass demonstration staged by the employees on March 4, 1969 could not have been legally enjoined by any court, such an injunction would be trenching upon the freedom expression of the workers, even if it legally appears to be illegal picketing or strike. 20 The respondent Court of Industrial Relations in the case at bar concedes that the mass demonstration was not a declaration of a strike "as the same not rooted in any industrial dispute although there is concerted act and the occurrence of a temporary stoppage work." (Annex "F", p. 45, rec.). The respondent firm claims that there was no need for all its employees to participate in the demonstration and that they suggested to the Union that only the first and regular shift from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. should report for work in order that loss or damage to the firm will be averted. This stand failed appreciate the sine qua non of an effective demonstration especially by a labor union, namely the complete unity of the Union members as well as their total presence at the demonstration site in order to generate the maximum sympathy for the validity of their cause but also immediately action on the part of the corresponding government agencies with jurisdiction over the issues they raised against the local police. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of expression. 21 If demonstrators are reduced by one-third, then by that much the circulation of the issues raised by the demonstration is diminished. The more the participants, the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rally. Moreover, the absence of one-third of their members will be regarded as a substantial indication of disunity in their ranks which will enervate their position and abet continued alleged police persecution. At any rate, the Union notified the company two days in advance of their projected demonstration and the company could have made arrangements to counteract or prevent whatever losses it might sustain by reason of the absence of its workers for one day, especially in this case when the Union requested it to excuse only the day-shift employees who will join the demonstration on March 4, 1969 which request the Union reiterated in their telegram received by the company at 9:50 in the morning of March 4, 1969, the day of the mass demonstration (pp. 42-43, rec.). There was a lack of human understanding or compassion on the part of the firm in rejecting the request of the Union for excuse from work for the day shifts in order to carry out its mass demonstration. And to regard as a ground for dismissal the mass demonstration held against the Pasig police, not against the company, is gross vindictiveness on the part of the employer, which is as unchristian as it is unconstitutional.

III The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice. Because the refusal on the part of the respondent firm to permit all its employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight (8) petitioners from the service constituted an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom petition for redress of grievances, the respondent firm committed an unfair labor practice defined in Section 4(a-1) in relation to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8 guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in concert activities for ... mutual aid or protection"; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair labor practice for an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise their rights guaranteed in Section Three." We repeat that the obvious purpose of the mass demonstration staged by the workers of the respondent firm on March 4, 1969, was for their mutual aid and protection against alleged police abuses, denial of which was interference with or restraint on the right of the employees to engage in such common action to better shield themselves against such alleged police indignities. The insistence on the part of the respondent firm that the workers for the morning and regular shift should not participate in the mass demonstration, under pain of dismissal, was as heretofore stated, "a potent means of inhibiting speech." 22 Such a concerted action for their mutual help and protection deserves at least equal protection as the concerted action of employees in giving publicity to a letter complaint charging bank president with immorality, nepotism, favoritism an discrimination in the appointment and promotion of ban employees. 23 We further ruled in the Republic Savings Bank case, supra, that for the employees to come within the protective mantle of Section 3 in relation to Section 4(a-1) on Republic Act No. 875, "it is not necessary that union activity be involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated," as long as the concerted activity is for the furtherance of their interests. 24 As stated clearly in the stipulation of facts embodied in the questioned order of respondent Court dated September 15, 1969, the company, "while expressly acknowledging, that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the Union guaranteed by the Constitution," nonetheless emphasized that "any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the company" and "warned the PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning (March 4, 1969) shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike (;)" (p. III, petitioner's brief). Such threat of dismissal tended to coerce the employees from joining the mass demonstration. However, the issues that the employees raised against the local police, were more important to them because they had the courage to proceed with the demonstration, despite such threat of dismissal. The most that could happen to them was to lose a day's wage by reason of their absence from work on the day of the demonstration. One day's pay means much to a laborer, more especially if he has a family to support. Yet, they were willing to forego their one-day salary hoping that their demonstration would bring about the desired relief from police abuses. But management was adamant in refusing to recognize the superior legitimacy of their right of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition for redress. Because the respondent company ostensibly did not find it necessary to demand from the workers proof of the truth of the alleged abuses inflicted on them by the local police, it thereby concedes that the evidence of such abuses should properly be submitted to the corresponding authorities having jurisdiction over their complaint and to whom such complaint may be referred by the President of the Philippines for proper investigation and action with a view to disciplining the local police officers involved. On the other hand, while the respondent Court of Industrial Relations found that the demonstration "paralyzed to a large extent the operations of the complainant company," the respondent Court of Industrial Relations did not make any finding as to the fact of loss actually sustained by the firm. This significant circumstance can only mean that the firm did not sustain any loss or damage. It did not present evidence as to whether it lost expected profits for failure to comply with purchase orders on that day; or that penalties were exacted from it by customers whose orders could not be filled that day of the demonstration; or that purchase orders were cancelled by the customers by reason of its failure to deliver the materials ordered; or that its own equipment or materials or products were damaged due to absence of its workers on March 4, 1969. On the contrary, the company saved a sizable amount in the form of wages for its hundreds of workers, cost of fuel, water and electric consumption that day. Such savings could have amply compensated for unrealized profits or damages it might have sustained by reason of the absence of its workers for only one day. IV Apart from violating the constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly as well as the right to petition for redress of grievances of the employees, the dismissal of the eight (8) leaders of the workers for proceeding with the demonstration and consequently being absent from work, constitutes a denial of social justice likewise assured by the fundamental law to these lowly employees. Section 5 of Article II of the Constitution imposes upon the State "the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all of the people," which guarantee is emphasized by the other directive in Section 6 of Article XIV of the Constitution that "the State shall afford protection to labor ...". Respondent Court of Industrial Relations as an agency of the State is under obligation at all times to give meaning and substance to these constitutional guarantees in favor of the working man; for otherwise these constitutional safeguards would be merely a lot of "meaningless constitutional patter." Under the Industrial Peace Act, the Court of Industrial Relations is enjoined to effect the policy of the law "to eliminate the causes of industrial unrest by encouraging and protecting the exercise by employees of their right to self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining and for the promotion of their moral, social and economic well-being." It is most unfortunate in the case at bar that respondent Court

of Industrial Relations, the very governmental agency designed therefor, failed to implement this policy and failed to keep faith with its avowed mission its raison d'etre as ordained and directed by the Constitution. V It has been likewise established that a violation of a constitutional right divests the court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is null and void and confers no rights. Relief from a criminal conviction secured at the sacrifice of constitutional liberties, may be obtained through habeas corpus proceedings even long after the finality of the judgment. Thus, habeas corpus is the remedy to obtain the release of an individual, who is convicted by final judgment through a forced confession, which violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination; 25or who is denied the right to present evidence in his defense as a deprivation of his liberty without due process of law, 26 even after the accused has already served sentence for twenty-two years. 27 Both the respondents Court of Industrial Relations and private firm trenched upon these constitutional immunities of petitioners. Both failed to accord preference to such rights and aggravated the inhumanity to which the aggrieved workers claimed they had been subjected by the municipal police. Having violated these basic human rights of the laborers, the Court of Industrial Relations ousted itself of jurisdiction and the questioned orders it issued in the instant case are a nullity. Recognition and protection of such freedoms are imperative on all public offices including the courts 28 as well as private citizens and corporations, the exercise and enjoyment of which must not be nullified by mere procedural rule promulgated by the Court Industrial Relations exercising a purely delegate legislative power, when even a law enacted by Congress must yield to the untrammelled enjoyment of these human rights. There is no time limit to the exercise of the freedoms. The right to enjoy them is not exhausted by the delivery of one speech, the printing of one article or the staging of one demonstration. It is a continuing immunity to be invoked and exercised when exigent and expedient whenever there are errors to be rectified, abuses to be denounced, inhumanities to be condemned. Otherwise these guarantees in the Bill of Rights would be vitiated by rule on procedure prescribing the period for appeal. The battle then would be reduced to a race for time. And in such a contest between an employer and its laborer, the latter eventually loses because he cannot employ the best an dedicated counsel who can defend his interest with the required diligence and zeal, bereft as he is of the financial resources with which to pay for competent legal services. 28-a VI The Court of Industrial Relations rule prescribes that motion for reconsideration of its order or writ should filed within five (5) days from notice thereof and that the arguments in support of said motion shall be filed within ten (10) days from the date of filing of such motion for reconsideration (Sec. 16). As above intimated, these rules of procedure were promulgated by the Court of Industrial Relations pursuant to a legislative delegation. 29 The motion for reconsideration was filed on September 29, 1969, or seven (7) days from notice on September 22, 1969 of the order dated September 15, 1969 or two (2) days late. Petitioners claim that they could have filed it on September 28, 1969, but it was a Sunday. Does the mere fact that the motion for reconsideration was filed two (2) days late defeat the rights of the petitioning employees? Or more directly and concretely, does the inadvertent omission to comply with a mere Court of Industrial Relations procedural rule governing the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal in labor cases, promulgated pursuant to a legislative delegation, prevail over constitutional rights? The answer should be obvious in the light of the aforecited cases. To accord supremacy to the foregoing rules of the Court of Industrial Relations over basic human rights sheltered by the Constitution, is not only incompatible with the basic tenet of constitutional government that the Constitution is superior to any statute or subordinate rules and regulations, but also does violence to natural reason and logic. The dominance and superiority of the constitutional right over the aforesaid Court of Industrial Relations procedural rule of necessity should be affirmed. Such a Court of Industrial Relations rule as applied in this case does not implement or reinforce or strengthen the constitutional rights affected,' but instead constrict the same to the point of nullifying the enjoyment thereof by the petitioning employees. Said Court of Industrial Relations rule, promulgated as it was pursuant to a mere legislative delegation, is unreasonable and therefore is beyond the authority granted by the Constitution and the law. A period of five (5) days within which to file a motion for reconsideration is too short, especially for the aggrieved workers, who usually do not have the ready funds to meet the necessary expenses therefor. In case of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, a period of fifteen (15) days has been fixed for the filing of the motion for re hearing or reconsideration (See. 10, Rule 51; Sec. 1, Rule 52; Sec. 1, Rule 56, Revised Rules of Court). The delay in the filing of the motion for reconsideration could have been only one day if September 28, 1969 was not a Sunday. This fact accentuates the unreasonableness of the Court of Industrial are concerned. It should be stressed here that the motion for reconsideration dated September 27, 1969, is based on the ground that the order sought to be reconsidered "is not in accordance with law, evidence and facts adduced during the hearing," and likewise prays for an extension of ten (10) days within which to file arguments pursuant to Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations (Annex "G", pp. 57-60, rec.); although the arguments were actually filed by the herein petitioners on October 14, 1969 (Annex "I", pp. 70-73, rec.), long after the 10-day period required for the filing of such supporting arguments counted from the filing of the motion for reconsideration. Herein petitioners received only on October 28, 1969 the resolution dated October 9, 1969 dismissing the motion for reconsideration for being pro forma since it was filed beyond the reglementary period (Annex "J", pp. 7475, rec.)

It is true that We ruled in several cases that where a motion to reconsider is filed out of time, or where the arguments in suppf such motion are filed beyond the 10 day reglementary period provided for by the Court of Industrial Relations rules, the order or decision subject of 29-a reconsideration becomes final and unappealable. But in all these cases, the constitutional rights of free expression, free assembly and petition were not involved. It is a procedural rule that generally all causes of action and defenses presently available must be specifically raised in the complaint or answer; so that any cause of action or defense not raised in such pleadings, is deemed waived. However, a constitutional issue can be raised any time, even for the first time on appeal, if it appears that the determination of the constitutional issue is necessary to a decision of the case, the very lis mota of the case without the resolution of which no final and complete determination of the dispute can be made. 30 It is thus seen that a procedural rule of Congress or of the Supreme Court gives way to a constitutional right. In the instant case, the procedural rule of the Court of Industrial Relations, a creature of Congress, must likewise yield to the constitutional rights invoked by herein petitioners even before the institution of the unfair labor practice charged against them and in their defense to the said charge. In the case at bar, enforcement of the basic human freedoms sheltered no less by the organic law, is a most compelling reason to deny application of a Court of Industrial Relations rule which impinges on such human rights. 30-a It is an accepted principle that the Supreme Court has the inherent power to "suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require." 30-b Mr. Justice Barredo in his concurring opinion in Estrada vs. Sto. Domingo. 30-c reiterated this principle and added that

Under this authority, this Court is enabled to cove with all situations without concerning itself about procedural niceties that do not square with the need to do justice, in any case, without further loss of time, provided that the right of the parties to a full day in court is not substantially impaired. Thus, this Court may treat an appeal as a certiorari and viceversa. In other words, when all the material facts are spread in the records before Us, and all the parties have been duly heard, it matters little that the error of the court a quo is of judgment or of jurisdiction. We can then and there render the appropriate judgment. Is within the contemplation of this doctrine that as it is perfectly legal and within the power of this Court to strike down in an appeal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or committed with grave abuse of discretion, it cannot be beyond the admit of its authority, in appropriate cases, to reverse in a certain proceed in any error of judgment of a court a quo which cannot be exactly categorized as a flaw of jurisdiction. If there can be any doubt, which I do not entertain, on whether or not the errors this Court has found in the decision of the Court of Appeals are short of being jurisdiction nullities or excesses, this Court would still be on firm legal grounds should it choose to reverse said decision here and now even if such errors can be considered as mere mistakes of judgment or only as faults in the exercise of jurisdiction, so as to avoid the unnecessary return of this case to the lower court for the sole purpose of pursuing the ordinary course of an appeal. (Emphasis supplied). -d
30

Insistence on the application of the questioned Court industrial Relations rule in this particular case at bar would an unreasoning adherence to "Procedural niceties" which denies justice to the herein laborers, whose basic human freedoms, including the right to survive, must be according supremacy over the property rights of their employer firm which has been given a full hearing on this case, especially when, as in the case at bar, no actual material damage has be demonstrated as having been inflicted on its property rights. If We can disregard our own rules when justice requires it, obedience to the Constitution renders more imperative the suspension of a Court of Industrial Relations rule that clash with the human rights sanctioned and shielded with resolution concern by the specific guarantees outlined in the organic law. It should be stressed that the application in the instant case Section 15 of the Court of Industrial Relations rules relied upon by herein respondent firm is unreasonable and therefore such application becomes unconstitutional as it subverts the human rights of petitioning labor union and workers in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances revealed by the record. The suspension of the application of Section 15 of the Court of Industrial Relations rules with reference to the case at is also authorized by Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the C.I.R. charter, which enjoins the Court of Industrial Relations to "act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms ..." On several occasions, We emphasized this doctrine which was re-stated by Mr. Justice Barredo, speaking for the Court, in the 1970 case of Kapisanan, etc. vs. Hamilton, etc., et. al., 30-e thus:

As to the point that the evidence being offered by the petitioners in the motion for new trial is not "newly discovered," as such term is understood in the rules of procedure for the ordinary courts, We hold that such criterion is not binding upon the Court of Industrial Relations. Under Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, 'The Court of Industrial Relations shall adopt its, rules or procedure and shall have such other powers as generally pertain to a court of justice: Provided, however, That in the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy and in exercising any duties and power under this Act, the Court shall act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable.' By this provision the industrial court is disengaged from the rigidity of the technicalities applicable to ordinary courts. Said court is not even restricted to the specific relief demanded by the parties but may issue such orders as may be deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or dispelling any doubts that may give rise to future disputes. (Ang Tibay v. C.I.R., G.R. No. 46496, Feb. 17, 1940; Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Phil. Labor, 71 Phil. 124.) For these reasons, We believe that this provision is ample enough to have enabled the respondent court to consider whether or not its previous ruling that petitioners constitute a minority was founded on fact, without regard to the technical meaning of newly discovered evidence. ... (Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315; Chua Kiong v. Whitaker, 46 Phil. 578). (emphasis supplied.) To apply Section 15 of the Court of Industrial Relations rules with "pedantic rigor" in the instant case is to rule in effect that the poor workers, who can ill-afford an alert competent lawyer, can no longer seek the sanctuary of human freedoms secured to them by the fundamental law, simply because their counsel erroneously believing that he received a copy of the decision on September 23, 1969, instead of September 22, 1969 - filed his motion for reconsideration September 29, 1969, which practically is only one day late considering that September 28, 1969 was a Sunday. Many a time, this Court deviated from procedure technicalities when they ceased to be instruments of justice, for the attainment of which such rules have been devised. Summarizing the jurisprudence on this score, Mr. Justice Fernando, speaking for a unanimous Court in Palma vs. Oreta, 30-f Stated:

As was so aptly expressed by Justice Moreland in Alonso v. Villamor (16 Phil. 315 [1910]. The Villamor decision was cited with approval in Register of Deeds v. Phil. Nat. Bank, 84 Phil. 600 [1949]; Potenciano v. Court of Appeals, 104 Phil. 156 [1958] and Uy v. Uy, 14243, June 30, 1961, 2 SCRA 675.), decided as far back as 1910, "technicality. when it deserts its proper-office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." (Ibid., p, 322.) To that norm, this Court has remained committed. The late Justice Recto in Blanco v. Bernabe, (63 Phil. 124 [1936]) was of a similar mind. For him the interpretation of procedural rule should never "sacrifice the ends justice." While "procedural laws are no other than technicalities" view them in their entirety, 'they were adopted not as ends themselves for the compliance with which courts have organized and function, but as means conducive to the realization the administration of the law and of justice (Ibid., p.,128). We have remained steadfastly opposed, in the highly rhetorical language Justice Felix, to "a sacrifice of substantial rights of a litigant in altar of sophisticated technicalities with impairment of the sacred principles of justice." (Potenciano v. Court of Appeals, 104 Phil. 156, 161 [1958]). As succinctly put by Justice Makalintal, they "should give way to the realities of the situation." (Urbayan v. Caltex, L-15379, Aug. 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 1016, 1019). In the latest decision in point promulgated in 1968, (Udan v. Amon, (1968, 23 SCRA citing McEntee v. Manotok, L-14968, Oct. 27, 1961, 3 SCRA 272.) Justice Zaldivar was partial to an earlier formulation of Justice Labrador that rules of procedure "are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense"; but are intended "to help secure substantial justice." (Ibid., p. 843) ... -g
30

Even if the questioned Court of Industrial Relations orders and rule were to be given effect, the dismissal or termination of the employment of the petitioning eight (8) leaders of the Union is harsh for a one-day absence from work. The respondent Court itself recognized the severity of such a sanction when it did not include the dismissal of the other 393 employees who are members of the same Union and who participated in the demonstration against the Pasig police. As a matter of fact, upon the intercession of the Secretary of Labor, the Union members who are not officers, were not dismissed and only the Union itself and its thirteen (13) officers were specifically named as respondents in the unfair labor practice charge filed against them by the firm (pp. 16-20, respondent's Brief; Annexes "A", "B" and "C", pp. 20-30, rec.). Counsel for respondent firm insinuates that not all the 400 or so employee participated in the demonstration, for which reason only the Union and its thirteen (13) officers were specifically named in the unfair labor practice charge (p. 20, respondent's brief). If that were so, then many, if not all, of the morning and regular shifts reported for work on March 4, 1969 and that, as a consequence, the firm continued in operation that day and did not sustain any damage.

The appropriate penalty if it deserves any penalty at all should have been simply to charge said one-day absence against their vacation or sick leave. But to dismiss the eight (8) leaders of the petitioner Union is a most cruel penalty, since as aforestated the Union leaders depend on their wages for their daily sustenance as well as that of their respective families aside from the fact that it is a lethal blow to unionism, while at the same time strengthening the oppressive hand of the petty tyrants in the localities. Mr. Justice Douglas articulated this pointed reminder: The challenge to our liberties comes frequently not from those who consciously seek to destroy our system of Government, but from men of goodwill good men who allow their proper concerns to blind them to the fact that what they propose to accomplish involves an impairment of liberty. ... The Motives of these men are often commendable. What we must remember, however, is thatpreservation of liberties does not depend on motives. A suppression of liberty has the same effect whether the suppress or be a reformer or an outlaw. The only protection against misguided zeal is a constant alertness of the infractions of the guarantees of liberty contained in our Constitution. Each surrender of liberty to the demands of the moment makes easier another, larger surrender. The battle over the Bill of Rights is a never ending one. ... The liberties of any person are the liberties of all of us. ... In short, the Liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected.

... But even if we should sense no danger to our own liberties, even if we feel secure because we belong to a group that is important and respected, we must recognize that our Bill of Rights is a code of fair play for the less fortunate that we in all honor and good conscience must be observe.
31

The case at bar is worse. Management has shown not only lack of good-will or good intention, but a complete lack of sympathetic understanding of the plight of its laborers who claim that they are being subjected to indignities by the local police, It was more expedient for the firm to conserve its income or profits than to assist its employees in their fight for their freedoms and security against alleged petty tyrannies of local police officers. This is sheer opportunism. Such opportunism and expediency resorted to by the respondent company assaulted the immunities and welfare of its employees. It was pure and implement selfishness, if not greed. Of happy relevance is the 1967 case of Republic Savings Bank vs. C.I.R., 32 where the petitioner Bank dismissed eight (8) employees for having written and published "a patently libelous letter ... to the Bank president demanding his resignation on the grounds of immorality, nepotism in the appointment and favoritism as well as discrimination in the promotion of bank employees." Therein, thru Mr. Justice Castro, We ruled: It will avail the Bank none to gloat over this admission of the respondents. Assuming that the latter acted in their individual capacities when they wrote the letter-charge they were nonetheless protected for they were engaged in concerted activity, in the exercise of their right of self organization that includes concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, (Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act ...) This is the view of some members of this Court. For, as has been aptly stated, the joining in protests or demands, even by a small group of employees, if in furtherance of their interests as such, is a concerted activity protected by the Industrial Peace Act. It is not necessary that union activity be involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated. (Annot., 6 A.L.R. 2d 416 [1949]). xxx xxx xxx Instead of stifling criticism, the Bank should have allowed the respondents to air their grievances. xxx xxx xxx The Bank defends its action by invoking its right to discipline for what it calls the respondents' libel in giving undue publicity to their letter-charge. To be sure, the right of self-organization of employees is not unlimited (Republic Aviation Corp. vs. NLRB 324 U.S. 793 [1945]), as the right of the employer to discharge for cause (Philippine Education Co. v. Union of Phil. Educ. Employees, L-13773, April 29, 1960) is undenied. The Industrial Peace Act does not touch the normal exercise of the right of the employer to select his employees or to discharge them. It is directed solely against the abuse of that right by interfering with the countervailing right of self organization (Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB 313 U.S. 177 [1941])...

xxx xxx xxx

In the final sum and substance, this Court is in unanimity that the Bank's conduct, identified as an interference with the employees' right of self-organization or as a retaliatory action, and/or as a refusal to bargain collectively, constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning and intendment of section 4(a) of the Industrial Peace Act. (Emphasis supplied.)
33

If free expression was accorded recognition and protection to fortify labor unionism in the Republic Savings case, supra, where the complaint assailed the morality and integrity of the bank president no less, such recognition and protection for free speech, free assembly and right to petition are rendered all the more justifiable and more imperative in the case at bar, where the mass demonstration was not against the company nor any of its officers. WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered: (1) setting aside as null and void the orders of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations dated September 15 and October 9, 1969; and (2) directing the re instatement of the herein eight (8) petitioners, with full back pay from the date of their separation from the service until re instated, minus one day's pay and whatever earnings they might have realized from other sources during their separation from the service. With costs against private respondent Philippine Blooming Company, Inc. Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando and Esguerra, JJ., concur. Makalintal, C.J, took no part.

Separate Opinions

BARREDO, J., dissenting: I bow in respectful and sincere admiration, but my sense of duty compels me to dissent. The background of this case may be found principally in the stipulation of facts upon which the decision under review is based. It is as follows: 1. That complainant Philippine Blooming Mills, Company, Inc., is a corporation existing and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines with corporate address at 666 Muelle de Binondo, Manila, which is the employer of respondent; 2. That Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization PBMEO for short, is a legitimate labor organization, and the respondents herein are either officers of respondent PBMEO or members thereof; 3. That on March 2, 1969 complainant company learned of the projected mass demonstration at Malacaang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig Police Department to be participated by the first shift (6:00 AM 2:00 PM workers as well as those working in the regular shifts (7:00 A.M. to 4:00 PM and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM in the morning of March 4, 1969;

4. That a meeting was called by the Company on March 3, 1969 at about 11:00 A.M. at the Company's canteen, and those present were: for the Company: (1) Mr. Arthur L. Ang, (2) Atty. Cesareo S. de Leon, Jr. (3) and all department and section heads. For the PBMEO (1) Florencio Padrigano, (2) Rufino Roxas, (3) Mariano de Leon, (4) Asencion Paciente, (5) Bonifacio Vacuna and (6) Benjamin Pagcu. 5. That the Company asked the union panel to confirm or deny said projected mass demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969. PBMEO thru Benjamin Pagcu who acted as the spokesman of the union panel, confirmed the planned demonstration and stated that the demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu explained further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management; 6. That Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager, informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. For which reason, the Company, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, warned the PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning (March 4, 1969) shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike; 7. That at about 5:00 P.M. on March 3, 1969, another meeting was convoked. Company represented by Atty. C.S. de Leon, Jr. The Union panel was composed of: Nicanor Tolentino, Rodulfo Munsod, Benjamin Pagcu and Florencio Padrigano. In this afternoon meeting of March 3, 1969, Company reiterated and appealed to the PBMEO representatives that while all workers may join the Malacaang demonstration, the workers for the first and regular shift of March 4, 1969 should be excused from joining the demonstration and should report for work; and thus utilize the workers in the 2nd and 3rd shifts in order not to violate the provisions of the CBA, particularly Article XXIV "NO LOCKOUT NO STRIKE". All those who will not follow this warning of the Company shall be dismissed; De Leon reiterated the Company's warning that the officers shall be primarily liable being the organizers of the mass demonstration. The union panel countered that it was rather too late to change their plans inasmuch as the Malacaang demonstration will be held the following morning; and 8. That a certain Mr. Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a cablegram to the Company which was received 9:50 A.M., March 4, 1969, the contents of which are as follows: 'REITERATING REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT EMPLOYEES JOINING DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4, 1969. Additionally, the trial court found that "the projected demonstration did in fact occur and in the process paralyzed to a large extent the operations of the complainant company". (p. 5, Annex F). Upon these facts the Prosecution Division of the Court of Industrial Relations filed with said court a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice against petitioners charging that: . 3. That on March 4, 1969, respondents (petitioners herein) particularly those in the first shift, in violation of the existing collective bargaining agreement and without filing the necessary notice as provided for by law, failed to report for work, amounting to a declaration of strike; 4. That the above acts are in violation of Section 4(a) subparagraph 6, in relation to Sections 13, 14 and 15 of Republic Act No. 875, and of the collective bargaining agreement. (Pars. 3 and 4, Annex C.) After due hearing, the court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which read's: IN VIEW HEREOF, the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization is found guilty of bargaining in bad faith and is hereby ordered to cease and desist from further committing the same and its representatives namely: respondent Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu, Nicanor Tolentino and Rodulfo Monsod who are directly responsible for perpetrating this unfair labor practice act, are hereby considered to have lost their status as employees of the Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. (p. 8, Annex F.) Although it is alleged in the petition herein that petitioners were notified of this decision on September 23, 1969, there seems to be no serious question that they were actually served therewith on September 22, 1969. In fact, petitioners admitted this date of notice in paragraph 2 of their Petition for Relief dated October 30, 1969 and filed with the industrial court on the following day. (See Annex K.) It is not controverted that it was only on September 29, 1969, or seven (7) days after they were notified of the court's decision, that petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration with the industrial court; as it is also not disputed that they filed their "Arguments in

Support of the Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration" only on October 14, 1969. (See Annex I.) In other words, petitioners' motion for reconsideration was filed two (2) days after the lapse of the five (5) day period provided for the filing thereof in the rules of the Court of Industrial Relations, whereas the "Arguments" were filed five (5) days after the expiration of the period therefor also specified in the same rules. Accordingly, the first issue that confronts the Court is the one raised by respondent private firm, namely, that in view of the failure of petitioners to file not only their motion for reconsideration but also their arguments in support thereof within the periods respectively fixed in the rules therefor, the Court of Industrial Relations acted correctly and within the law in rendering and issuing its impugned order of October 9, 1969 dismissing petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Respondent's contention presents no problem. Squarely applicable to the facts hereof is the decision of this Court in Elizalde & Co. Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations 1 wherein it was ruled that: August 6, 1963. Petitioner received a copy of the decision of the then Associate Judge Arsenio I. Martinez, the dispositive part of which was set forth earlier in this opinion. August 12, 1963. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. No arguments were advanced in support thereof. August 21, 1963. Petitioner moved for additional time to file its arguments in support of its motion to reconsider. August 27, 1963. Petitioner filed its arguments in support of its aforesaid motion seeking reconsideration. September 16, 1963. CIR en banc resolved to dismiss the motion for reconsideration. Ground therefor was that the arguments were filed out of time. October 3, 1963. Petitioner filed its notice of appeal and at the same time lodged the present petition with this Court. Upon respondent Perlado's return and petitioner's brief (respondents did not file their brief), the case is now before us for resolution. 1. That the judgment appealed from is a final judgment not merely an interlocutory order there is no doubt. The fact that there is need for computation of respondent Perlado's overtime pay would not render the decision incomplete. This in effect is the holding of the Court in Pan American World Airways System (Philippines) vs. Pan American Employees Association, which runs thus: 'It is next contended that in ordering the Chief of the Examining Division or his representative to compute the compensation due, the Industrial Court unduly delegated its judicial functions and thereby rendered an incomplete decision. We do not believe so. Computation of the overtime pay involves a mechanical function, at most. And the report would still have to be submitted to the Industrial Court for its approval, by the very terms of the order itself. That there was no specification of the amount of overtime pay in the decision did not make it incomplete, since this matter should necessarily be made clear enough in the implementation of the decision (see Malate Taxicab & Garage, Inc. vs. CIR, et al., L-8718, May 11, 1956). 2. But has that judgment reached the stage of finality in the sense that it can no longer, be disturbed? CIR Rules of Procedure, as amended, and the jurisprudence of this Court both answer the question in the affirmative. Section 15 of the CIR Rules requires that one who seeks to reconsider the judgment of the trial judge must do so within five (5) days from the date on which he received notice of the decision, subject of the motion. Next follows Section 16 which says that the motion must be submitted with arguments supporting the same. But if said arguments could not be submitted simultaneously with the motion, the same section commands the 'the movant shall file the same within ten (10) days from the date of the filing of his motion for reconsideration.' Section 17 of the same rules admonishes a movant that "(f)ailure to observe the above-specified periods shall be sufficient cause for dismissal of the motion for reconsideration or striking out of the answer and/or the supporting arguments, as the case may be". Not that the foregoing rules stand alone. Jurisprudence has since stabilized the enforceability thereof. Thus, in Bien vs. Castillo, (97 Phil. 956) we ruled that where a pro forma motion for reconsideration was filed out of time its denial is in order pursuant to CIR rules, regardless of whether the arguments in support of said motion were or were not filed on time. Pangasinan Employees Laborers & Tenants Association (PELTA) vs. Martinez,

(L-13846, May 20, 1960) pronounced that where a motion to reconsider is filed out of time, the order or decision subject of reconsideration comes final. And so also, where the arguments in support of the motion for reconsideration are filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period, the pre forma motion for reconsideration although seasonably filed must nevertheless be denied. This in essence is our ruling in Local 7, Press & Printing Free Workers (FFW) vs. Tabigne. The teaching in Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, is that where the motion for reconsideration is denied upon the ground that the arguments in support thereof were filed out of time, the order or decision subject of the motion becomes "final and unappealable". We find no difficulty in applying the foregoing rules and pronouncements of this Court in the case before us. On August 6, petitioner received a copy of the judgment of Judge Arsenio I. Martinez aforesaid. Petitioner's motion to reconsider without arguments in support thereof of August 12 was filed on time. For, August 11, the end of the five-day reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration, was a Sunday. But, actually, the written arguments in support of the said motion were submitted to the court on August 27. The period from August 12 to August 27, is a space of fifteen (15) days. Surely enough, said arguments were filed out of time five (5) days late. And the judgment had become final. 3. There is, of course, petitioner's motion of August 21, 1963 seeking extension of time within which to present its arguments in support of its motion. Counsel in his petition before this Court pleads that the foregoing motion was grounded on the 'extremely busy and difficult schedule of counsel which would not enable him to do so within the stated ten-day reglementary period. The arguments were only filed on August 27 five (5) days late, as aforesaid. The foregoing circumstances will not avail petitioner any. It is to be noted that the motion for expansion of time was filed only on August 21, that is, one day before the due date which is August 22. It was petitioner's duty to see to it that the court act on this motion forthwith or at least inquire as to the fate thereof not later than the 22nd of August. It did not. It merely filed its arguments on the 27th. To be underscored at this point is that "obviously to speed up the disposition of cases", CIR "has a standing rule against the extension of the ten-day period for filing supporting arguments". That no-extension policy should have placed petitioner on guard. It should not have simply folded its arms, sit by supinely and relied on the court's generosity. To compound petitioner's neglect, it filed the arguments only on August 27, 1953, knowing full well that by that time the reglementary period had expired. Petitioner cannot complain against CIR's ruling of September 16, 1963 dismissing the motion for reconsideration on the ground that the supporting arguments were filed out of time. That ruling in effect denied the motion for extension. We rule that CIR's judgment has become final and unappealable. We may not review the same. Notwithstanding this unequivocal and unmistakable precedent, which has not been in any way modified, much less revoked or reversed by this Court, the main opinion has chosen not only to go into the merits of petitioners' pose that the respondent court erred in holding them guilty of bargaining in bad faith but also to ultimately uphold petitioners' claim for reinstatement on constitutional grounds. Precisely because the conclusions of the main opinion are predicated on an exposition of the constitutional guarantees of freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly for redress of grievances, so scholarly and masterful that it is bound to overwhelm Us unless We note carefully the real issues in this case, I am constrained, over and above my sincere admiration for the eloquence and zeal of Mr. Justice Makasiar's brilliant dissertation, to dutifully state that as presented by petitioners themselves and in the light of its attendant circumstances, this case does not call for the resolution of any constitutional issue. Admittedly, the invocation of any constitutional guarantee, particularly when it directly affects individual freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights, deserves the closest attention of this Court. It is my understanding of constitutional law and judicial practices related thereto, however, that even the most valuable of our constitutional rights may be protected by the courts only when their jurisdiction over the subject matter is unquestionably established and the applicable rules of procedure consistent with substantive and procedural due process are observed. No doubt no constitutional right can be sacrificed in the altar of procedural technicalities, very often fittingly downgraded as niceties but as far as I know, this principle is applied to annul or set aside final judgments only in cases wherein there is a possible denial of due process. I have not come across any instance, and none is mentioned or cited in the well-documented main opinion, wherein a final and executory judgment has been invalidated and set aside upon the ground that the same has the effect of sanctioning the violation of a constitutional right, unless such violation amounts to a denial of due process. Without support from any provision of the constitution or any law or from any judicial precedent or reason of principle, the main opinion nudely and unqualifiedly asserts, as if it were universally established and accepted as an absolute rule, that the violation of a constitutional right divests the court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is null and void and confers no rights". Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663, which is mentioned almost in passing, does uphold the proposition that "relief from a criminal conviction secured at the sacrifice of constitutional liberties, may be obtained through habeas corpus proceedings even after the finality of the judgment". And, of course, Chavez is correct; as is also Abriol vs. Homeres 2 which, in principle, served

as its precedent, for the very simple reason that in both of those cases, the accused were denied due process. In Chavez, the accused was compelled to testify against himself as a witness for the prosecution; in Abriol, the accused was denied his request to be allowed to present evidence to establish his defense after his demurrer to the People's evidence was denied. As may be seen, however, the constitutional issues involved in those cases are a far cry from the one now before Us. Here, petitioners do not claim they were denied due process. Nor do they pretend that in denying their motion for reconsideration, "the respondent Court of Industrial Relations and private firm trenched upon any of their constitutional immunities ...," contrary to the statement to such effect in the main opinion. Indeed, neither in the petition herein nor in any of the other pleading of petitioners can any direct or indirect assertion be found assailing the impugned decision of the respondent court as being null and void because it sanctioned a denial of a valued constitutional liberty. In their petition, petitioners state the issue for Our resolution as follows: Petitioners herein humbly submit that the issue to be resolved is whether or not the respondent Courten banc under the facts and circumstances, should consider the Motion for Reconsideration filed by your petitioners. Petitioners, therefore, in filing this petition for a writ of certiorari, humbly beg this Honorable Court to treat this petition under Rule 43 and 65 of the Rules of Court. xxx xxx xxx The basic issue therefore is the application by the Court en banc of the strict and narrow technical rules of procedure without taking into account justice, equity and substantial merits of the case. On the other hand, the complete argument submitted by petitioners on this point in their brief runs thus: III ISSUES 1. Does the refusal to heed a warning in the exercise of a fundamental right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances constitute bargaining in bad faith? and, Do the facts found by the court below justify the declaration and conclusion that the union was guilty of bargaining in bad faith meriting the dismissal of the persons allegedly responsible therefore? 2. Was there grave abuse of discretion when the respondent court refused to act one way or another on the petition for relief from the resolution of October 9, 1969? IV ARGUMENT The respondent Court erred in finding the petition union guilty of bargaining in bad faith and consequently dismissing the persons allegedly responsible therefor, because such conclusion is country to the evidence on record; that the dismissal of leaders was discriminatory. As a result of exercising the constitutional rights of freedom to assemble and petition the duly constituted authorities for redress of their grievances, the petitioners were charged and then condemned of bargaining in bad faith. The findings that petitioners were guilty of bargaining in bad faith were not borne out by the records. It was not even alleged nor proven by evidence. What has been alleged and which the respondent company tried to prove was that the demonstration amounted to a strike and hence, a violation of the provisions of the "no-lockout no strike" clause of the collective bargaining agreement. However, this allegation and proof submitted by the respondent company were practically resolved when the respondent court in the same decision stated categorically: 'The company alleges that the walkout because of the demonstration is tantamount to a declaration of a strike. We do not think so, as the same is not rooted in any industrial

dispute although there is a concerted act and the occurrence of a temporary stoppage of work.' (Emphasis supplied, p. 4, 5th paragraph, Decision.) The respondent court's findings that the petitioner union bargained in bad faith is not tenable because: First, it has not been alleged nor proven by the respondent company; . Second, before the demonstration, the petitioner union and the respondent company convened twice in a meeting to thresh out the matter of demonstration. Petitioners requested that the employees and workers be excused but the respondent company instead of granting the request or even settling the matter so that the hours of work will not be disrupted, immediately threatened the employees of mass dismissal; Third, the refusal of the petitioner union to grant the request of the company that the first shift shall be excluded in the demonstration is not tantamount to bargaining in bad faith because the company knew that the officers of the union belonged to the first shift, and that the union cannot go and lead the demonstration without their officers. It must be stated that the company intends to prohibit its officers to lead and join the demonstration because most of them belonged to the first shift; and Fourth, the findings of the respondent court that the demonstration if allowed will practically give the union the right to change the working conditions agreed in the CBA is a conclusion of facts, opinionated and not borne by any evidence on record. The demonstration did not practically change the terms or conditions of employment because it was only for one (1) day and the company knew about it before it went through. We can even say that it was the company who bargained in bad faith, when upon representation of the Bureau of Labor not to dismiss the employees demonstrating, the company tacitly approved the same and yet while the demonstration was in progress, the company filed a ULP Charge and consequently dismissed those who participated. Records of the case show that more or less 400 members of the union participated in the demonstration and yet, the respondent court selected the eight officers to be dismissed from the union thus losing their status as employees of the respondent company. The respondent court should have taken into account that the company's action in allowing the return of more or less three hundred ninety two (392) employees/members of the union is an act of condonation and the dismissal of the eight (8) officers is an act of discrimination (Phil. Air Lines Inc., vs. Phil. Air Lines Employees Association, G.R. No. L-8197, Oct. 31, 1958). Seemingly, from the opinion stated in the decision by the court, while there is a collective bargaining agreement, the union cannot go on demonstration or go on strike because it will change the terms and conditions of employment agreed in the CBA. It follows that the CBA is over and above the constitutional rights of a man to demonstrate and the statutory rights of a union to strike as provided for in Republic Act 875. This creates a bad precedent because it will appear that the rights of the union is solely dependent upon the CBA. One of the cardinal primary rights which must be respected in proceedings before the Court of Industrial Relations is that "the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected." (Interstate Commerce Commission vs. L & N R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law ed. 431.) Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their rights to know and meet the case against them. (Ang Tibay vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-45496, February 27, 1940.) The petitioners respectfully and humbly submit that there is no scintilla of evidence to support the findings of the respondent court that the petitioner union bargained in bad faith. Corollary therefore, the dismissal of the individual petitioners is without basis either in fact or in law. Additionally, in their reply they also argued that: 1) That respondent court's finding that petitioners have been guilty of bargaining in bad faith and consequently lost their status as employees of the respondent company did not meet the meaning and comprehension of "substantial merits of the case." Bargaining in bad faith has not been alleged in the complaint (Annex "C", Petition) nor proven during the hearing of the can. The important and substantial merit of the case is whether under the facts and circumstances alleged in respondent company's pleadings, the demonstration done by the petitioners amounted to on "illegal strike" and therefore in violation of the "no strike no lock out" clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Petitioners respectfully reiterate and humbly submit, that the respondent court had altogether opined and decided that such demonstration does not amount to a strike. Hence, with that findings, petitioners should have been absolved of the charges against them. Nevertheless, the same respondent court disregarding, its own findings, went out of bounds by declaring the petitioners as having "bargained in faith." The stand of the respondent court is fallacious, as it follows the principle in logic as "nonsiquitor";

2) That again respondents wanted to impress that the freedom to assemble peaceably to air grievances against the duly constituted authorities as guaranteed in our Constitution is subject to the limitation of the agreement in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The fundamental rights of the petitioners to free speech and assembly is paramount to the provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and such attempt to override the constitutional provision would be null and void. These fundamental rights of the petitioners were not taken into consideration in the deliberation of the case by the respondent court; Thus, it is clear from the foregoing contentions that petitioners are not raising any issue of due process. They do not posit that the decision of the industrial court is null and void on that constitutional ground. True it is that they fault the respondent court for having priced the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement herein involved over and above their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of their grievances against the abuses of the Pasig police, but in no sense at all do they allege or contend that such action affects its jurisdiction in a manner that renders the proceedings a nullity. In other words, petitioners themselves consider the alleged flaw in the court's action as a mere error of judgment rather than that of jurisdiction which the main opinion projects. For this Court to roundly and indignantly condemn private respondent now for the grievous violation of the fundamental law the main opinion sees in its refusal to allow all its workers to join the demonstration in question, when that specific issue has not been duly presented to Us and properly argued, is to my mind unfair and unjust, for the simple reason that the manner this case was brought to Us does not afford it the opportunity to be heard in regard to such supposed constitutional transgression. To be sure, petitioners do maintain, that respondent court committed an error of jurisdiction by finding petitioners guilty of bargaining in bad faith when the charge against them alleged in the complaint was for having conducted a mass demonstration, which "amounted to a strike", in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but definitely, this jurisdictional question has no constitutional color. Indeed, We can even assume for the sake of argument, that the trial judge did err in not giving preferential importance to the fundamental freedoms invoked by the petitioners over the management and proprietary attributes claimed by the respondent private firm still, We cannot rightly hold that such disregard of petitioners' priceless liberties divested His Honor of jurisdiction in the premises. The unbending doctrine of this Court is that "decisions, erroneous or not, become final after the period fixed by law; litigations would be endless, no questions would be finally settled; and titles to property would become precarious if the losing party were allowed to reopen them at any time in the future". 3 I only have to add to this that the fact that the error is in the interpretation, construction or application of a constitutional precept not constituting a denial of due process, should not make any difference. Juridically, a party cannot be less injured by an overlooked or erroneously sanctioned violation of an ordinary statute than by a misconstrued or constitutional injunction affecting his individual, freedoms. In both instances, there is injustice which should be intolerable were it not for the more paramount considerations that inform the principle of immutability of final judgments. I dare say this must be the reason why, as I have already noted, the main opinion does not cite any constitutional provision, law or rule or any judicial doctrine or principle supporting its basic holding that infringement of constitutional guarantees, other than denial of due process, divests courts of jurisdiction to render valid judgments. In this connection, it must be recalled that the teaching of Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities vs. Secretary of Education, 4 following Santiago vs. Far Eastern Broadcasting, 5 is that "it is one of our (the Supreme Court's) decisional practices that unless a constitutional point is specifically raised, insisted upon and adequately argued, the court will not consider it". In the case at bar, the petitioners have not raised, they are not insisting upon, much less have they adequately argued the constitutional issues so extendedly and ably discussed in the main opinion. Indeed, it does not seem wise and sound for the Supreme Court to hold that the erroneous resolution by a court of a constitutional issue not amounting to a denial of due process renders its judgment or decision null and void, and, therefore, subject to attack even after said judgment or decision has become final and executory. I have actually tried to bring myself into agreement with the views of the distinguished and learned writer of the main opinion, if only to avoid dissenting from his well prepared thesis, but its obvious incongruity with settled jurisprudence always comes to the fore to stifle my effort. As a matter of fact, for a moment, it appeared to me as if I could go along with petitioners under the authority of our constitutionally irreducible appellate jurisdiction under Section 2(5) of Article VII of the Philippines 6 (reenacted practically ipssisimis verbis in Section 5(2) of the 1973 Constitution), only to realize upon further reflection that the very power granted to us to review decisions of lower courts involving questions of law(and these include constitutional issues not affecting the validity of statutes, treaty, executive agreement, etc.) is not unqualified but has to be exercised only in the manner provided in the law of the Rules of Court. In other words, before We can exercise appellate jurisdiction over constitutional issues, no matter how important they may be, there must first be a showing of compliance with the applicable procedural law or rules, among them, those governing appeals from the Court of Industrial Relations involved herein. Consequently, if by law or rule, a judgment of the industrial court is already final and executory, this Court would be devoid of power and authority to review, much less alter or modify the same, absent any denial of due process or fatal defect of jurisdiction. It must be borne in mind that the situation confronting Us now is not merely whether or not We should pass upon a question or issue not specifically raised by the party concerned, which, to be sure, could be enough reason to dissuade Us from taking pains in resolving the same; rather, the real problem here is whether or not We have jurisdiction to entertain it. And, in this regard, as already stated earlier, no less than Justice Conrado Sanchez, the writer of Chavez, supra., which is being relied upon by the main opinion, already laid down the precedent in Elizalde vs. Court, supra, which for its four-square applicability to the facts of this case, We have no choice but to follow, that is, that in view of reconsideration but even their argument supporting the same within the prescribed period, "the judgment (against them)has become final, beyond recall".

Indeed, when I consider that courts would be useless if the finality and enforceability of their judgments are made contingent on the correctness thereof from the constitutional standpoint, and that in truth, whether or not they are correct is something that is always dependent upon combined opinion of the members of the Supreme Court, which in turn is naturally as changeable as the members themselves are changed, I cannot conceive of anything more pernicious and destructive to a trustful administration of justice than the idea that, even without any showing of denial of due process or want of jurisdiction of the court, a final and executory judgment of such court may still be set aside or reopened in instances other than those expressly allowed by Rule 38 and that of extrinsic fraud under Article 1146(1) of the Civil Code. 7 And just to emphasize the policy of the law of respecting judgments once they have become final, even as this Court has ruled that final decisions are mute in the presence of fraud which the law abhors, 8 it is only when the fraud is extrinsic and not intrinsic that final and executory judgments may be set aside, 9 and this only when the remedy is sought within the prescriptive period. 10 Apropos here is the following passage in Li Kim Those vs. Go Sin Kaw, 82 Phil. 776: Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them. Likewise the stern admonition of Justice George Malcolm in Dy Cay v. Crossfield, 38 Phil. 521, thus: ... Public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law. The very object for which courts were instituted was to put an end to controversies. To fulfill this purpose and to do so speedily, certain time limits, more or less arbitrary, have to be set up to spur on the slothful. 'If a vacillating, irresolute judge were allowed to thus keep causes ever within his power, to determine and redetermine them term after term, to bandy his judgments about from one party to the other, and to change his conclusions as freely and as capriciously as a chamelon may change its hues, then litigation might become more intolerable than the wrongs it is intended to redress.' (See Arnedo vs. Llorente and Liongson (1911), 18 Phil., 257.). My disagreement with the dissenters in Republic vs. Judge de los Angeles, L-26112, October 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 422, was not as to the unalterability and invulnerability of final judgments but rather on the correct interpretation of the contents of the judgment in question therein. Relevantly to this case at bar, I said then: The point of res adjudicata discussed in the dissents has not escaped my attention. Neither am I overlooking the point of the Chief Justice regarding the dangerous and inimical implications of a ruling that would authorize the revision, amendment or alteration of a final and executory judgment. I want to emphasize that my position in this opinion does not detract a whit from the soundness, authority and binding force of existing doctrines enjoining any such modifications. The public policy of maintaining faith and respect in judicial decisions, which inform said doctrines, is admittedly of the highest order. I am not advocating any departure from them. Nor am I trying to put forth for execution a decision that I believe should have been rather than what it is. All I am doing is to view not the judgment of Judge Tengco but the decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-20950, as it is and not as I believe it should have been, and, by opinion, I would like to guide the court a quo as to what, in my own view, is the true and correct meaning and implications of decision of this Court, not that of Judge Tengco's. The main opinion calls attention to many instant precisely involving cases in the industrial court, wherein the Court refused to be constrained by technical rules of procedure in its determination to accord substantial justice to the parties I still believe in those decisions, some of which were penned by me. I am certain, however, that in none of those precedents did this Court disturb a judgment already final and executory. It too obvious to require extended elucidation or even reference any precedent or authority that the principle of immutability of final judgments is not a mere technicality, and if it may considered to be in a sense a procedural rule, it is one that is founded on public policy and cannot, therefore, yield to the ordinary plea that it must give priority to substantial justice. Apparently vent on looking for a constitutional point of due process to hold on, the main opinion goes far as to maintain that the long existing and constantly applied rule governing the filing of motions for reconsideration in the Court of Industrial Relations, "as applied in this case does not implement on reinforce or strengthen the constitutional rights affected, but instead constricts the same to the point of nullifying the enjoyment thereof by the petitioning employees. Said Court on Industrial Relations Rule, promulgated as it was pursuant to mere legislative delegation, is unreasonable and therefore is beyond the authority granted by the Constitution and the law. A period of five (5) days within which to file a motion for reconsideration is too short, especially for the aggrieve workers, who usually do not have the ready funds to meet the necessary expenses therefor. In case of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, a period of fifteen (15) days has been fixed for the filing of the motion for re-hearing or reconsideration (Sec. 10, Rule 51; Sec. 1, Rule 52; Sec. 1, Rule 56, Revised Rules of Court). The delay in the filing of the motion for reconsideration could have been only one day if September 28, 1969 was not a Sunday. This fact accentuates the unreasonableness of the Court of Industrial Relations Rule insofar as circumstances of the instant case are concerned."

I am afraid the zeal and passion of these arguments do not justify the conclusion suggested. Viewed objectively, it can readily be seen that there can hardly be any factual or logical basis for such a critical view of the rule in question. Said rule provides: MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION Sec. 15. The movant shall file the motion, in six copies, within five (5) days from the date on which he receives notice of the order or decision, object of the motion for reconsideration, the same to be verified under oath with respect to the correctness of the allegations of fact, and serving a copy thereof, personally or by registered mail, on the adverse party. The latter may file an answer, in six (6) copies, duly verified under oath. Sec. 16. Both the motion and the answer shall be submitted with arguments supporting the same. If the arguments can not be submitted simultaneously with said motions, upon notice Court, the movant shall file same within ten (10) days from the date of the filing of his motion for reconsideration. The adverse party shall also file his answer within ten (10) days from the receipt by him of a copy of the arguments submitted by the movant. Sec. 17. After an answer to the motion is registered, or after ten (10) days from the receipt of the arguments in support of said motion having been filed, the motion shall be deemed submitted for resolution of the Court in banc, unless it is considered necessary to bear oral arguments, in which case the Court shall issue the corresponding order or notice to that effect. Failure to observe the above-specified periods shall be sufficient cause for dismissal of the motion for reconsideration or striking out of the answer and/or the supporting arguments, as the case may be. (As amended April 20, 1951, Court of Industrial Relations.). As implemented and enforced in actual practice, this rule, as everyone acquainted with proceedings in the industrial court well knows, precisely permits the party aggrieved by a judgment to file no more than a pro-forma motion for reconsideration without any argument or lengthy discussion and with barely a brief statement of the fundamental ground or grounds therefor, without prejudice to supplementing the same by making the necessary exposition, with citations laws and authorities, in the written arguments the be filed (10) days later. In truth, such a pro-forma motion has to effect of just advising the court and the other party that the movant does not agree with the judgment due to fundamental defects stated in brief and general terms. Evidently, the purpose of this requirement is to apprise everyone concerned within the shortest possible time that a reconsideration is to sought, and thereby enable the parties concerned to make whatever adjustments may be warranted by the situation, in the meanwhile that the litigation is prolonged. It must borne in mind that cases in the industrial court may involve affect the operation of vital industries in which labor-management problems might require day-to-day solutions and it is to the best interests of justice and concerned that the attitude of each party at every imports juncture of the case be known to the other so that both avenues for earlier settlement may, if possible, be explored. There can be no reason at all to complain that the time fixed by the rule is short or inadequate. In fact, the motion filed petitioners was no more than the following: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COME NOW movant respondents, through counsel, to this Honorable Court most respectfully moves for the RECONSIDERATION of the Order of this Honorable Court dated September 17, 1969 on the ground that the same is not in accordance with law, evidence and facts adduced during the hearing of the above entitled case.
Movant-respondents most respectfully move for leave to file their respective arguments within ten (10) days pursuant to Section 15, 16 & 17 as amended of the Rules of Court. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Motion for Reconsideration be admitted. Manila, September 27, 1969. To say that five (5) days is an unreasonable period for the filing of such a motion is to me simply incomprehensible. What worse in this case is that petitioners have not even taken the trouble of giving an explanation of their inability to comply with the rule. Not only that, petitioners were also late five (5) days in filing their written arguments in support of their motion, and, the only excuse offered for such delay is that both the President of the Union and the office clerk who took charge of the matter forgot to do what they were instructed to do by counsel, which, according to this Court, as I shall explain anon "is the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe the procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules of

Court". (Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Arca, infra). And yet, very indignantly, the main opinion would want the Court to overlook such nonchalance and indifference. In this connection, I might add that in my considered opinion, the rules fixing periods for the finality of judgments are in a sense more substantive than procedural in their real nature, for in their operation they have the effect of either creating or terminating rights pursuant to the terms of the particular judgment concerned. And the fact that the court that rendered such final judgment is deprived of jurisdiction or authority to alter or modify the same enhances such substantive character. Moreover, because they have the effect of terminating rights and the enforcement thereof, it may be said that said rules partake of the nature also of rules of prescription, which again are substantive. Now, the twin predicates of prescription are inaction or abandonment and the passage of time or a prescribed period. On the other hand, procrastination or failure to act on time is unquestionably a form of abandonment, particularly when it is not or cannot be sufficiently explained. The most valuable right of a party may be lost by prescription, and be has no reason to complain because public policy demands that rights must be asserted in time, as otherwise they can be deemed waived. I see no justification whatsoever for not applying these self-evident principles to the case of petitioners. Hence, I feel disinclined to adopt the suggestion that the Court suspend, for the purposes of this case the rules aforequoted of the Court of Industrial Relations. Besides, I have grave doubts as to whether we can suspend rules of other courts, particularly that is not under our supervisory jurisdiction, being administrative agency under the Executive Department Withal, if, in order to hasten the administration of substance justice, this Court did exercise in some instances its re power to amend its rules, I am positively certain, it has done it for the purpose of reviving a case in which the judo has already become final and executory. Before closing, it may be mentioned here, that as averred their petition, in a belated effort to salvage their Petitioners filed in the industrial court on October 31, 1969 a Petition for relief alleging that their failure to file "Arguments in Support of their Motion for Reconsideration within the reglementary period or five (5), if not seven (7), days late "was due to excusable negligence and honest mistake committed by the President of the respondent Union and on office clerk of the counsel for respondents as shown attested in their respective affidavits", (See Annexes K, and K-2) which in brief, consisted allegedly of the President's having forgotten his appointment with his lawyer "despite previous instructions and of the said office employee having also coincidentally forgotten "to do the work instructed (sic) to (him) by Atty. Osorio" because he "was busy with clerical jobs". No sympathy at all can be evoked these allegations, for, under probably more justification circumstances, this Court ruled out a similar explanation previous case this wise: We find merit in PAL's petition. The excuse offered respondent Santos as reason for his failure to perfect in due time appeal from the judgment of the Municipal Court, that counsel's clerk forgot to hand him the court notice, is the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court. The uncritical acceptance of this kind of common place excuses, in the face of the Supreme Court's repeated rulings that they are neither credible nor constitutive of excusable negligence (Gaerlan vs. Bernal, L-4039, 29 January 1952; Mercado vs. Judge Domingo, L-19457, December 1966) is certainly such whimsical exercise of judgment to be a grave abuse of discretion. (Philippine Air Lines, Inc. Arca, 19 SCRA 300.) For the reason, therefore, that the judgment of the industrial court sought to be reviewed in the present case has already become final and executory, nay, not without the fault of the petitioners, hence, no matter how erroneous from the constitutional viewpoint it may be, it is already beyond recall, I vote to dismiss this case, without pronouncement as to costs. TEEHANKEE, J., concurring: For having carried out a mass demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969 in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police department, upon two days' prior notice to respondent employer company, as against the latter's insistence that the first shift 1 should not participate but instead report for work, under pain of dismissal, the industrial court ordered the dismissal from employment of the eight individual petitioners as union officers and organizers of the mass demonstration. Respondent court's order finding petitioner union guilty on respondent's complaint of bargaining in bad faith and unfair labor practice for having so carried out the mass demonstration, notwithstanding that it concededly was nota declaration of strike nor directed in any manner against respondent employer, and ordering the dismissal of the union office manifestly constituted grave abuse of discretion in fact and in law. There could not be, in fact, bargaining in bad faith nor unfair labor practice since respondent firm conceded that "the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed' by the Constitution" and the union up to the day of the demonstration pleaded by cablegram to the company to excuse the first shift and allow it to join the demonstration in accordance with their previous requests. Neither could there be, in law, a willful violation of the collective bargaining agreement's "no-strike" clause as would warrant the union leaders' dismissal, since as found by respondent court itself the mass demonstration was not a declaration of a strike, there being no industrial dispute between the protagonists, but merely the occurrence of a temporary stoppage of work" to enable the workers to exercise their constitutional rights of free expression, peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievance against alleged police excesses.

Respondent court's en banc resolution dismissing petitioners' motion for reconsideration for having been filed two days late, after expiration of the reglementary five-day period fixed by its rules, due to the negligence of petitioners' counsel and/or the union president should likewise be set aside as a manifest act of grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners' petition for relief from the normal adverse consequences of the late filing of their motion for reconsideration due to such negligence which was not acted upon by respondent court should have been granted, considering the monstrous injustice that would otherwise be caused the petitioners through their summary dismissal from employment, simply because they sought in good faith to exercise basic human rights guaranteed them by the Constitution. It should be noted further that no proof of actual loss from the one-day stoppage of work was shown by respondent company, providing basis to the main opinion's premise that its insistence on dismissal of the union leaders for having included the first shift workers in the mass demonstration against its wishes was but an act of arbitrary vindictiveness. Only thus could the basic constitutional rights of the individual petitioners and the constitutional injunction to afford protection to labor be given true substance and meaning. No person may be deprived of such basic rights without due process which is but "responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided ... Due process is thus hostile to any official action marred by lack of reasonableness. Correctly it has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness." 2 Accordingly, I vote for the setting aside of the appealed orders of the respondent court and concur in the judgment for petitioners as set forth in the main opinion.

Separate Opinions BARREDO, J., dissenting: I bow in respectful and sincere admiration, but my sense of duty compels me to dissent. The background of this case may be found principally in the stipulation of facts upon which the decision under review is based. It is as follows: 1. That complainant Philippine Blooming Mills, Company, Inc., is a corporation existing and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines with corporate address at 666 Muelle de Binondo, Manila, which is the employer of respondent; 2. That Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization PBMEO for short, is a legitimate labor organization, and the respondents herein are either officers of respondent PBMEO or members thereof; 3. That on March 2, 1969 complainant company learned of the projected mass demonstration at Malacaang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig Police Department to be participated by the first shift (6:00 AM 2:00 PM workers as well as those working in the regular shifts (7:00 A.M. to 4:00 PM and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM in the morning of March 4, 1969; 4. That a meeting was called by the Company on March 3, 1969 at about 11:00 A.M. at the Company's canteen, and those present were: for the Company: (1) Mr. Arthur L. Ang, (2) Atty. Cesareo S. de Leon, Jr. (3) and all department and section heads. For the PBMEO (1) Florencio Padrigano, (2) Rufino Roxas, (3) Mariano de Leon, (4) Asencion Paciente, (5) Bonifacio Vacuna and (6) Benjamin Pagcu. 5. That the Company asked the union panel to confirm or deny said projected mass demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969. PBMEO thru Benjamin Pagcu who acted as the spokesman of the union panel, confirmed the planned demonstration and stated that the demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu explained further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management; 6. That Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager, informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. For which reason, the Company, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, warned the PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning (March 4, 1969) shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike;

7. That at about 5:00 P.M. on March 3, 1969, another meeting was convoked. Company represented by Atty. C.S. de Leon, Jr. The Union panel was composed of: Nicanor Tolentino, Rodulfo Munsod, Benjamin Pagcu and Florencio Padrigano. In this afternoon meeting of March 3, 1969, Company reiterated and appealed to the PBMEO representatives that while all workers may join the Malacaang demonstration, the workers for the first and regular shift of March 4, 1969 should be excused from joining the demonstration and should report for work; and thus utilize the workers in the 2nd and 3rd shifts in order not to violate the provisions of the CBA, particularly Article XXIV "NO LOCKOUT NO STRIKE". All those who will not follow this warning of the Company shall be dismissed; De Leon reiterated the Company's warning that the officers shall be primarily liable being the organizers of the mass demonstration. The union panel countered that it was rather too late to change their plans inasmuch as the Malacaang demonstration will be held the following morning; and 8. That a certain Mr. Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a cablegram to the Company which was received 9:50 A.M., March 4, 1969, the contents of which are as follows: 'REITERATING REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT EMPLOYEES JOINING DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4, 1969. Additionally, the trial court found that "the projected demonstration did in fact occur and in the process paralyzed to a large extent the operations of the complainant company". (p. 5, Annex F). Upon these facts the Prosecution Division of the Court of Industrial Relations filed with said court a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice against petitioners charging that: . 3. That on March 4, 1969, respondents (petitioners herein) particularly those in the first shift, in violation of the existing collective bargaining agreement and without filing the necessary notice as provided for by law, failed to report for work, amounting to a declaration of strike; 4. That the above acts are in violation of Section 4(a) subparagraph 6, in relation to Sections 13, 14 and 15 of Republic Act No. 875, and of the collective bargaining agreement. (Pars. 3 and 4, Annex C.) After due hearing, the court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which read's: IN VIEW HEREOF, the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization is found guilty of bargaining in bad faith and is hereby ordered to cease and desist from further committing the same and its representatives namely: respondent Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu, Nicanor Tolentino and Rodulfo Monsod who are directly responsible for perpetrating this unfair labor practice act, are hereby considered to have lost their status as employees of the Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. (p. 8, Annex F.) Although it is alleged in the petition herein that petitioners were notified of this decision on September 23, 1969, there seems to be no serious question that they were actually served therewith on September 22, 1969. In fact, petitioners admitted this date of notice in paragraph 2 of their Petition for Relief dated October 30, 1969 and filed with the industrial court on the following day. (See Annex K.) It is not controverted that it was only on September 29, 1969, or seven (7) days after they were notified of the court's decision, that petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration with the industrial court; as it is also not disputed that they filed their "Arguments in Support of the Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration" only on October 14, 1969. (See Annex I.) In other words, petitioners' motion for reconsideration was filed two (2) days after the lapse of the five (5) day period provided for the filing thereof in the rules of the Court of Industrial Relations, whereas the "Arguments" were filed five (5) days after the expiration of the period therefor also specified in the same rules. Accordingly, the first issue that confronts the Court is the one raised by respondent private firm, namely, that in view of the failure of petitioners to file not only their motion for reconsideration but also their arguments in support thereof within the periods respectively fixed in the rules therefor, the Court of Industrial Relations acted correctly and within the law in rendering and issuing its impugned order of October 9, 1969 dismissing petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Respondent's contention presents no problem. Squarely applicable to the facts hereof is the decision of this Court in Elizalde & Co. Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations 1 wherein it was ruled that: August 6, 1963. Petitioner received a copy of the decision of the then Associate Judge Arsenio I. Martinez, the dispositive part of which was set forth earlier in this opinion. August 12, 1963. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. No arguments were advanced in support thereof.

August 21, 1963. Petitioner moved for additional time to file its arguments in support of its motion to reconsider. August 27, 1963. Petitioner filed its arguments in support of its aforesaid motion seeking reconsideration. September 16, 1963. CIR en banc resolved to dismiss the motion for reconsideration. Ground therefor was that the arguments were filed out of time. October 3, 1963. Petitioner filed its notice of appeal and at the same time lodged the present petition with this Court. Upon respondent Perlado's return and petitioner's brief (respondents did not file their brief), the case is now before us for resolution. 1. That the judgment appealed from is a final judgment not merely an interlocutory order there is no doubt. The fact that there is need for computation of respondent Perlado's overtime pay would not render the decision incomplete. This in effect is the holding of the Court in Pan American World Airways System (Philippines) vs. Pan American Employees Association, which runs thus: 'It is next contended that in ordering the Chief of the Examining Division or his representative to compute the compensation due, the Industrial Court unduly delegated its judicial functions and thereby rendered an incomplete decision. We do not believe so. Computation of the overtime pay involves a mechanical function, at most. And the report would still have to be submitted to the Industrial Court for its approval, by the very terms of the order itself. That there was no specification of the amount of overtime pay in the decision did not make it incomplete, since this matter should necessarily be made clear enough in the implementation of the decision (see Malate Taxicab & Garage, Inc. vs. CIR, et al., L-8718, May 11, 1956). 2. But has that judgment reached the stage of finality in the sense that it can no longer, be disturbed? CIR Rules of Procedure, as amended, and the jurisprudence of this Court both answer the question in the affirmative. Section 15 of the CIR Rules requires that one who seeks to reconsider the judgment of the trial judge must do so within five (5) days from the date on which he received notice of the decision, subject of the motion. Next follows Section 16 which says that the motion must be submitted with arguments supporting the same. But if said arguments could not be submitted simultaneously with the motion, the same section commands the 'the movant shall file the same within ten (10) days from the date of the filing of his motion for reconsideration.' Section 17 of the same rules admonishes a movant that "(f)ailure to observe the above-specified periods shall be sufficient cause for dismissal of the motion for reconsideration or striking out of the answer and/or the supporting arguments, as the case may be". Not that the foregoing rules stand alone. Jurisprudence has since stabilized the enforceability thereof. Thus, in Bien vs. Castillo, (97 Phil. 956) we ruled that where a pro forma motion for reconsideration was filed out of time its denial is in order pursuant to CIR rules, regardless of whether the arguments in support of said motion were or were not filed on time. Pangasinan Employees Laborers & Tenants Association (PELTA) vs. Martinez, (L-13846, May 20, 1960) pronounced that where a motion to reconsider is filed out of time, the order or decision subject of reconsideration comes final. And so also, where the arguments in support of the motion for reconsideration are filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period, the pre forma motion for reconsideration although seasonably filed must nevertheless be denied. This in essence is our ruling in Local 7, Press & Printing Free Workers (FFW) vs. Tabigne. The teaching in Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, is that where the motion for reconsideration is denied upon the ground that the arguments in support thereof were filed out of time, the order or decision subject of the motion becomes "final and unappealable". We find no difficulty in applying the foregoing rules and pronouncements of this Court in the case before us. On August 6, petitioner received a copy of the judgment of Judge Arsenio I. Martinez aforesaid. Petitioner's motion to reconsider without arguments in support thereof of August 12 was filed on time. For, August 11, the end of the five-day reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration, was a Sunday. But, actually, the written arguments in support of the said motion were submitted to the court on August 27. The period from August 12 to August 27, is a space of fifteen (15) days. Surely enough, said arguments were filed out of time five (5) days late. And the judgment had become final. 3. There is, of course, petitioner's motion of August 21, 1963 seeking extension of time within which to present its arguments in support of its motion. Counsel in his petition before this Court pleads that the foregoing motion was grounded on the 'extremely busy and difficult schedule of counsel which would not enable him to do so

within the stated ten-day reglementary period. The arguments were only filed on August 27 five (5) days late, as aforesaid. The foregoing circumstances will not avail petitioner any. It is to be noted that the motion for expansion of time was filed only on August 21, that is, one day before the due date which is August 22. It was petitioner's duty to see to it that the court act on this motion forthwith or at least inquire as to the fate thereof not later than the 22nd of August. It did not. It merely filed its arguments on the 27th. To be underscored at this point is that "obviously to speed up the disposition of cases", CIR "has a standing rule against the extension of the ten-day period for filing supporting arguments". That no-extension policy should have placed petitioner on guard. It should not have simply folded its arms, sit by supinely and relied on the court's generosity. To compound petitioner's neglect, it filed the arguments only on August 27, 1953, knowing full well that by that time the reglementary period had expired. Petitioner cannot complain against CIR's ruling of September 16, 1963 dismissing the motion for reconsideration on the ground that the supporting arguments were filed out of time. That ruling in effect denied the motion for extension. We rule that CIR's judgment has become final and unappealable. We may not review the same. Notwithstanding this unequivocal and unmistakable precedent, which has not been in any way modified, much less revoked or reversed by this Court, the main opinion has chosen not only to go into the merits of petitioners' pose that the respondent court erred in holding them guilty of bargaining in bad faith but also to ultimately uphold petitioners' claim for reinstatement on constitutional grounds. Precisely because the conclusions of the main opinion are predicated on an exposition of the constitutional guarantees of freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly for redress of grievances, so scholarly and masterful that it is bound to overwhelm Us unless We note carefully the real issues in this case, I am constrained, over and above my sincere admiration for the eloquence and zeal of Mr. Justice Makasiar's brilliant dissertation, to dutifully state that as presented by petitioners themselves and in the light of its attendant circumstances, this case does not call for the resolution of any constitutional issue. Admittedly, the invocation of any constitutional guarantee, particularly when it directly affects individual freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights, deserves the closest attention of this Court. It is my understanding of constitutional law and judicial practices related thereto, however, that even the most valuable of our constitutional rights may be protected by the courts only when their jurisdiction over the subject matter is unquestionably established and the applicable rules of procedure consistent with substantive and procedural due process are observed. No doubt no constitutional right can be sacrificed in the altar of procedural technicalities, very often fittingly downgraded as niceties but as far as I know, this principle is applied to annul or set aside final judgments only in cases wherein there is a possible denial of due process. I have not come across any instance, and none is mentioned or cited in the well-documented main opinion, wherein a final and executory judgment has been invalidated and set aside upon the ground that the same has the effect of sanctioning the violation of a constitutional right, unless such violation amounts to a denial of due process. Without support from any provision of the constitution or any law or from any judicial precedent or reason of principle, the main opinion nudely and unqualifiedly asserts, as if it were universally established and accepted as an absolute rule, that the violation of a constitutional right divests the court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is null and void and confers no rights". Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663, which is mentioned almost in passing, does uphold the proposition that "relief from a criminal conviction secured at the sacrifice of constitutional liberties, may be obtained through habeas corpus proceedings even after the finality of the judgment". And, of course, Chavez is correct; as is also Abriol vs. Homeres 2 which, in principle, served as its precedent, for the very simple reason that in both of those cases, the accused were denied due process. In Chavez, the accused was compelled to testify against himself as a witness for the prosecution; in Abriol, the accused was denied his request to be allowed to present evidence to establish his defense after his demurrer to the People's evidence was denied. As may be seen, however, the constitutional issues involved in those cases are a far cry from the one now before Us. Here, petitioners do not claim they were denied due process. Nor do they pretend that in denying their motion for reconsideration, "the respondent Court of Industrial Relations and private firm trenched upon any of their constitutional immunities ...," contrary to the statement to such effect in the main opinion. Indeed, neither in the petition herein nor in any of the other pleading of petitioners can any direct or indirect assertion be found assailing the impugned decision of the respondent court as being null and void because it sanctioned a denial of a valued constitutional liberty. In their petition, petitioners state the issue for Our resolution as follows: Petitioners herein humbly submit that the issue to be resolved is whether or not the respondent Courten banc under the facts and circumstances, should consider the Motion for Reconsideration filed by your petitioners.

Petitioners, therefore, in filing this petition for a writ of certiorari, humbly beg this Honorable Court to treat this petition under Rule 43 and 65 of the Rules of Court. xxx xxx xxx The basic issue therefore is the application by the Court en banc of the strict and narrow technical rules of procedure without taking into account justice, equity and substantial merits of the case. On the other hand, the complete argument submitted by petitioners on this point in their brief runs thus: III ISSUES 1. Does the refusal to heed a warning in the exercise of a fundamental right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances constitute bargaining in bad faith? and, Do the facts found by the court below justify the declaration and conclusion that the union was guilty of bargaining in bad faith meriting the dismissal of the persons allegedly responsible therefore? 2. Was there grave abuse of discretion when the respondent court refused to act one way or another on the petition for relief from the resolution of October 9, 1969? IV ARGUMENT The respondent Court erred in finding the petition union guilty of bargaining in bad faith and consequently dismissing the persons allegedly responsible therefor, because such conclusion is country to the evidence on record; that the dismissal of leaders was discriminatory. As a result of exercising the constitutional rights of freedom to assemble and petition the duly constituted authorities for redress of their grievances, the petitioners were charged and then condemned of bargaining in bad faith. The findings that petitioners were guilty of bargaining in bad faith were not borne out by the records. It was not even alleged nor proven by evidence. What has been alleged and which the respondent company tried to prove was that the demonstration amounted to a strike and hence, a violation of the provisions of the "no-lockout no strike" clause of the collective bargaining agreement. However, this allegation and proof submitted by the respondent company were practically resolved when the respondent court in the same decision stated categorically: 'The company alleges that the walkout because of the demonstration is tantamount to a declaration of a strike. We do not think so, as the same is not rooted in any industrial dispute although there is a concerted act and the occurrence of a temporary stoppage of work.' (Emphasis supplied, p. 4, 5th paragraph, Decision.) The respondent court's findings that the petitioner union bargained in bad faith is not tenable because: First, it has not been alleged nor proven by the respondent company; . Second, before the demonstration, the petitioner union and the respondent company convened twice in a meeting to thresh out the matter of demonstration. Petitioners requested that the employees and workers be excused but the respondent company instead of granting the request or even settling the matter so that the hours of work will not be disrupted, immediately threatened the employees of mass dismissal; Third, the refusal of the petitioner union to grant the request of the company that the first shift shall be excluded in the demonstration is not tantamount to bargaining in bad faith because the company knew that the officers of the union belonged to the first shift, and that the union cannot go and lead the demonstration without their

officers. It must be stated that the company intends to prohibit its officers to lead and join the demonstration because most of them belonged to the first shift; and Fourth, the findings of the respondent court that the demonstration if allowed will practically give the union the right to change the working conditions agreed in the CBA is a conclusion of facts, opinionated and not borne by any evidence on record. The demonstration did not practically change the terms or conditions of employment because it was only for one (1) day and the company knew about it before it went through. We can even say that it was the company who bargained in bad faith, when upon representation of the Bureau of Labor not to dismiss the employees demonstrating, the company tacitly approved the same and yet while the demonstration was in progress, the company filed a ULP Charge and consequently dismissed those who participated. Records of the case show that more or less 400 members of the union participated in the demonstration and yet, the respondent court selected the eight officers to be dismissed from the union thus losing their status as employees of the respondent company. The respondent court should have taken into account that the company's action in allowing the return of more or less three hundred ninety two (392) employees/members of the union is an act of condonation and the dismissal of the eight (8) officers is an act of discrimination (Phil. Air Lines Inc., vs. Phil. Air Lines Employees Association, G.R. No. L-8197, Oct. 31, 1958). Seemingly, from the opinion stated in the decision by the court, while there is a collective bargaining agreement, the union cannot go on demonstration or go on strike because it will change the terms and conditions of employment agreed in the CBA. It follows that the CBA is over and above the constitutional rights of a man to demonstrate and the statutory rights of a union to strike as provided for in Republic Act 875. This creates a bad precedent because it will appear that the rights of the union is solely dependent upon the CBA. One of the cardinal primary rights which must be respected in proceedings before the Court of Industrial Relations is that "the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected." (Interstate Commerce Commission vs. L & N R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law ed. 431.) Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their rights to know and meet the case against them. (Ang Tibay vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-45496, February 27, 1940.) The petitioners respectfully and humbly submit that there is no scintilla of evidence to support the findings of the respondent court that the petitioner union bargained in bad faith. Corollary therefore, the dismissal of the individual petitioners is without basis either in fact or in law. Additionally, in their reply they also argued that: 1) That respondent court's finding that petitioners have been guilty of bargaining in bad faith and consequently lost their status as employees of the respondent company did not meet the meaning and comprehension of "substantial merits of the case." Bargaining in bad faith has not been alleged in the complaint (Annex "C", Petition) nor proven during the hearing of the can. The important and substantial merit of the case is whether under the facts and circumstances alleged in respondent company's pleadings, the demonstration done by the petitioners amounted to on "illegal strike" and therefore in violation of the "no strike no lock out" clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Petitioners respectfully reiterate and humbly submit, that the respondent court had altogether opined and decided that such demonstration does not amount to a strike. Hence, with that findings, petitioners should have been absolved of the charges against them. Nevertheless, the same respondent court disregarding, its own findings, went out of bounds by declaring the petitioners as having "bargained in faith." The stand of the respondent court is fallacious, as it follows the principle in logic as "nonsiquitor"; 2) That again respondents wanted to impress that the freedom to assemble peaceably to air grievances against the duly constituted authorities as guaranteed in our Constitution is subject to the limitation of the agreement in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The fundamental rights of the petitioners to free speech and assembly is paramount to the provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and such attempt to override the constitutional provision would be null and void. These fundamental rights of the petitioners were not taken into consideration in the deliberation of the case by the respondent court; Thus, it is clear from the foregoing contentions that petitioners are not raising any issue of due process. They do not posit that the decision of the industrial court is null and void on that constitutional ground. True it is that they fault the respondent court for having priced the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement herein involved over and above their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of their grievances against the abuses of the Pasig police, but in no sense at all do they allege or contend that such action affects its jurisdiction in a manner that renders the proceedings a nullity. In other words, petitioners themselves consider the alleged flaw in the court's action as a mere error of judgment rather than that of jurisdiction which the main opinion projects. For this Court to roundly and indignantly condemn private respondent now for the grievous violation of the fundamental law the main opinion sees in its refusal to allow all its workers to join the demonstration in question, when that specific issue has not been duly presented to Us and properly argued, is to my mind unfair and unjust, for the simple reason that the manner this case was brought to Us does not afford it the opportunity to be heard in regard to such supposed constitutional transgression.

To be sure, petitioners do maintain, that respondent court committed an error of jurisdiction by finding petitioners guilty of bargaining in bad faith when the charge against them alleged in the complaint was for having conducted a mass demonstration, which "amounted to a strike", in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but definitely, this jurisdictional question has no constitutional color. Indeed, We can even assume for the sake of argument, that the trial judge did err in not giving preferential importance to the fundamental freedoms invoked by the petitioners over the management and proprietary attributes claimed by the respondent private firm still, We cannot rightly hold that such disregard of petitioners' priceless liberties divested His Honor of jurisdiction in the premises. The unbending doctrine of this Court is that "decisions, erroneous or not, become final after the period fixed by law; litigations would be endless, no questions would be finally settled; and titles to property would become precarious if the losing party were allowed to reopen them at any time in the future". 3 I only have to add to this that the fact that the error is in the interpretation, construction or application of a constitutional precept not constituting a denial of due process, should not make any difference. Juridically, a party cannot be less injured by an overlooked or erroneously sanctioned violation of an ordinary statute than by a misconstrued or constitutional injunction affecting his individual, freedoms. In both instances, there is injustice which should be intolerable were it not for the more paramount considerations that inform the principle of immutability of final judgments. I dare say this must be the reason why, as I have already noted, the main opinion does not cite any constitutional provision, law or rule or any judicial doctrine or principle supporting its basic holding that infringement of constitutional guarantees, other than denial of due process, divests courts of jurisdiction to render valid judgments. In this connection, it must be recalled that the teaching of Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities vs. Secretary of Education, 4 following Santiago vs. Far Eastern Broadcasting, 5 is that "it is one of our (the Supreme Court's) decisional practices that unless a constitutional point is specifically raised, insisted upon and adequately argued, the court will not consider it". In the case at bar, the petitioners have not raised, they are not insisting upon, much less have they adequately argued the constitutional issues so extendedly and ably discussed in the main opinion. Indeed, it does not seem wise and sound for the Supreme Court to hold that the erroneous resolution by a court of a constitutional issue not amounting to a denial of due process renders its judgment or decision null and void, and, therefore, subject to attack even after said judgment or decision has become final and executory. I have actually tried to bring myself into agreement with the views of the distinguished and learned writer of the main opinion, if only to avoid dissenting from his well prepared thesis, but its obvious incongruity with settled jurisprudence always comes to the fore to stifle my effort. As a matter of fact, for a moment, it appeared to me as if I could go along with petitioners under the authority of our constitutionally irreducible appellate jurisdiction under Section 2(5) of Article VII of the Philippines 6 (reenacted practically ipssisimis verbis in Section 5(2) of the 1973 Constitution), only to realize upon further reflection that the very power granted to us to review decisions of lower courts involving questions of law(and these include constitutional issues not affecting the validity of statutes, treaty, executive agreement, etc.) is not unqualified but has to be exercised only in the manner provided in the law of the Rules of Court. In other words, before We can exercise appellate jurisdiction over constitutional issues, no matter how important they may be, there must first be a showing of compliance with the applicable procedural law or rules, among them, those governing appeals from the Court of Industrial Relations involved herein. Consequently, if by law or rule, a judgment of the industrial court is already final and executory, this Court would be devoid of power and authority to review, much less alter or modify the same, absent any denial of due process or fatal defect of jurisdiction. It must be borne in mind that the situation confronting Us now is not merely whether or not We should pass upon a question or issue not specifically raised by the party concerned, which, to be sure, could be enough reason to dissuade Us from taking pains in resolving the same; rather, the real problem here is whether or not We have jurisdiction to entertain it. And, in this regard, as already stated earlier, no less than Justice Conrado Sanchez, the writer of Chavez, supra., which is being relied upon by the main opinion, already laid down the precedent in Elizalde vs. Court, supra, which for its four-square applicability to the facts of this case, We have no choice but to follow, that is, that in view of reconsideration but even their argument supporting the same within the prescribed period, "the judgment (against them)has become final, beyond recall". Indeed, when I consider that courts would be useless if the finality and enforceability of their judgments are made contingent on the correctness thereof from the constitutional standpoint, and that in truth, whether or not they are correct is something that is always dependent upon combined opinion of the members of the Supreme Court, which in turn is naturally as changeable as the members themselves are changed, I cannot conceive of anything more pernicious and destructive to a trustful administration of justice than the idea that, even without any showing of denial of due process or want of jurisdiction of the court, a final and executory judgment of such court may still be set aside or reopened in instances other than those expressly allowed by Rule 38 and that of extrinsic fraud under Article 1146(1) of the Civil Code. 7 And just to emphasize the policy of the law of respecting judgments once they have become final, even as this Court has ruled that final decisions are mute in the presence of fraud which the law abhors, 8 it is only when the fraud is extrinsic and not intrinsic that final and executory judgments may be set aside, 9 and this only when the remedy is sought within the prescriptive period. 10 Apropos here is the following passage in Li Kim Those vs. Go Sin Kaw, 82 Phil. 776: Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.

Likewise the stern admonition of Justice George Malcolm in Dy Cay v. Crossfield, 38 Phil. 521, thus: ... Public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law. The very object for which courts were instituted was to put an end to controversies. To fulfill this purpose and to do so speedily, certain time limits, more or less arbitrary, have to be set up to spur on the slothful. 'If a vacillating, irresolute judge were allowed to thus keep causes ever within his power, to determine and redetermine them term after term, to bandy his judgments about from one party to the other, and to change his conclusions as freely and as capriciously as a chamelon may change its hues, then litigation might become more intolerable than the wrongs it is intended to redress.' (See Arnedo vs. Llorente and Liongson (1911), 18 Phil., 257.). My disagreement with the dissenters in Republic vs. Judge de los Angeles, L-26112, October 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 422, was not as to the unalterability and invulnerability of final judgments but rather on the correct interpretation of the contents of the judgment in question therein. Relevantly to this case at bar, I said then: The point of res adjudicata discussed in the dissents has not escaped my attention. Neither am I overlooking the point of the Chief Justice regarding the dangerous and inimical implications of a ruling that would authorize the revision, amendment or alteration of a final and executory judgment. I want to emphasize that my position in this opinion does not detract a whit from the soundness, authority and binding force of existing doctrines enjoining any such modifications. The public policy of maintaining faith and respect in judicial decisions, which inform said doctrines, is admittedly of the highest order. I am not advocating any departure from them. Nor am I trying to put forth for execution a decision that I believe should have been rather than what it is. All I am doing is to view not the judgment of Judge Tengco but the decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-20950, as it is and not as I believe it should have been, and, by opinion, I would like to guide the court a quo as to what, in my own view, is the true and correct meaning and implications of decision of this Court, not that of Judge Tengco's. The main opinion calls attention to many instant precisely involving cases in the industrial court, wherein the Court refused to be constrained by technical rules of procedure in its determination to accord substantial justice to the parties I still believe in those decisions, some of which were penned by me. I am certain, however, that in none of those precedents did this Court disturb a judgment already final and executory. It too obvious to require extended elucidation or even reference any precedent or authority that the principle of immutability of final judgments is not a mere technicality, and if it may considered to be in a sense a procedural rule, it is one that is founded on public policy and cannot, therefore, yield to the ordinary plea that it must give priority to substantial justice. Apparently vent on looking for a constitutional point of due process to hold on, the main opinion goes far as to maintain that the long existing and constantly applied rule governing the filing of motions for reconsideration in the Court of Industrial Relations, "as applied in this case does not implement on reinforce or strengthen the constitutional rights affected, but instead constricts the same to the point of nullifying the enjoyment thereof by the petitioning employees. Said Court on Industrial Relations Rule, promulgated as it was pursuant to mere legislative delegation, is unreasonable and therefore is beyond the authority granted by the Constitution and the law. A period of five (5) days within which to file a motion for reconsideration is too short, especially for the aggrieve workers, who usually do not have the ready funds to meet the necessary expenses therefor. In case of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, a period of fifteen (15) days has been fixed for the filing of the motion for re-hearing or reconsideration (Sec. 10, Rule 51; Sec. 1, Rule 52; Sec. 1, Rule 56, Revised Rules of Court). The delay in the filing of the motion for reconsideration could have been only one day if September 28, 1969 was not a Sunday. This fact accentuates the unreasonableness of the Court of Industrial Relations Rule insofar as circumstances of the instant case are concerned." I am afraid the zeal and passion of these arguments do not justify the conclusion suggested. Viewed objectively, it can readily be seen that there can hardly be any factual or logical basis for such a critical view of the rule in question. Said rule provides: MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION Sec. 15. The movant shall file the motion, in six copies, within five (5) days from the date on which he receives notice of the order or decision, object of the motion for reconsideration, the same to be verified under oath with respect to the correctness of the allegations of fact, and serving a copy thereof, personally or by registered mail, on the adverse party. The latter may file an answer, in six (6) copies, duly verified under oath. Sec. 16. Both the motion and the answer shall be submitted with arguments supporting the same. If the arguments can not be submitted simultaneously with said motions, upon notice Court, the movant shall file same within ten (10) days from the date of the filing of his motion for reconsideration. The adverse party shall also file his answer within ten (10) days from the receipt by him of a copy of the arguments submitted by the movant. Sec. 17. After an answer to the motion is registered, or after ten (10) days from the receipt of the arguments in support of said motion having been filed, the motion shall be deemed submitted for resolution of the Court in

banc, unless it is considered necessary to bear oral arguments, in which case the Court shall issue the corresponding order or notice to that effect. Failure to observe the above-specified periods shall be sufficient cause for dismissal of the motion for reconsideration or striking out of the answer and/or the supporting arguments, as the case may be. (As amended April 20, 1951, Court of Industrial Relations.). As implemented and enforced in actual practice, this rule, as everyone acquainted with proceedings in the industrial court well knows, precisely permits the party aggrieved by a judgment to file no more than a pro-forma motion for reconsideration without any argument or lengthy discussion and with barely a brief statement of the fundamental ground or grounds therefor, without prejudice to supplementing the same by making the necessary exposition, with citations laws and authorities, in the written arguments the be filed (10) days later. In truth, such a pro-forma motion has to effect of just advising the court and the other party that the movant does not agree with the judgment due to fundamental defects stated in brief and general terms. Evidently, the purpose of this requirement is to apprise everyone concerned within the shortest possible time that a reconsideration is to sought, and thereby enable the parties concerned to make whatever adjustments may be warranted by the situation, in the meanwhile that the litigation is prolonged. It must borne in mind that cases in the industrial court may involve affect the operation of vital industries in which labor-management problems might require day-to-day solutions and it is to the best interests of justice and concerned that the attitude of each party at every imports juncture of the case be known to the other so that both avenues for earlier settlement may, if possible, be explored. There can be no reason at all to complain that the time fixed by the rule is short or inadequate. In fact, the motion filed petitioners was no more than the following: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COME NOW movant respondents, through counsel, to this Honorable Court most respectfully moves for the RECONSIDERATION of the Order of this Honorable Court dated September 17, 1969 on the ground that the same is not in accordance with law, evidence and facts adduced during the hearing of the above entitled case.
Movant-respondents most respectfully move for leave to file their respective arguments within ten (10) days pursuant to Section 15, 16 & 17 as amended of the Rules of Court. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Motion for Reconsideration be admitted. Manila, September 27, 1969. To say that five (5) days is an unreasonable period for the filing of such a motion is to me simply incomprehensible. What worse in this case is that petitioners have not even taken the trouble of giving an explanation of their inability to comply with the rule. Not only that, petitioners were also late five (5) days in filing their written arguments in support of their motion, and, the only excuse offered for such delay is that both the President of the Union and the office clerk who took charge of the matter forgot to do what they were instructed to do by counsel, which, according to this Court, as I shall explain anon "is the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe the procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court". (Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Arca, infra). And yet, very indignantly, the main opinion would want the Court to overlook such nonchalance and indifference. In this connection, I might add that in my considered opinion, the rules fixing periods for the finality of judgments are in a sense more substantive than procedural in their real nature, for in their operation they have the effect of either creating or terminating rights pursuant to the terms of the particular judgment concerned. And the fact that the court that rendered such final judgment is deprived of jurisdiction or authority to alter or modify the same enhances such substantive character. Moreover, because they have the effect of terminating rights and the enforcement thereof, it may be said that said rules partake of the nature also of rules of prescription, which again are substantive. Now, the twin predicates of prescription are inaction or abandonment and the passage of time or a prescribed period. On the other hand, procrastination or failure to act on time is unquestionably a form of abandonment, particularly when it is not or cannot be sufficiently explained. The most valuable right of a party may be lost by prescription, and be has no reason to complain because public policy demands that rights must be asserted in time, as otherwise they can be deemed waived. I see no justification whatsoever for not applying these self-evident principles to the case of petitioners. Hence, I feel disinclined to adopt the suggestion that the Court suspend, for the purposes of this case the rules aforequoted of the Court of Industrial Relations. Besides, I have grave doubts as to whether we can suspend rules of other courts, particularly that is not under our supervisory jurisdiction, being administrative agency under the Executive Department Withal, if, in order to hasten the administration of substance justice, this Court did exercise in some instances its re power to amend its rules, I am positively certain, it has done it for the purpose of reviving a case in which the judo has already become final and executory.

Before closing, it may be mentioned here, that as averred their petition, in a belated effort to salvage their Petitioners filed in the industrial court on October 31, 1969 a Petition for relief alleging that their failure to file "Arguments in Support of their Motion for Reconsideration within the reglementary period or five (5), if not seven (7), days late "was due to excusable negligence and honest mistake committed by the President of the respondent Union and on office clerk of the counsel for respondents as shown attested in their respective affidavits", (See Annexes K, and K-2) which in brief, consisted allegedly of the President's having forgotten his appointment with his lawyer "despite previous instructions and of the said office employee having also coincidentally forgotten "to do the work instructed (sic) to (him) by Atty. Osorio" because he "was busy with clerical jobs". No sympathy at all can be evoked these allegations, for, under probably more justification circumstances, this Court ruled out a similar explanation previous case this wise: We find merit in PAL's petition. The excuse offered respondent Santos as reason for his failure to perfect in due time appeal from the judgment of the Municipal Court, that counsel's clerk forgot to hand him the court notice, is the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court. The uncritical acceptance of this kind of common place excuses, in the face of the Supreme Court's repeated rulings that they are neither credible nor constitutive of excusable negligence (Gaerlan vs. Bernal, L-4039, 29 January 1952; Mercado vs. Judge Domingo, L-19457, December 1966) is certainly such whimsical exercise of judgment to be a grave abuse of discretion. (Philippine Air Lines, Inc. Arca, 19 SCRA 300.) For the reason, therefore, that the judgment of the industrial court sought to be reviewed in the present case has already become final and executory, nay, not without the fault of the petitioners, hence, no matter how erroneous from the constitutional viewpoint it may be, it is already beyond recall, I vote to dismiss this case, without pronouncement as to costs. TEEHANKEE, J., concurring: For having carried out a mass demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969 in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police department, upon two days' prior notice to respondent employer company, as against the latter's insistence that the first shift 1 should not participate but instead report for work, under pain of dismissal, the industrial court ordered the dismissal from employment of the eight individual petitioners as union officers and organizers of the mass demonstration. Respondent court's order finding petitioner union guilty on respondent's complaint of bargaining in bad faith and unfair labor practice for having so carried out the mass demonstration, notwithstanding that it concededly was nota declaration of strike nor directed in any manner against respondent employer, and ordering the dismissal of the union office manifestly constituted grave abuse of discretion in fact and in law. There could not be, in fact, bargaining in bad faith nor unfair labor practice since respondent firm conceded that "the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed' by the Constitution" and the union up to the day of the demonstration pleaded by cablegram to the company to excuse the first shift and allow it to join the demonstration in accordance with their previous requests. Neither could there be, in law, a willful violation of the collective bargaining agreement's "no-strike" clause as would warrant the union leaders' dismissal, since as found by respondent court itself the mass demonstration was not a declaration of a strike, there being no industrial dispute between the protagonists, but merely the occurrence of a temporary stoppage of work" to enable the workers to exercise their constitutional rights of free expression, peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievance against alleged police excesses. Respondent court's en banc resolution dismissing petitioners' motion for reconsideration for having been filed two days late, after expiration of the reglementary five-day period fixed by its rules, due to the negligence of petitioners' counsel and/or the union president should likewise be set aside as a manifest act of grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners' petition for relief from the normal adverse consequences of the late filing of their motion for reconsideration due to such negligence which was not acted upon by respondent court should have been granted, considering the monstrous injustice that would otherwise be caused the petitioners through their summary dismissal from employment, simply because they sought in good faith to exercise basic human rights guaranteed them by the Constitution. It should be noted further that no proof of actual loss from the one-day stoppage of work was shown by respondent company, providing basis to the main opinion's premise that its insistence on dismissal of the union leaders for having included the first shift workers in the mass demonstration against its wishes was but an act of arbitrary vindictiveness. Only thus could the basic constitutional rights of the individual petitioners and the constitutional injunction to afford protection to labor be given true substance and meaning. No person may be deprived of such basic rights without due process which is but "responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided ... Due process is thus hostile to any official action marred by lack of reasonableness. Correctly it has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness." 2 Accordingly, I vote for the setting aside of the appealed orders of the respondent court and concur in the judgment for petitioners as set forth in the main opinion. G.R. No. 100150 January 5, 1994

BRIGIDO R. SIMON, JR., CARLOS QUIMPO, CARLITO ABELARDO, AND GENEROSO OCAMPO, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ROQUE FERMO, AND OTHERS AS JOHN DOES, respondents. The City Attorney for petitioners. The Solicitor General for public respondent.

VITUG, J.: The extent of the authority and power of the Commission on Human Rights ("CHR") is again placed into focus in this petition for prohibition, with prayer for a restraining order and preliminary injunction. The petitioners ask us to prohibit public respondent CHR from further hearing and investigating CHR Case No. 90-1580, entitled "Fermo, et al. vs. Quimpo, et al." The case all started when a "Demolition Notice," dated 9 July 1990, signed by Carlos Quimpo (one of the petitioners) in his capacity as an Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers Management Council under the Office of the City Mayor, was sent to, and received by, the private respondents (being the officers and members of the North EDSA Vendors Association, Incorporated). In said notice, the respondents were given a grace-period of three (3) days (up to 12 July 1990) within which to vacate the questioned premises of North EDSA.1 Prior to their receipt of the demolition notice, the private respondents were informed by petitioner Quimpo that their stalls should be removed to give way to the "People's Park". 2 On 12 July 1990, the group, led by their President Roque Fermo, filed a letter-complaint (Pinag-samang Sinumpaang Salaysay) with the CHR against the petitioners, asking the late CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter to be addressed to then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr., of Quezon City to stop the demolition of the private respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores, andcarinderia along North EDSA. The complaint was docketed as CHR Case No. 90-1580. 3 On 23 July 1990, the CHR issued an Order, directing the petitioners "to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending resolution of the vendors/squatters' complaint before the Commission" and ordering said petitioners to appear before the CHR. 4 On the basis of the sworn statements submitted by the private respondents on 31 July 1990, as well as CHR's own ocular inspection, and convinced that on 28 July 1990 the petitioners carried out the demolition of private respondents' stalls, sarisari stores and carinderia, 5 the CHR, in its resolution of 1 August 1990, ordered the disbursement of financial assistance of not more than P200,000.00 in favor of the private respondents to purchase light housing materials and food under the Commission's supervision and again directed the petitioners to "desist from further demolition, with the warning that violation of said order would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest." 6 A motion to dismiss, 7 dated 10 September 1990, questioned CHR's jurisdiction. The motion also averred, among other things, that: 1. this case came about due to the alleged violation by the (petitioners) of the Inter-Agency Memorandum of Agreement whereby Metro-Manila Mayors agreed on a moratorium in the demolition of the dwellings of poor dwellers in Metro-Manila; xxx xxx xxx 3. . . . , a perusal of the said Agreement (revealed) that the moratorium referred to therein refers to moratorium in the demolition of the structures of poor dwellers; 4. that the complainants in this case (were) not poor dwellers but independent business entrepreneurs even this Honorable Office admitted in its resolution of 1 August 1990 that the complainants are indeed, vendors; 5. that the complainants (were) occupying government land, particularly the sidewalk of EDSA corner North Avenue, Quezon City; . . . and

6. that the City Mayor of Quezon City (had) the sole and exclusive discretion and authority whether or not a certain business establishment (should) be allowed to operate within the jurisdiction of Quezon City, to revoke or cancel a permit, if already issued, upon grounds clearly specified by law and ordinance.
8

During the 12 September 1990 hearing, the petitioners moved for postponement, arguing that the motion to dismiss set for 21 September 1990 had yet to be resolved. The petitioners likewise manifested that they would bring the case to the courts.

On 18 September 1990 a supplemental motion to dismiss was filed by the petitioners, stating that the Commission's authority should be understood as being confined only to the investigation of violations of civil and political rights, and that "the rights allegedly violated in this case (were) not civil and political rights, (but) their privilege to engage in business." 9 On 21 September 1990, the motion to dismiss was heard and submitted for resolution, along with the contempt charge that had meantime been filed by the private respondents, albeit vigorously objected to by petitioners (on the ground that the motion to dismiss was still then unresolved). 10 In an Order, 11 dated 25 September 1990, the CHR cited the petitioners in contempt for carrying out the demolition of the stalls, sarisari stores and carinderia despite the "order to desist", and it imposed a fine of P500.00 on each of them. On 1 March 1991, 12 the CHR issued an Order, denying petitioners' motion to dismiss and supplemental motion to dismiss, in this wise:

Clearly, the Commission on Human Rights under its constitutional mandate had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the squatters-vendors who complained of the gross violations of their human and constitutional rights. The motion to dismiss should be and is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
13

The CHR opined that "it was not the intention of the (Constitutional) Commission to create only a paper tiger limited only to investigating civil and political rights, but it (should) be (considered) a quasi-judicial body with the power to provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines . . . ." It added: The right to earn a living is a right essential to one's right to development, to life and to dignity. All these brazenly and violently ignored and trampled upon by respondents with little regard at the same time for the basic rights of women and children, and their health, safety and welfare. Their actions have psychologically scarred and traumatized the children, who were witness and exposed to such a violent demonstration of Man's inhumanity to man. In an Order, 14 dated 25 April 1991, petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this recourse. The petition was initially dismissed in our resolution 15 of 25 June 1991; it was subsequently reinstated, however, in our resolution 16 of 18 June 1991, in which we also issued a temporary restraining order, directing the CHR to "CEASE and DESIST from further hearing CHR No. 90-1580." 17 The petitioners pose the following: Whether or not the public respondent has jurisdiction: a) to investigate the alleged violations of the "business rights" of the private respondents whose stalls were demolished by the petitioners at the instance and authority given by the Mayor of Quezon City; b) to impose the fine of P500.00 each on the petitioners; and c) to disburse the amount of P200,000.00 as financial aid to the vendors affected by the demolition. In the Court's resolution of 10 October 1991, the Solicitor-General was excused from filing his comment for public respondent CHR. The latter thus filed its own comment, 18 through Hon. Samuel Soriano, one of its Commissioners. The Court also resolved to dispense with the comment of private respondent Roque Fermo, who had since failed to comply with the resolution, dated 18 July 1991, requiring such comment. The petition has merit. The Commission on Human Rights was created by the 1987 Constitution. 19 It was formally constituted by then President Corazon Aquino via Executive Order No. 163, 20issued on 5 May 1987, in

the exercise of her legislative power at the time. It succeeded, but so superseded as well, the Presidential Committee on Human Rights. 21 The powers and functions 22 of the Commission are defined by the 1987 Constitution, thus: to (1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights; (2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court; (3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection; (4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities; (5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights; (6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families; (7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights; (8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority; (9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions; (10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and (11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law. In its Order of 1 March 1991, denying petitioners' motion to dismiss, the CHR theorizes that the intention of the members of the Constitutional Commission is to make CHR a quasi-judicial body. 23 This view, however, has not heretofore been shared by this Court. In Cario v. Commission on Human Rights, 24 the Court, through then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, has observed that it is "only the first of the enumerated powers and functions that bears any resemblance to adjudication or adjudgment," but that resemblance can in no way be synonymous to the adjudicatory power itself. The Court explained: . . . (T)he Commission on Human Rights . . . was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter. The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does not have. After thus laying down at the outset the above rule, we now proceed to the other kernel of this controversy and, its is, to determine the extent of CHR's investigative power. It can hardly be disputed that the phrase "human rights" is so generic a term that any attempt to define it, albeit not a few have tried, could at best be described as inconclusive. Let us observe. In a symposium on human rights in the Philippines, sponsored by the

University of the Philippines in 1977, one of the questions that has been propounded is "(w)hat do you understand by "human rights?" The participants, representing different sectors of the society, have given the following varied answers: Human rights are the basic rights which inhere in man by virtue of his humanity. They are the same in all parts of the world, whether the Philippines or England, Kenya or the Soviet Union, the United States or Japan, Kenya or Indonesia . . . .

Human rights include civil rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property; freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, academic freedom, and the rights of the accused to due process of law; political rights, such as the right to elect public officials, to be elected to public office, and to form political associations and engage in politics; and social rights, such as the right to an education, employment, and social services.
25

Human rights are the entitlement that inhere in the individual person from the sheer fact of his humanity. . . . Because they are inherent, human rights are not granted by the State but can only be recognized and protected by it.
26

(Human rights include all) the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
27

Human rights are rights that pertain to man simply because he is human. They are part of his natural birth, right, innate and inalienable.
28

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as, or more specifically, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, suggests that the scope of human rights can be understood to include those that relate to an individual's social, economic, cultural, political and civil relations. It thus seems to closely identify the term to the universally accepted traits and attributes of an individual, along with what is generally considered to be his inherent and inalienable rights, encompassing almost all aspects of life. Have these broad concepts been equally contemplated by the framers of our 1986 Constitutional Commission in adopting the specific provisions on human rights and in creating an independent commission to safeguard these rights? It may of value to look back at the country's experience under the martial law regime which may have, in fact, impelled the inclusions of those provisions in our fundamental law. Many voices have been heard. Among those voices, aptly represented perhaps of the sentiments expressed by others, comes from Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, a respected jurist and an advocate of civil liberties, who, in his paper, entitled "Present State of Human Rights in the Philippines," 29 observes: But while the Constitution of 1935 and that of 1973 enshrined in their Bill of Rights most of the human rights expressed in the International Covenant, these rights became unavailable upon the proclamation of Martial Law on 21 September 1972. Arbitrary action then became the rule. Individuals by the thousands became subject to arrest upon suspicion, and were detained and held for indefinite periods, sometimes for years, without charges, until ordered released by the Commander-in-Chief or this representative. The right to petition for the redress of grievances became useless, since group actions were forbidden. So were strikes. Press and other mass media were subjected to censorship and short term licensing. Martial law brought with it the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and judges lost independence and security of tenure, except members of the Supreme Court. They were required to submit letters of resignation and were dismissed upon the acceptance thereof. Torture to extort confessions were practiced as declared by international bodies like Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists. Converging our attention to the records of the Constitutional Commission, we can see the following discussions during its 26 August 1986 deliberations: MR. GARCIA . . . , the primacy of its (CHR) task must be made clear in view of the importance of human rights and also because civil and political rights have been determined by many international covenants and human rights legislations in the Philippines, as well as the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and subsequent legislation. Otherwise, if we cover such a wide territory in area, we might diffuse its impact and the precise nature of its task, hence, its effectivity would also be curtailed. So, it is important to delienate the parameters of its tasks so that the commission can be most effective.

MR. BENGZON. That is precisely my difficulty because civil and political rights are very broad. The Article on the Bill of Rights covers civil and political rights. Every single right of an individual involves his civil right or his political right. So, where do we draw the line? MR. GARCIA. Actually, these civil and political rights have been made clear in the language of human rights advocates, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which addresses a number of articles on the right to life, the right against torture, the right to fair and public hearing, and so on. These are very specific rights that are considered enshrined in many international documents and legal instruments as constituting civil and political rights, and these are precisely what we want to defend here. MR. BENGZON. So, would the commissioner say civil and political rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? MR. GARCIA. Yes, and as I have mentioned, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights distinguished this right against torture. MR. BENGZON. So as to distinguish this from the other rights that we have? MR. GARCIA. Yes, because the other rights will encompass social and economic rights, and there are other violations of rights of citizens which can be addressed to the proper courts and authorities. xxx xxx xxx MR. BENGZON. So, we will authorize the commission to define its functions, and, therefore, in doing that the commission will be authorized to take under its wings cases which perhaps heretofore or at this moment are under the jurisdiction of the ordinary investigative and prosecutorial agencies of the government. Am I correct? MR. GARCIA. No. We have already mentioned earlier that we would like to define the specific parameters which cover civil and political rights as covered by the international standards governing the behavior of governments regarding the particular political and civil rights of citizens, especially of political detainees or prisoners. This particular aspect we have experienced during martial law which we would now like to safeguard. MR. BENGZON. Then, I go back to that question that I had. Therefore, what we are really trying to say is, perhaps, at the proper time we could specify all those rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and defined as human rights. Those are the rights that we envision here? MR. GARCIA. Yes. In fact, they are also enshrined in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. They are integral parts of that. MR. BENGZON. Therefore, is the Gentleman saying that all the rights under the Bill of Rights covered by human rights? MR. GARCIA. No, only those that pertain to civil and political rights. xxx xxx xxx MR. RAMA. In connection with the discussion on the scope of human rights, I would like to state that in the past regime, everytime we invoke the violation of human rights, the Marcos regime came out with the defense that, as a matter of fact, they had defended the rights of people to decent living, food, decent housing and a life consistent with human dignity. So, I think we should really limit the definition of human rights to political rights. Is that the sense of the committee, so as not to confuse the issue? MR. SARMIENTO. Yes, Madam President. MR. GARCIA. I would like to continue and respond also to repeated points raised by the previous speaker. There are actually six areas where this Commission on Human Rights could act effectively: 1) protection of rights of political detainees; 2) treatment of prisoners and the prevention of tortures; 3) fair and public trials; 4) cases of disappearances; 5) salvagings and hamletting; and 6) other crimes committed against the religious.

xxx xxx xxx The PRESIDENT. Commissioner Guingona is recognized. MR. GUINGONA. Thank You Madam President. I would like to start by saying that I agree with Commissioner Garcia that we should, in order to make the proposed Commission more effective, delimit as much as possible, without prejudice to future expansion. The coverage of the concept and jurisdictional area of the term "human rights". I was actually disturbed this morning when the reference was made without qualification to the rights embodied in the universal Declaration of Human Rights, although later on, this was qualified to refer to civil and political rights contained therein. If I remember correctly, Madam President, Commissioner Garcia, after mentioning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, mentioned or linked the concept of human right with other human rights specified in other convention which I do not remember. Am I correct? MR. GARCIA. Is Commissioner Guingona referring to the Declaration of Torture of 1985? MR. GUINGONA. I do not know, but the commissioner mentioned another. MR. GARCIA. Madam President, the other one is the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights of which we are signatory. MR. GUINGONA. I see. The only problem is that, although I have a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights here, I do not have a copy of the other covenant mentioned. It is quite possible that there are rights specified in that other convention which may not be specified here. I was wondering whether it would be wise to link our concept of human rights to general terms like "convention," rather than specify the rights contained in the convention. As far as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is concerned, the Committee, before the period of amendments, could specify to us which of these articles in the Declaration will fall within the concept of civil and political rights, not for the purpose of including these in the proposed constitutional article, but to give the sense of the Commission as to what human rights would be included, without prejudice to expansion later on, if the need arises. For example, there was no definite reply to the question of Commissioner Regalado as to whether the right to marry would be considered a civil or a social right. It is not a civil right? MR. GARCIA. Madam President, I have to repeat the various specific civil and political rights that we felt must be envisioned initially by this provision freedom from political detention and arrest prevention of torture, right to fair and public trials, as well as crimes involving disappearance, salvagings, hamlettings and collective violations. So, it is limited to politically related crimes precisely to protect the civil and political rights of a specific group of individuals, and therefore, we are not opening it up to all of the definite areas. MR. GUINGONA. Correct. Therefore, just for the record, the Gentlemen is no longer linking his concept or the concept of the Committee on Human Rights with the so-called civil or political rights as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. MR. GARCIA. When I mentioned earlier the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I was referring to an international instrument. MR. GUINGONA. I know. MR. GARCIA. But it does not mean that we will refer to each and every specific article therein, but only to those that pertain to the civil and politically related, as we understand it in this Commission on Human Rights. MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, I am not even clear as to the distinction between civil and social rights. MR. GARCIA. There are two international covenants: the International Covenant and Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The second covenant contains all the different rights-the rights of labor to organize, the right to education, housing, shelter, et cetera.

MR. GUINGONA. So we are just limiting at the moment the sense of the committee to those that the Gentlemen has specified. MR. GARCIA. Yes, to civil and political rights. MR. GUINGONA. Thank you. xxx xxx xxx SR. TAN. Madam President, from the standpoint of the victims of human rights, I cannot stress more on how much we need a Commission on Human Rights. . . . . . . human rights victims are usually penniless. They cannot pay and very few lawyers will accept clients who do not pay. And so, they are the ones more abused and oppressed. Another reason is, the cases involved are very delicate torture, salvaging, picking up without any warrant of arrest, massacre and the persons who are allegedly guilty are people in power like politicians, men in the military and big shots. Therefore, this Human Rights Commission must be independent.

I would like very much to emphasize how much we need this commission, especially for the little Filipino, the little individual who needs this kind of help and cannot get it. And I think we should concentrate only on civil and political violations because if we open this to land, housing and health, we will have no place to go again and we will not receive any response. . . . (emphasis supplied)
30

The final outcome, now written as Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution, is a provision empowering the Commission on Human Rights to "investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights" (Sec. 1). The term "civil rights," 31 has been defined as referring (t)o those (rights) that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of the government. They include the rights of property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as otherwise defined civil rights are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Such term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. Also quite often mentioned are the guarantees against involuntary servitude, religious persecution, unreasonable searches and seizures, and imprisonment for debt. 32 Political rights, 33 on the other hand, are said to refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government. 34 Recalling the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, aforequoted, it is readily apparent that the delegates envisioned a Commission on Human Rights that would focus its attention to the more severe cases of human rights violations. Delegate Garcia, for instance, mentioned such areas as the "(1) protection of rights of political detainees, (2) treatment of prisoners and the prevention of tortures, (3) fair and public trials, (4) cases of disappearances, (5) salvagings and hamletting, and (6) other crimes committed against the religious." While the enumeration has not likely been meant to have any preclusive effect, more than just expressing a statement of priority, it is, nonetheless, significant for the tone it has set. In any event, the delegates did not apparently take comfort in peremptorily making a conclusive delineation of the CHR's scope of investigatorial jurisdiction. They have thus seen it fit to resolve, instead, that "Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendation." 35 In the particular case at hand, there is no cavil that what are sought to be demolished are the stalls, sari-saristores and carinderia, as well as temporary shanties, erected by private respondents on a land which is planned to be developed into a "People's Park". More than that, the land adjoins the North EDSA of Quezon City which, this Court can take judicial notice of, is a busy national highway. The consequent danger to life and limb is not thus to be likewise simply ignored. It is indeed paradoxical that a right which is claimed to have been violated is one that cannot, in the first place, even be invoked, if it is, in fact, extant. Be that as it may, looking at the standards hereinabove discoursed vis-a-vis the circumstances obtaining in this instance, we are not prepared to conclude that the order for the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia of the private respondents can fall within the compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political rights" intended by the Constitution.

On its contempt powers, the CHR is constitutionally authorized to "adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court." Accordingly, the CHR acted within its authority in providing in its revised rules, its power "to cite or hold any person in direct or indirect contempt, and to impose the appropriate penalties in accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court." That power to cite for contempt, however, should be understood to apply only to violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. To exemplify, the power to cite for contempt could be exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate with the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant information, or who decline to honor summons, and the like, in pursuing its investigative work. The "order to desist" (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) in the instance before us, however, is not investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess. In Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on Human Rights, 36 the Court, speaking through Madame Justice Carolina Grio-Aquino, explained: The constitutional provision directing the CHR to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection" may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, it that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. "Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law". It is never derived by implication. Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ of preliminary injunction) which the CHR may seek from proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge of any court in which the action is pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. . . . A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending principal action, for the preservation or protection of the rights and interests of a party thereto, and for no other purpose." (footnotes omitted). The Commission does have legal standing to indorse, for appropriate action, its findings and recommendations to any appropriate agency of government. 37 The challenge on the CHR's disbursement of the amount of P200,000.00 by way of financial aid to the vendors affected by the demolition is not an appropriate issue in the instant petition. Not only is there lack of locus standion the part of the petitioners to question the disbursement but, more importantly, the matter lies with the appropriate administrative agencies concerned to initially consider. The public respondent explains that this petition for prohibition filed by the petitioners has become moot and academic since the case before it (CHR Case No. 90-1580) has already been fully heard, and that the matter is merely awaiting final resolution. It is true that prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done, and not intended to provide a remedy for an act already accomplished. 38 Here, however, said Commission admittedly has yet to promulgate its resolution in CHR Case No. 901580. The instant petition has been intended, among other things, to also prevent CHR from precisely doing that. 39 WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for in this petition is GRANTED. The Commission on Human Rights is hereby prohibited from further proceeding with CHR Case No. 90-1580 and from implementing the P500.00 fine for contempt. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued by this Court is made permanent. No costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason and Puno, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J.,

dissenting:

I reiterate my separate opinion in "Carino, et al. vs. The Commission on Human rights, et al.," G.R. No. 96681, 2 December 1991, 204 SCRA 483 in relation to the resolution of 29 January 1991 and my dissenting opinion in "Export Processing Zone Authority vs. The Commission on Human Rights, et al.," G.R. No. 101476, 14 April 1992, 208 SCRA 125. I am of the considered view that the CHR can issue a cease and desist order to maintain a status quo pending its investigation of a case involving an alleged human rights violation; that such cease and desist order maybe necessary in situations involving a threatened violation of human rights, which the CHR intents to investigate. In the case at bench, I would consider the threatened demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderias as well as the temporary shanties owned by the private respondents as posing prima facie a case of human rights violation because it involves an impairment of the civil rights of said private respondents, under the definition of civil rights cited by the majority opinion (pp. 20-21) and which the CHR has unquestioned authority to investigate (Section 18, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution). Human rights demand more than lip service and extend beyond impressive displays of placards at street corners. Positive action and results are what count. Certainly, the cause of human rights is not enhanced when the very constitutional agency tasked to protect and vindicate human rights is transformed by us, from the start, into a tiger without dentures but with maimed legs to boot. I submit the CHR should be given a wide latitude to look into and investigate situations which may (or may not ultimately) involve human rights violations. ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to remand the case to the CHR for further proceedings.

# Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J.,

dissenting:

I reiterate my separate opinion in "Carino, et al. vs. The Commission on Human rights, et al.," G.R. No. 96681, 2 December 1991, 204 SCRA 483 in relation to the resolution of 29 January 1991 and my dissenting opinion in "Export Processing Zone Authority vs. The Commission on Human Rights, et al.," G.R. No. 101476, 14 April 1992, 208 SCRA 125. I am of the considered view that the CHR can issue a cease and desist order to maintain a status quo pending its investigation of a case involving an alleged human rights violation; that such cease and desist order maybe necessary in situations involving a threatened violation of human rights, which the CHR intents to investigate. In the case at bench, I would consider the threatened demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderias as well as the temporary shanties owned by the private respondents as posing prima facie a case of human rights violation because it involves an impairment of the civil rights of said private respondents, under the definition of civil rights cited by the majority opinion (pp. 20-21) and which the CHR has unquestioned authority to investigate (Section 18, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution). Human rights demand more than lip service and extend beyond impressive displays of placards at street corners. Positive action and results are what count. Certainly, the cause of human rights is not enhanced when the very constitutional agency tasked to protect and vindicate human rights is transformed by us, from the start, into a tiger without dentures but with maimed legs to boot. I submit the CHR should be given a wide latitude to look into and investigate situations which may (or may not ultimately) involve human rights violations. ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to remand the case to the CHR for further proceedings G.R. No. L-24693 July 31, 1967

ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., HOTEL DEL MAR INC. and GO CHIU, petitionersappellees, vs. THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, respondent-appellant. VICTOR ALABANZA, intervenor-appellee. Panganiban, Abad and Associates Law Office for respondent-appellant. J. M. Aruego, Tenchavez and Associates for intervenor-appellee. FERNANDO, J.:

The principal question in this appeal from a judgment of the lower court in an action for prohibition is whether Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process clause. The lower court held that it is and adjudged it "unconstitutional, and, therefore, null and void." For reasons to be more specifically set forth, such judgment must be reversed, there being a failure of the requisite showing to sustain an attack against its validity. The petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 was filed on July 5, 1963 by the petitioners, Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, one of its members, Hotel del Mar Inc., and a certain Go Chiu, who is "the president and general manager of the second petitioner" against the respondent Mayor of the City of Manila who was sued in his capacity as such "charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances." (par. 1). It was alleged that the petitioner non-stock corporation is dedicated to the promotion and protection of the interest of its eighteen (18) members "operating hotels and motels, characterized as legitimate businesses duly licensed by both national and city authorities, regularly paying taxes, employing and giving livelihood to not less than 2,500 person and representing an investment of more than P3 million."1 (par. 2). It was then alleged that on June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4760, approved on June 14, 1963 by the then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga, who was at the time acting as Mayor of the City of Manila. (par. 3). After which the alleged grievances against the ordinance were set forth in detail. There was the assertion of its being beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila to enact insofar as it would regulate motels, on the ground that in the revised charter of the City of Manila or in any other law, no reference is made to motels; that Section 1 of the challenged ordinance is unconstitutional and void for being unreasonable and violative of due process insofar as it would impose P6,000.00 fee per annum for first class motels and P4,500.00 for second class motels; that the provision in the same section which would require the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of a hotel, motel, or lodging house to refrain from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer or letting any room or other quarter to any person or persons without his filling up the prescribed form in a lobby open to public view at all times and in his presence, wherein the surname, given name and middle name, the date of birth, the address, the occupation, the sex, the nationality, the length of stay and the number of companions in the room, if any, with the name, relationship, age and sex would be specified, with data furnished as to his residence certificate as well as his passport number, if any, coupled with a certification that a person signing such form has personally filled it up and affixed his signature in the presence of such owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative, with such registration forms and records kept and bound together, it also being provided that the premises and facilities of such hotels, motels and lodging houses would be open for inspection either by the City Mayor, or the Chief of Police, or their duly authorized representatives is unconstitutional and void again on due process grounds, not only for being arbitrary, unreasonable or oppressive but also for being vague, indefinite and uncertain, and likewise for the alleged invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty against self-incrimination; that Section 2 of the challenged ordinance classifying motels into two classes and requiring the maintenance of certain minimum facilities in first class motels such as a telephone in each room, a dining room or, restaurant and laundry similarly offends against the due process clause for being arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive, a conclusion which applies to the portion of the ordinance requiring second class motels to have a dining room; that the provision of Section 2 of the challenged ordinance prohibiting a person less than 18 years old from being accepted in such hotels, motels, lodging houses, tavern or common inn unless accompanied by parents or a lawful guardian and making it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of such establishments to lease any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours, runs counter to the due process guaranty for lack of certainty and for its unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive character; and that insofar as the penalty provided for in Section 4 of the challenged ordinance for a subsequent conviction would, cause the automatic cancellation of the license of the offended party, in effect causing the destruction of the business and loss of its investments, there is once again a transgression of the due process clause. There was a plea for the issuance of preliminary injunction and for a final judgment declaring the above ordinance null and void and unenforceable. The lower court on July 6, 1963 issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering respondent Mayor to refrain from enforcing said Ordinance No. 4760 from and after July 8, 1963. In the a answer filed on August 3, 1963, there was an admission of the personal circumstances regarding the respondent Mayor and of the fact that petitioners are licensed to engage in the hotel or motel business in the City of Manila, of the provisions of the cited Ordinance but a denial of its alleged nullity, whether on statutory or constitutional grounds. After setting forth that the petition did fail to state a cause of action and that the challenged ordinance bears a reasonable relation, to a proper purpose, which is to curb immorality, a valid and proper exercise of the police power and that only the guests or customers not before the court could complain of the alleged invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty against self incrimination, with the assertion that the issuance of the preliminary injunction ex parte was contrary to law, respondent Mayor prayed for, its dissolution and the dismissal of the petition. Instead of evidence being offered by both parties, there was submitted a stipulation of facts dated September 28, 1964, which reads: 1. That the petitioners Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. and Hotel del Mar Inc. are duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, both with offices in the City of Manila, while the petitioner Go Chin is the president and general manager of Hotel del Mar Inc., and the intervenor Victor Alabanza is a resident of Baguio City, all having the capacity to sue and be sued;

2. That the respondent Mayor is the duly elected and incumbent City Mayor and chief executive of the City of Manila charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances; 3. That the petitioners are duly licensed to engage in the business of operating hotels and motels in Malate and Ermita districts in Manila; 4. That on June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4760, which was approved on June 14, 1963, by Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga, then the acting City Mayor of Manila, in the absence of the respondent regular City Mayor, amending sections 661, 662, 668-a, 668-b and 669 of the compilation of the ordinances of the City of Manila besides inserting therein three new sections. This ordinance is similar to the one vetoed by the respondent Mayor (Annex A) for the reasons stated in its 4th Indorsement dated February 15, 1963 (Annex B); 5. That the explanatory note signed by then Councilor Herminio Astorga was submitted with the proposed ordinance (now Ordinance 4760) to the Municipal Board, copy of which is attached hereto as Annex C; 6. That the City of Manila derived in 1963 an annual income of P101,904.05 from license fees paid by the 105 hotels and motels (including herein petitioners) operating in the City of Manila.
1wph1.t

Thereafter came a memorandum for respondent on January 22, 1965, wherein stress was laid on the presumption of the validity of the challenged ordinance, the burden of showing its lack of conformity to the Constitution resting on the party who assails it, citing not only U.S. v. Salaveria, but likewise applicable American authorities. Such a memorandum likewise refuted point by point the arguments advanced by petitioners against its validity. Then barely two weeks later, on February 4, 1965, the memorandum for petitioners was filed reiterating in detail what was set forth in the petition, with citations of what they considered to be applicable American authorities and praying for a judgment declaring the challenged ordinance "null and void and unenforceable" and making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction issued. After referring to the motels and hotels, which are members of the petitioners association, and referring to the alleged constitutional questions raised by the party, the lower court observed: "The only remaining issue here being purely a question of law, the parties, with the nod of the Court, agreed to file memoranda and thereafter, to submit the case for decision of the Court." It does appear obvious then that without any evidence submitted by the parties, the decision passed upon the alleged infirmity on constitutional grounds of the challenged ordinance, dismissing as is undoubtedly right and proper the untenable objection on the alleged lack of authority of the City of Manila to regulate motels, and came to the conclusion that "the challenged Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila, would be unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void." It made permanent the preliminary injunction issued against respondent Mayor and his agents "to restrain him from enforcing the ordinance in question." Hence this appeal. As noted at the outset, the judgment must be reversed. A decent regard for constitutional doctrines of a fundamental character ought to have admonished the lower court against such a sweeping condemnation of the challenged ordinance. Its decision cannot be allowed to stand, consistently with what has hitherto been the accepted standards of constitutional adjudication, in both procedural and substantive aspects. Primarily what calls for a reversal of such a decision is the absence of any evidence to offset the presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged statute or ordinance. As was expressed categorically by Justice Malcolm: "The presumption is all in favor of validity x x x . The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. The councilors must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular municipality and with all the facts and circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action. The local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the people x x x . The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation.2 It admits of no doubt therefore that there being a presumption of validity, the necessity for evidence to rebut it is unavoidable, unless the statute or ordinance is void on its face which is not the case here. The principle has been nowhere better expressed than in the leading case of O'Gorman & Young v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.,3 where the American Supreme Court through Justice Brandeis tersely and succinctly summed up the matter thus: The statute here questioned deals with a subject clearly within the scope of the police power. We are asked to declare it void on the ground that the specific method of regulation prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due process of law. As underlying questions of fact may condition the constitutionality of legislation of this character, the resumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute." No such factual foundation being laid in the present case, the lower court deciding the matter on the pleadings and the stipulation of facts, the presumption of validity must prevail and the judgment against the ordinance set aside. Nor may petitioners assert with plausibility that on its face the ordinance is fatally defective as being repugnant to the due process clause of the Constitution. The mantle of protection associated with the due process guaranty does not cover petitioners. This particular manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported by anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of police power which has been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers,4 extending as it does "to all the great public needs."5 It would be, to paraphrase another leading decision, to

destroy the very purpose of the state if it could be deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to promote public health, public morals, public safety and the genera welfare.6 Negatively put, police power is "that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurt full to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.7 There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. The explanatory note of the Councilor Herminio Astorga included as annex to the stipulation of facts, speaks of the alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence of motels, which "provide a necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit" and thus become the "ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers." The challenged ordinance then proposes to check the clandestine harboring of transients and guests of these establishments by requiring these transients and guests to fill up a registration form, prepared for the purpose, in a lobby open to public view at all times, and by introducing several other amendatory provisions calculated to shatter the privacy that characterizes the registration of transients and guests." Moreover, the increase in the licensed fees was intended to discourage "establishments of the kind from operating for purpose other than legal" and at the same time, to increase "the income of the city government." It would appear therefore that the stipulation of facts, far from sustaining any attack against the validity of the ordinance, argues eloquently for it. It is a fact worth noting that this Court has invariably stamped with the seal of its approval, ordinances punishing vagrancy and classifying a pimp or procurer as a vagrant;8 provide a license tax for and regulating the maintenance or operation of public dance halls;9 prohibiting gambling;10 prohibiting jueteng;11 and monte;12prohibiting playing of panguingui on days other than Sundays or legal holidays;13 prohibiting the operation of pinball machines;14 and prohibiting any person from keeping, conducting or maintaining an opium joint or visiting a place where opium is smoked or otherwise used, 15 all of which are intended to protect public morals. On the legislative organs of the government, whether national or local, primarily rest the exercise of the police power, which, it cannot be too often emphasized, is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. In view of the requirements of due process, equal protection and other applicable constitutional guaranties however, the exercise of such police power insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or property of any person is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such exercise of police power may be considered as either capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a denial of due process or a violation of any other applicable constitutional guaranty may call for correction by the courts. We are thus led to considering the insistent, almost shrill tone, in which the objection is raised to the question of due process.16 There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes though a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. What then is the standard of due process which must exist both as a procedural and a substantive requisite to free the challenged ordinance, or any governmental action for that matter, from the imputation of legal infirmity sufficient to spell its doom? It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. To satisfy the due process requirement, official action, to paraphrase Cardozo, must not outrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression. Due process is thus hostile to any official action marred by lack of reasonableness. Correctly it has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play. 17 It exacts fealty "to those strivings for justice" and judges the act of officialdom of whatever branch "in the light of reason drawn from considerations of fairness that reflect [democratic] traditions of legal and political thought."18 It is not a narrow or "technical conception with fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances,"19 decisions based on such a clause requiring a "close and perceptive inquiry into fundamental principles of our society."20 Questions of due process are not to be treated narrowly or pedantically in slavery to form or phrases. 21 It would thus be an affront to reason to stigmatize an ordinance enacted precisely to meet what a municipal lawmaking body considers an evil of rather serious proportion an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority. It would seem that what should be deemed unreasonable and what would amount to an abdication of the power to govern is inaction in the face of an admitted deterioration of the state of public morals. To be more specific, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila felt the need for a remedial measure. It provided it with the enactment of the challenged ordinance. A strong case must be found in the records, and, as has been set forth, none is even attempted here to attach to an ordinance of such character the taint of nullity for an alleged failure to meet the due process requirement. Nor does it lend any semblance even of deceptive plausibility to petitioners' indictment of Ordinance No. 4760 on due process grounds to single out such features as the increased fees for motels and hotels, the curtailment of the area of freedom to contract, and, in certain particulars, its alleged vagueness. Admittedly there was a decided increase of the annual license fees provided for by the challenged ordinance for hotels and motels, 150% for the former and over 200% for the latter, first-class motels being required to pay a P6,000 annual fee and second-class motels, P4,500 yearly. It has been the settled law however, as far back as 1922 that municipal license fees could be classified into those imposed for regulating occupations or regular enterprises, for the regulation or restriction of non-useful occupations or enterprises and for revenue purposes only.22 As was explained more in detail in the above Cu Unjieng case: (2) Licenses for nonuseful occupations are also incidental to the police power and the right to exact a fee may be implied from the power to license and regulate, but in fixing amount of the license fees the municipal corporations are allowed a much wider discretion in this class of cases than in the former, and aside from applying the well-known legal principle that municipal ordinances must not be unreasonable, oppressive, or tyrannical, courts have, as a general rule, declined to interfere with such discretion. The desirability of imposing restraint upon the number of persons who might otherwise engage in non-useful enterprises is, of course, generally an important factor in the determination of the amount of this kind of license fee. Hence license fees clearly in the nature of privilege taxes for revenue have frequently been upheld, especially in of licenses for the sale of liquors. In fact, in the latter cases the fees have rarely been declared unreasonable.23

Moreover in the equally leading case of Lutz v. Araneta24 this Court affirmed the doctrine earlier announced by the American Supreme Court that taxation may be made to implement the state's police power. Only the other day, this Court had occasion to affirm that the broad taxing authority conferred by the Local Autonomy Act of 1959 to cities and municipalities is sufficiently plenary to cover a wide range of subjects with the only limitation that the tax so levied is for public purposes, just and uniform. 25 As a matter of fact, even without reference to the wide latitude enjoyed by the City of Manila in imposing licenses for revenue, it has been explicitly held in one case that "much discretion is given to municipal corporations in determining the amount," here the license fee of the operator of a massage clinic, even if it were viewed purely as a police power measure. 26 The discussion of this particular matter may fitly close with this pertinent citation from another decision of significance: "It is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellees that the enforcement of the ordinance could deprive them of their lawful occupation and means of livelihood because they can not rent stalls in the public markets. But it appears that plaintiffs are also dealers in refrigerated or cold storage meat, the sale of which outside the city markets under certain conditions is permitted x x x . And surely, the mere fact, that some individuals in the community may be deprived of their present business or a particular mode of earning a living cannot prevent the exercise of the police power. As was said in a case, persons licensed to pursue occupations which may in the public need and interest be affected by the exercise of the police power embark in these occupations subject to the disadvantages which may result from the legal exercise of that power."27 Nor does the restriction on the freedom to contract, insofar as the challenged ordinance makes it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of any hotel, motel, lodging house, tavern, common inn or the like, to lease or rent room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours, with a proviso that in all cases full payment shall be charged, call for a different conclusion. Again, such a limitation cannot be viewed as a transgression against the command of due process. It is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Precisely it was intended to curb the opportunity for the immoral or illegitimate use to which such premises could be, and, according to the explanatory note, are being devoted. How could it then be arbitrary or oppressive when there appears a correspondence between the undeniable existence of an undesirable situation and the legislative attempt at correction. Moreover, petitioners cannot be unaware that every regulation of conduct amounts to curtailment of liberty which as pointed out by Justice Malcolm cannot be absolute. Thus: "One thought which runs through all these different conceptions of liberty is plainly apparent. It is this: 'Liberty' as understood in democracies, is not license; it is 'liberty regulated by law.' Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the general wellbeing. No man can do exactly as he pleases. Every man must renounce unbridled license. The right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good x x x The liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of the public health, or of the public order and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope of the police power." 28 A similar observation was made by Justice Laurel: "Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of said law, and the state in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state x x x To this fundamental aim of our Government the rights of the individual are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The citizen should achieve the required balance of liberty and authority in his mind through education and personal discipline, so that there may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and happiness for all. 29 It is noteworthy that the only decision of this Court nullifying legislation because of undue deprivation of freedom to contract, People v. Pomar,30 no longer "retains its virtuality as a living principle. The policy of laissez faire has to some extent given way to the assumption by the government of the right of intervention even in contractual relations affected with public interest.31 What may be stressed sufficiently is that if the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the validity of governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects at the most rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider.32 How justify then the allegation of a denial of due process? Lastly, there is the attempt to impugn the ordinance on another due process ground by invoking the principles of vagueness or uncertainty. It would appear from a recital in the petition itself that what seems to be the gravamen of the alleged grievance is that the provisions are too detailed and specific rather than vague or uncertain. Petitioners, however, point to the requirement that a guest should give the name, relationship, age and sex of the companion or companions as indefinite and uncertain in view of the necessity for determining whether the companion or companions referred to are those arriving with the customer or guest at the time of the registry or entering the room With him at about the same time or coming at any indefinite time later to join him; a proviso in one of its sections which cast doubt as to whether the maintenance of a restaurant in a motel is dependent upon the discretion of its owners or operators; another proviso which from their standpoint would require a guess as to whether the "full rate of payment" to be charged for every such lease thereof means a full day's or merely a half-day's rate. It may be asked, do these allegations suffice to render the ordinance void on its face for alleged vagueness or uncertainty? To ask the question is to answer it. From Connally v. General Construction Co.33 toAdderley v. Florida,34 the principle has been consistently upheld that what makes a statute susceptible to such a charge is an enactment either forbidding or requiring the doing of an act that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Is this the situation before us? A citation from Justice Holmes would prove illuminating: "We agree to all the generalities about not supplying criminal laws with what they omit but there is no canon against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they obviously mean."35 That is all then that this case presents. As it stands, with all due allowance for the arguments pressed with such vigor and determination, the attack against the validity of the challenged ordinance cannot be considered a success. Far from it. Respect for

constitutional law principles so uniformly held and so uninterruptedly adhered to by this Court compels a reversal of the appealed decision. Wherefore, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the injunction issued lifted forthwith. With costs. Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur. Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., are on leave. OUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, Petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 193036 REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR., REP. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, and REP. ORLANDO B. FUA, SR., Petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Respondents. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. --- Justice Jose P. Laurel1 The role of the Constitution cannot be overlooked. It is through the Constitution that the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments. 2 The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.3 Constitutional doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of government and the people who run it.4 For consideration before the Court are two consolidated cases 5 both of which essentially assail the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, dated July 30, 2010, entitled "Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010." The first case is G.R. No. 192935, a special civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis Biraogo (Biraogo) in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Biraogo assails Executive Order No. 1 for being violative of the legislative power of Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution6 as it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds therefor.7 The second case, G.R. No. 193036, is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners Edcel C. Lagman, Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., Simeon A. Datumanong, and Orlando B. Fua, Sr. (petitioners-legislators) as incumbent members of the House of Representatives. The genesis of the foregoing cases can be traced to the events prior to the historic May 2010 elections, when then Senator Benigno Simeon Aquino III declared his staunch condemnation of graft and corruption with his slogan, "Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap." The Filipino people, convinced of his sincerity and of his ability to carry out this noble objective, catapulted the good senator to the presidency. To transform his campaign slogan into reality, President Aquino found a need for a special body to investigate reported cases of graft and corruption allegedly committed during the previous administration.

Thus, at the dawn of his administration, the President on July 30, 2010, signed Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (Truth Commission). Pertinent provisions of said executive order read: EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1 CREATING THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines solemnly enshrines the principle that a public office is a public trust and mandates that public officers and employees, who are servants of the people, must at all times be accountable to the latter, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives; WHEREAS, corruption is among the most despicable acts of defiance of this principle and notorious violation of this mandate; WHEREAS, corruption is an evil and scourge which seriously affects the political, economic, and social life of a nation; in a very special way it inflicts untold misfortune and misery on the poor, the marginalized and underprivileged sector of society; WHEREAS, corruption in the Philippines has reached very alarming levels, and undermined the peoples trust and confidence in the Government and its institutions; WHEREAS, there is an urgent call for the determination of the truth regarding certain reports of large scale graft and corruption in the government and to put a closure to them by the filing of the appropriate cases against those involved, if warranted, and to deter others from committing the evil, restore the peoples faith and confidence in the Government and in their public servants; WHEREAS, the Presidents battlecry during his campaign for the Presidency in the last elections "kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap" expresses a solemn pledge that if elected, he would end corruption and the evil it breeds; WHEREAS, there is a need for a separate body dedicated solely to investigating and finding out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration, and which will recommend the prosecution of the offenders and secure justice for all; WHEREAS, Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Revised Administrative Code of the Philippines, gives the President the continuing authority to reorganize the Office of the President. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order: SECTION 1. Creation of a Commission. There is hereby created the PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to as the "COMMISSION," which shall primarily seek and find the truth on, and toward this end, investigate reports of graft and corruption of such scale and magnitude that shock and offend the moral and ethical sensibilities of the people, committed by public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration; and thereafter recommend the appropriate action or measure to be taken thereon to ensure that the full measure of justice shall be served without fear or favor. The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four (4) members who will act as an independent collegial body. SECTION 2. Powers and Functions. The Commission, which shall have all the powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, is primarily tasked to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption referred to in Section 1, involving third level public officers and higher, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration and thereafter submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman. In particular, it shall: a) Identify and determine the reported cases of such graft and corruption which it will investigate; b) Collect, receive, review and evaluate evidence related to or regarding the cases of large scale corruption which it has chosen to investigate, and to this end require any agency, official or employee of the Executive Branch, including government-owned or controlled corporations, to produce documents, books, records and other papers;

c) Upon proper request or representation, obtain information and documents from the Senate and the House of Representatives records of investigations conducted by committees thereof relating to matters or subjects being investigated by the Commission; d) Upon proper request and representation, obtain information from the courts, including the Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Court Administrator, information or documents in respect to corruption cases filed with the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts, as the case may be; e) Invite or subpoena witnesses and take their testimonies and for that purpose, administer oaths or affirmations as the case may be; f) Recommend, in cases where there is a need to utilize any person as a state witness to ensure that the ends of justice be fully served, that such person who qualifies as a state witness under the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines be admitted for that purpose; g) Turn over from time to time, for expeditious prosecution, to the appropriate prosecutorial authorities, by means of a special or interim report and recommendation, all evidence on corruption of public officers and employees and their private sector co-principals, accomplices or accessories, if any, when in the course of its investigation the Commission finds that there is reasonable ground to believe that they are liable for graft and corruption under pertinent applicable laws; h) Call upon any government investigative or prosecutorial agency such as the Department of Justice or any of the agencies under it, and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, for such assistance and cooperation as it may require in the discharge of its functions and duties; i) Engage or contract the services of resource persons, professionals and other personnel determined by it as necessary to carry out its mandate; j) Promulgate its rules and regulations or rules of procedure it deems necessary to effectively and efficiently carry out the objectives of this Executive Order and to ensure the orderly conduct of its investigations, proceedings and hearings, including the presentation of evidence; k) Exercise such other acts incident to or are appropriate and necessary in connection with the objectives and purposes of this Order. SECTION 3. Staffing Requirements. x x x. SECTION 4. Detail of Employees. x x x. SECTION 5. Engagement of Experts. x x x SECTION 6. Conduct of Proceedings. x x x. SECTION 7. Right to Counsel of Witnesses/Resource Persons. x x x. SECTION 8. Protection of Witnesses/Resource Persons. x x x. SECTION 9. Refusal to Obey Subpoena, Take Oath or Give Testimony. Any government official or personnel who, without lawful excuse, fails to appear upon subpoena issued by the Commission or who, appearing before the Commission refuses to take oath or affirmation, give testimony or produce documents for inspection, when required, shall be subject to administrative disciplinary action. Any private person who does the same may be dealt with in accordance with law. SECTION 10. Duty to Extend Assistance to the Commission. x x x. SECTION 11. Budget for the Commission. The Office of the President shall provide the necessary funds for the Commission to ensure that it can exercise its powers, execute its functions, and perform its duties and responsibilities as effectively, efficiently, and expeditiously as possible. SECTION 12. Office. x x x.

SECTION 13. Furniture/Equipment. x x x. SECTION 14. Term of the Commission. The Commission shall accomplish its mission on or before December 31, 2012. SECTION 15. Publication of Final Report. x x x. SECTION 16. Transfer of Records and Facilities of the Commission. x x x. SECTION 17. Special Provision Concerning Mandate. If and when in the judgment of the President there is a need to expand the mandate of the Commission as defined in Section 1 hereof to include the investigation of cases and instances of graft and corruption during the prior administrations, such mandate may be so extended accordingly by way of a supplemental Executive Order. SECTION 18. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Order is declared unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity and effectivity of the other provisions hereof. SECTION 19. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. DONE in the City of Manila, Philippines, this 30th day of July 2010. (SGD.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III By the President: (SGD.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. Executive Secretary Nature of the Truth Commission As can be gleaned from the above-quoted provisions, the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous administration, and thereafter to submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman. Though it has been described as an "independent collegial body," it is essentially an entity within the Office of the President Proper and subject to his control. Doubtless, it constitutes a public office, as an ad hoc body is one.8 To accomplish its task, the PTC shall have all the powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987. It is not, however, a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in disputes between contending parties. All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make recommendations. It may have subpoena powers but it has no power to cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest. Although it is a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law. Needless to state, it cannot impose criminal, civil or administrative penalties or sanctions. The PTC is different from the truth commissions in other countries which have been created as official, transitory and non-judicial fact-finding bodies "to establish the facts and context of serious violations of human rights or of international humanitarian law in a countrys past."9 They are usually established by states emerging from periods of internal unrest, civil strife or authoritarianism to serve as mechanisms for transitional justice. Truth commissions have been described as bodies that share the following characteristics: (1) they examine only past events; (2) they investigate patterns of abuse committed over a period of time, as opposed to a particular event; (3) they are temporary bodies that finish their work with the submission of a report containing conclusions and recommendations; and (4) they are officially sanctioned, authorized or empowered by the State.10"Commissions members are usually empowered to conduct research, support victims, and propose policy recommendations to prevent recurrence of crimes. Through their investigations, the commissions may aim to discover and learn more about past abuses, or formally acknowledge them. They may aim to prepare the way for prosecutions and recommend institutional reforms."11 Thus, their main goals range from retribution to reconciliation. The Nuremburg and Tokyo war crime tribunals are examples of a retributory or vindicatory body set up to try and punish those responsible for crimes against humanity. A form of a reconciliatory tribunal is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, the principal function of which was to heal the wounds of past violence and to prevent future conflict by providing a cathartic experience for victims. The PTC is a far cry from South Africas model. The latter placed more emphasis on reconciliation than on judicial retribution, while the marching order of the PTC is the identification and punishment of perpetrators. As one writer 12 puts it:

The order ruled out reconciliation. It translated the Draconian code spelled out by Aquino in his inaugural speech: "To those who talk about reconciliation, if they mean that they would like us to simply forget about the wrongs that they have committed in the past, we have this to say: There can be no reconciliation without justice. When we allow crimes to go unpunished, we give consent to their occurring over and over again." The Thrusts of the Petitions Barely a month after the issuance of Executive Order No. 1, the petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions. A perusal of the arguments of the petitioners in both cases shows that they are essentially the same. The petitioners-legislators summarized them in the following manner: (a) E.O. No. 1 violates the separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the Congress to create a public office and appropriate funds for its operation. (b) The provision of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987 cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1 because the delegated authority of the President to structurally reorganize the Office of the President to achieve economy, simplicity and efficiency does not include the power to create an entirely new public office which was hitherto inexistent like the "Truth Commission." (c) E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution and pertinent statutes when it vested the "Truth Commission" with quasijudicial powers duplicating, if not superseding, those of the Office of the Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution and the Department of Justice created under the Administrative Code of 1987. (d) E.O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause as it selectively targets for investigation and prosecution officials and personnel of the previous administration as if corruption is their peculiar species even as it excludes those of the other administrations, past and present, who may be indictable. (e) The creation of the "Philippine Truth Commission of 2010" violates the consistent and general international practice of four decades wherein States constitute truth commissions to exclusively investigate human rights violations, which customary practice forms part of the generally accepted principles of international law which the Philippines is mandated to adhere to pursuant to the Declaration of Principles enshrined in the Constitution. (f) The creation of the "Truth Commission" is an exercise in futility, an adventure in partisan hostility, a launching pad for trial/conviction by publicity and a mere populist propaganda to mistakenly impress the people that widespread poverty will altogether vanish if corruption is eliminated without even addressing the other major causes of poverty. (g) The mere fact that previous commissions were not constitutionally challenged is of no moment because neither laches nor estoppel can bar an eventual question on the constitutionality and validity of an executive issuance or even a statute."13 In their Consolidated Comment,14 the respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), essentially questioned the legal standing of petitioners and defended the assailed executive order with the following arguments: 1] E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress to create a public office because the Presidents executive power and power of control necessarily include the inherent power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that, in any event, the Constitution, Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292), 15 Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 141616 (as amended by P.D. No. 1772), R.A. No. 9970,17 and settled jurisprudence that authorize the President to create or form such bodies. 2] E.O. No. 1 does not usurp the power of Congress to appropriate funds because there is no appropriation but a mere allocation of funds already appropriated by Congress. 3] The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the functions of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), because it is a fact-finding body and not a quasi-judicial body and its functions do not duplicate, supplant or erode the latters jurisdiction. 4] The Truth Commission does not violate the equal protection clause because it was validly created for laudable purposes. The OSG then points to the continued existence and validity of other executive orders and presidential issuances creating similar bodies to justify the creation of the PTC such as Presidential Complaint and Action Commission(PCAC) by President Ramon B.

Magsaysay, Presidential Committee on Administrative Performance Efficiency(PCAPE) by President Carlos P. Garcia and Presidential Agency on Reform and Government Operations(PARGO) by President Ferdinand E. Marcos.18 From the petitions, pleadings, transcripts, and memoranda, the following are the principal issues to be resolved: 1. Whether or not the petitioners have the legal standing to file their respective petitions and question Executive Order No. 1; 2. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the principle of separation of powers by usurping the powers of Congress to create and to appropriate funds for public offices, agencies and commissions; 3. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ; 4. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause; and 5. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to injunctive relief. Essential requisites for judicial review Before proceeding to resolve the issue of the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, the Court needs to ascertain whether the requisites for a valid exercise of its power of judicial review are present. Like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.19 Among all these limitations, only the legal standing of the petitioners has been put at issue. Legal Standing of the Petitioners The OSG attacks the legal personality of the petitioners-legislators to file their petition for failure to demonstrate their personal stake in the outcome of the case. It argues that the petitioners have not shown that they have sustained or are in danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the creation of the PTC. Not claiming to be the subject of the commissions investigations, petitioners will not sustain injury in its creation or as a result of its proceedings. 20 The Court disagrees with the OSG in questioning the legal standing of the petitioners-legislators to assail Executive Order No. 1. Evidently, their petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress as a body to which they belong as members. This certainly justifies their resolve to take the cudgels for Congress as an institution and present the complaints on the usurpation of their power and rights as members of the legislature before the Court. As held in Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez,21 To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. An act of the Executive which injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of Congress. In such a case, any member of Congress can have a resort to the courts. Indeed, legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate. Thus, they are allowed to question the validity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators.22 With regard to Biraogo, the OSG argues that, as a taxpayer, he has no standing to question the creation of the PTC and the budget for its operations.23 It emphasizes that the funds to be used for the creation and operation of the commission are to be taken from those funds already appropriated by Congress. Thus, the allocation and disbursement of funds for the commission will not entail congressional action but will simply be an exercise of the Presidents power over contingent funds. As correctly pointed out by the OSG, Biraogo has not shown that he sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, any personal and direct injury attributable to the implementation of Executive Order No. 1. Nowhere in his petition is an assertion of a clear right that may justify his clamor for the Court to exercise judicial power and to wield the axe over presidential issuances in defense of the Constitution. The case of David v. Arroyo24 explained the deep-seated rules on locus standi. Thus:

Locus standi is defined as "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question." In private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties-in interest" rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest." Accordingly, the "real-party-in interest" is "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit." Succinctly put, the plaintiffs standing is based on his own right to the relief sought. The difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the plaintiff who asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative of the general public. He may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person. He could be suing as a "stranger," or in the category of a "citizen," or taxpayer." In either case, he has to adequately show that he is entitled to seek judicial protection. In other words, he has to make out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a "citizen" or "taxpayer. Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both "citizen" and "taxpayer" standing in public actions. The distinction was first laid down in Beauchamp v. Silk, where it was held that the plaintiff in a taxpayers suit is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizens suit. In the former, the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the latter, he is but the mere instrument of the public concern. As held by the New York Supreme Court in People ex rel Case v. Collins: "In matter of mere public right, howeverthe people are the real partiesIt is at least the right, if not the duty, of every citizen to interfere and see that a public offence be properly pursued and punished, and that a public grievance be remedied." With respect to taxpayers suits, Terr v. Jordan held that "the right of a citizen and a taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of public funds to his injury cannot be denied." However, to prevent just about any person from seeking judicial interference in any official policy or act with which he disagreed with, and thus hinders the activities of governmental agencies engaged in public service, the United State Supreme Court laid down the more stringent "direct injury" test in Ex Parte Levitt, later reaffirmed inTileston v. Ullman. The same Court ruled that for a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of an executive or legislative action, he must show that he has sustained a direct injury as a result of that action, and it is not sufficient that he has a general interest common to all members of the public. This Court adopted the "direct injury" test in our jurisdiction. In People v. Vera, it held that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have "a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result." The Vera doctrine was upheld in a litany of cases, such as, Custodio v. President of the Senate, Manila Race Horse Trainers Association v. De la Fuente, Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works and Anti-Chinese League of the Philippines v. Felix. [Emphases included. Citations omitted] Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the doctrine that "the rule on standing is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest."25 Thus, in Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres,26 the Court held that in cases of paramount importance where serious constitutional questions are involved, the standing requirements may be relaxed and a suit may be allowed to prosper even where there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review. In the first Emergency Powers Cases, 27 ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of several executive orders although they had only an indirect and general interest shared in common with the public. The OSG claims that the determinants of transcendental importance28 laid down in CREBA v. ERC and Meralco29are non-existent in this case. The Court, however, finds reason in Biraogos assertion that the petition covers matters of transcendental importance to justify the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. There are constitutional issues in the petition which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. Where the issues are of transcendental and paramount importance not only to the public but also to the Bench and the Bar, they should be resolved for the guidance of all. 30 Undoubtedly, the Filipino people are more than interested to know the status of the Presidents first effort to bring about a promised change to the country. The Court takes cognizance of the petition not due to overwhelming political undertones that clothe the issue in the eyes of the public, but because the Court stands firm in its oath to perform its constitutional duty to settle legal controversies with overreaching significance to society. Power of the President to Create the Truth Commission In his memorandum in G.R. No. 192935, Biraogo asserts that the Truth Commission is a public office and not merely an adjunct body of the Office of the President.31 Thus, in order that the President may create a public office he must be empowered by the Constitution, a statute or an authorization vested in him by law. According to petitioner, such power cannot be presumed32 since there is no provision in the Constitution or any specific law that authorizes the President to create a truth commission.33 He adds that Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987, granting the President the continuing authority to reorganize his office, cannot serve as basis for the creation of a truth commission considering the aforesaid provision merely uses verbs such as "reorganize," "transfer," "consolidate," "merge," and "abolish."34 Insofar as it vests in the President the plenary power to reorganize the Office of the President to the extent of creating a public office, Section 31 is inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution and must be deemed repealed upon the effectivity thereof.35

Similarly, in G.R. No. 193036, petitioners-legislators argue that the creation of a public office lies within the province of Congress and not with the executive branch of government. They maintain that the delegated authority of the President to reorganize under Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code: 1) does not permit the President to create a public office, much less a truth commission; 2) is limited to the reorganization of the administrative structure of the Office of the President; 3) is limited to the restructuring of the internal organs of the Office of the President Proper, transfer of functions and transfer of agencies; and 4) only to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency.36 Such continuing authority of the President to reorganize his office is limited, and by issuing Executive Order No. 1, the President overstepped the limits of this delegated authority. The OSG counters that there is nothing exclusively legislative about the creation by the President of a fact-finding body such as a truth commission. Pointing to numerous offices created by past presidents, it argues that the authority of the President to create public offices within the Office of the President Proper has long been recognized. 37 According to the OSG, the Executive, just like the other two branches of government, possesses the inherent authority to create fact-finding committees to assist it in the performance of its constitutionally mandated functions and in the exercise of its administrative functions. 38 This power, as the OSG explains it, is but an adjunct of the plenary powers wielded by the President under Section 1 and his power of control under Section 17, both of Article VII of the Constitution.39 It contends that the President is necessarily vested with the power to conduct fact-finding investigations, pursuant to his duty to ensure that all laws are enforced by public officials and employees of his department and in the exercise of his authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of his officials. 40 The power of the President to investigate is not limited to the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates in the executive branch, but extends further in the exercise of his other powers, such as his power to discipline subordinates, 41 his power for rule making, adjudication and licensing purposes42 and in order to be informed on matters which he is entitled to know.43 The OSG also cites the recent case of Banda v. Ermita,44 where it was held that the President has the power to reorganize the offices and agencies in the executive department in line with his constitutionally granted power of control and by virtue of a valid delegation of the legislative power to reorganize executive offices under existing statutes. Thus, the OSG concludes that the power of control necessarily includes the power to create offices. For the OSG, the President may create the PTC in order to, among others, put a closure to the reported large scale graft and corruption in the government.45 The question, therefore, before the Court is this: Does the creation of the PTC fall within the ambit of the power to reorganize as expressed in Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code? Section 31 contemplates "reorganization" as limited by the following functional and structural lines: (1) restructuring the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to another; (2) transferring any function under the Office of the President to any other Department/Agency or vice versa; or (3) transferring any agency under the Office of the President to any other Department/Agency or vice versa. Clearly, the provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. These point to situations where a body or an office is already existent but a modification or alteration thereof has to be effected. The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned in said provision. Accordingly, the answer to the question is in the negative. To say that the PTC is borne out of a restructuring of the Office of the President under Section 31 is a misplaced supposition, even in the plainest meaning attributable to the term "restructure" an "alteration of an existing structure." Evidently, the PTC was not part of the structure of the Office of the President prior to the enactment of Executive Order No. 1. As held in Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Hon. Executive Secretary,46 But of course, the list of legal basis authorizing the President to reorganize any department or agency in the executive branch does not have to end here. We must not lose sight of the very source of the power that which constitutes an express grant of power. Under Section 31, Book III of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987), "the President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President." For this purpose, he may transfer the functions of other Departments or Agencies to the Office of the President. In Canonizado v. Aguirre [323 SCRA 312 (2000)], we ruled that reorganization "involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions." It takes place when there is an alteration of the existing structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility between them. The EIIB is a bureau attached to the Department of Finance. It falls under the Office of the President. Hence, it is subject to the Presidents continuing authority to reorganize. [Emphasis Supplied] In the same vein, the creation of the PTC is not justified by the Presidents power of control. Control is essentially the power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter.47 Clearly, the power of control is entirely different from the power to create public offices. The former is inherent in the Executive, while the latter finds basis from either a valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws. The question is this, is there a valid delegation of power from Congress, empowering the President to create a public office?

According to the OSG, the power to create a truth commission pursuant to the above provision finds statutory basis under P.D. 1416, as amended by P.D. No. 1772.48 The said law granted the President the continuing authority to reorganize the national government, including the power to group, consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish offices, to transfer functions, to create and classify functions, services and activities, transfer appropriations, and to standardize salaries and materials. This decree, in relation to Section 20, Title I, Book III of E.O. 292 has been invoked in several cases such as Larin v. Executive Secretary.49 The Court, however, declines to recognize P.D. No. 1416 as a justification for the President to create a public office. Said decree is already stale, anachronistic and inoperable. P.D. No. 1416 was a delegation to then President Marcos of the authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the national government including the power to create offices and transfer appropriations pursuant to one of the purposes of the decree, embodied in its last "Whereas" clause: WHEREAS, the transition towards the parliamentary form of government will necessitate flexibility in the organization of the national government. Clearly, as it was only for the purpose of providing manageability and resiliency during the interim, P.D. No. 1416, as amended by P.D. No. 1772, became functus oficio upon the convening of the First Congress, as expressly provided in Section 6, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. In fact, even the Solicitor General agrees with this view. Thus: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO: Because P.D. 1416 was enacted was the last whereas clause of P.D. 1416 says "it was enacted to prepare the transition from presidential to parliamentary. Now, in a parliamentary form of government, the legislative and executive powers are fused, correct? SOLICITOR GENERAL CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO: That is why, that P.D. 1416 was issued. Now would you agree with me that P.D. 1416 should not be considered effective anymore upon the promulgation, adoption, ratification of the 1987 Constitution. SOLICITOR GENERAL CADIZ: Not the whole of P.D. [No.] 1416, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO: The power of the President to reorganize the entire National Government is deemed repealed, at least, upon the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, correct. SOLICITOR GENERAL CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor.50 While the power to create a truth commission cannot pass muster on the basis of P.D. No. 1416 as amended by P.D. No. 1772, the creation of the PTC finds justification under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution, imposing upon the President the duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Section 17 reads: Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. (Emphasis supplied). As correctly pointed out by the respondents, the allocation of power in the three principal branches of government is a grant of all powers inherent in them. The Presidents power to conduct investigations to aid him in ensuring the faithful execution of laws in this case, fundamental laws on public accountability and transparency is inherent in the Presidents powers as the Chief Executive. That the authority of the President to conduct investigations and to create bodies to execute this power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in statutes does not mean that he is bereft of such authority. 51 As explained in the landmark case of Marcos v. Manglapus:52 x x x. The 1987 Constitution, however, brought back the presidential system of government and restored the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers by their actual distribution among three distinct branches of government with provision for checks and balances. It would not be accurate, however, to state that "executive power" is the power to enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it. Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the President other powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country's foreign relations. On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise ofspecific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated.

It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. x x x. Indeed, the Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that our laws are faithfully executed. As stated above, the powers of the President are not limited to those specific powers under the Constitution. 53 One of the recognized powers of the President granted pursuant to this constitutionally-mandated duty is the power to create ad hoc committees. This flows from the obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws have been faithfully executed. Thus, in Department of Health v. Camposano,54 the authority of the President to issue Administrative Order No. 298, creating an investigative committee to look into the administrative charges filed against the employees of the Department of Health for the anomalous purchase of medicines was upheld. In said case, it was ruled: The Chief Executives power to create the Ad hoc Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. Having been constitutionally granted full control of the Executive Department, to which respondents belong, the President has the obligation to ensure that all executive officials and employees faithfully comply with the law. With AO 298 as mandate, the legality of the investigation is sustained. Such validity is not affected by the fact that the investigating team and the PCAGC had the same composition, or that the former used the offices and facilities of the latter in conducting the inquiry. [Emphasis supplied] It should be stressed that the purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into matters which the President is entitled to know so that he can be properly advised and guided in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the land. And if history is to be revisited, this was also the objective of the investigative bodies created in the past like the PCAC, PCAPE, PARGO, the Feliciano Commission, the Melo Commission and the Zenarosa Commission. There being no changes in the government structure, the Court is not inclined to declare such executive power as nonexistent just because the direction of the political winds have changed. On the charge that Executive Order No. 1 transgresses the power of Congress to appropriate funds for the operation of a public office, suffice it to say that there will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of existing funds already appropriated. Accordingly, there is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress to appropriate funds. Further, there is no need to specify the amount to be earmarked for the operation of the commission because, in the words of the Solicitor General, "whatever funds the Congress has provided for the Office of the President will be the very source of the funds for the commission."55 Moreover, since the amount that would be allocated to the PTC shall be subject to existing auditing rules and regulations, there is no impropriety in the funding. Power of the Truth Commission to Investigate The Presidents power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed is well recognized. It flows from the faithful-execution clause of the Constitution under Article VII, Section 17 thereof.56 As the Chief Executive, the president represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has the authority to directly assume the functions of the executive department. 57 Invoking this authority, the President constituted the PTC to primarily investigate reports of graft and corruption and to recommend the appropriate action. As previously stated, no quasi-judicial powers have been vested in the said body as it cannot adjudicate rights of persons who come before it. It has been said that "Quasi-judicial powers involve the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law itself in enforcing and administering the same law."58 In simpler terms, judicial discretion is involved in the exercise of these quasi-judicial power, such that it is exclusively vested in the judiciary and must be clearly authorized by the legislature in the case of administrative agencies. The distinction between the power to investigate and the power to adjudicate was delineated by the Court in Cario v. Commission on Human Rights.59 Thus: "Investigate," commonly understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study. The dictionary definition of "investigate" is "to observe or study closely: inquire into systematically: "to search or inquire into: x x to subject to an official probe x x: to conduct an official inquiry." The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry. The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;" "to inquire; to make an investigation," "investigation" being in turn described as "(a)n administrative function, the exercise of which ordinarily does not require a hearing. 2 Am J2d Adm L Sec. 257; x x an inquiry, judicial or otherwise, for the discovery and collection of facts concerning a certain matter or matters." "Adjudicate," commonly or popularly understood, means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resolve, rule on, settle. The dictionary defines the term as "to settle finally (the rights and duties of the parties to a court case) on the merits of issues raised: x x to pass judgment on: settle judicially: x x act as judge." And "adjudge" means "to decide or rule upon as a judge or with judicial or quasi-judicial powers: x x to award or grant judicially in a case of controversy x x."

In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority. To determine finally. Synonymous with adjudge in its strictest sense;" and "adjudge" means: "To pass on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or condemn. x x. Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgment." [Italics included. Citations Omitted] Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or resolved authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law.60 Even respondents themselves admit that the commission is bereft of any quasi-judicial power.61 Contrary to petitioners apprehension, the PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their respective powers. If at all, the investigative function of the commission will complement those of the two offices. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the recommendation to prosecute is but a consequence of the overall task of the commission to conduct a fact-finding investigation."62 The actual prosecution of suspected offenders, much less adjudication on the merits of the charges against them,63 is certainly not a function given to the commission. The phrase, "when in the course of its investigation," under Section 2(g), highlights this fact and gives credence to a contrary interpretation from that of the petitioners. The function of determining probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains to be with the DOJ and the Ombudsman. 64 At any rate, the Ombudsmans power to investigate under R.A. No. 6770 is not exclusive but is shared with other similarly authorized government agencies. Thus, in the case of Ombudsman v. Galicia, 65 it was written: This power of investigation granted to the Ombudsman by the 1987 Constitution and The Ombudsman Act is not exclusive but is shared with other similarly authorized government agencies such as the PCGG and judges of municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts. The power to conduct preliminary investigation on charges against public employees and officials is likewise concurrently shared with the Department of Justice. Despite the passage of the Local Government Code in 1991, the Ombudsman retains concurrent jurisdiction with the Office of the President and the local Sanggunians to investigate complaints against local elective officials. [Emphasis supplied]. Also, Executive Order No. 1 cannot contravene the power of the Ombudsman to investigate criminal cases under Section 15 (1) of R.A. No. 6770, which states: (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of government, the investigation of such cases. [Emphases supplied] The act of investigation by the Ombudsman as enunciated above contemplates the conduct of a preliminary investigation or the determination of the existence of probable cause. This is categorically out of the PTCs sphere of functions. Its power to investigate is limited to obtaining facts so that it can advise and guide the President in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the land. In this regard, the PTC commits no act of usurpation of the Ombudsmans primordial duties. The same holds true with respect to the DOJ. Its authority under Section 3 (2), Chapter 1, Title III, Book IV in the Revised Administrative Code is by no means exclusive and, thus, can be shared with a body likewise tasked to investigate the commission of crimes. Finally, nowhere in Executive Order No. 1 can it be inferred that the findings of the PTC are to be accorded conclusiveness. Much like its predecessors, the Davide Commission, the Feliciano Commission and the Zenarosa Commission, its findings would, at best, be recommendatory in nature. And being so, the Ombudsman and the DOJ have a wider degree of latitude to decide whether or not to reject the recommendation. These offices, therefore, are not deprived of their mandated duties but will instead be aided by the reports of the PTC for possible indictments for violations of graft laws. Violation of the Equal Protection Clause Although the purpose of the Truth Commission falls within the investigative power of the President, the Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution. Section 1 reads: Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

The petitioners assail Executive Order No. 1 because it is violative of this constitutional safeguard. They contend that it does not apply equally to all members of the same class such that the intent of singling out the "previous administration" as its sole object makes the PTC an "adventure in partisan hostility."66 Thus, in order to be accorded with validity, the commission must also cover reports of graft and corruption in virtually all administrations previous to that of former President Arroyo.67 The petitioners argue that the search for truth behind the reported cases of graft and corruption must encompass acts committed not only during the administration of former President Arroyo but also during prior administrations where the "same magnitude of controversies and anomalies"68 were reported to have been committed against the Filipino people. They assail the classification formulated by the respondents as it does not fall under the recognized exceptions because first, "there is no substantial distinction between the group of officials targeted for investigation by Executive Order No. 1 and other groups or persons who abused their public office for personal gain; and second, the selective classification is not germane to the purpose of Executive Order No. 1 to end corruption."69 In order to attain constitutional permission, the petitioners advocate that the commission should deal with "graft and grafters prior and subsequent to the Arroyo administration with the strong arm of the law with equal force." 70 Position of respondents According to respondents, while Executive Order No. 1 identifies the "previous administration" as the initial subject of the investigation, following Section 17 thereof, the PTC will not confine itself to cases of large scale graft and corruption solely during the said administration.71 Assuming arguendo that the commission would confine its proceedings to officials of the previous administration, the petitioners argue that no offense is committed against the equal protection clause for "the segregation of the transactions of public officers during the previous administration as possible subjects of investigation is a valid classification based on substantial distinctions and is germane to the evils which the Executive Order seeks to correct."72 To distinguish the Arroyo administration from past administrations, it recited the following: First. E.O. No. 1 was issued in view of widespread reports of large scale graft and corruption in the previous administration which have eroded public confidence in public institutions. There is, therefore, an urgent call for the determination of the truth regarding certain reports of large scale graft and corruption in the government and to put a closure to them by the filing of the appropriate cases against those involved, if warranted, and to deter others from committing the evil, restore the peoples faith and confidence in the Government and in their public servants. Second. The segregation of the preceding administration as the object of fact-finding is warranted by the reality that unlike with administrations long gone, the current administration will most likely bear the immediate consequence of the policies of the previous administration. Third. The classification of the previous administration as a separate class for investigation lies in the reality that the evidence of possible criminal activity, the evidence that could lead to recovery of public monies illegally dissipated, the policy lessons to be learned to ensure that anti-corruption laws are faithfully executed, are more easily established in the regime that immediately precede the current administration. Fourth. Many administrations subject the transactions of their predecessors to investigations to provide closure to issues that are pivotal to national life or even as a routine measure of due diligence and good housekeeping by a nascent administration like the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), created by the late President Corazon C. Aquino under Executive Order No. 1 to pursue the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of her predecessor former President Ferdinand Marcos and his cronies, and the Saguisag Commission created by former President Joseph Estrada under Administrative Order No, 53, to form an ad-hoc and independent citizens committee to investigate all the facts and circumstances surrounding "Philippine Centennial projects" of his predecessor, former President Fidel V. Ramos.73 [Emphases supplied] Concept of the Equal Protection Clause One of the basic principles on which this government was founded is that of the equality of right which is embodied in Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. It has been embodied in a separate clause, however, to provide for a more specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause. 74 "According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed."75 It "requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner."76 "The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a states jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the states duly constituted authorities."77 "In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective."78

The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just those of the legislature. 79 Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the government including the political and executive departments, and extend to all actions of a state denying equal protection of the laws, through whatever agency or whatever guise is taken. 80 It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test ofreasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.81 "Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification."82 For a classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it must include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the class.83 "The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed. It is not necessary that the classification be made with absolute symmetry, in the sense that the members of the class should possess the same characteristics in equal degree. Substantial similarity will suffice; and as long as this is achieved, all those covered by the classification are to be treated equally. The mere fact that an individual belonging to a class differs from the other members, as long as that class is substantially distinguishable from all others, does not justify the nonapplication of the law to him."84 The classification must not be based on existing circumstances only, or so constituted as to preclude addition to the number included in the class. It must be of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be in similar circumstances and conditions. It must not leave out or "underinclude" those that should otherwise fall into a certain classification. As elucidated in Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union85 and reiterated in a long line of cases,86 The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens of the state. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, that every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a statute. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as in the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with one another in certain particulars. A law is not invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality. All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences, that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary. [Citations omitted] Applying these precepts to this case, Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth "concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration"87 only. The intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been made in at least three portions of the questioned executive order. Specifically, these are: WHEREAS, there is a need for a separate body dedicated solely to investigating and finding out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration, and which will recommend the prosecution of the offenders and secure justice for all; SECTION 1. Creation of a Commission. There is hereby created the PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to as the "COMMISSION," which shall primarily seek and find the truth on, and toward this end, investigate reports of graft and corruption of such scale and magnitude that shock and offend the moral and ethical sensibilities of the people, committed by public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration; and thereafter recommend the appropriate action or measure to be taken thereon to ensure that the full measure of justice shall be served without fear or favor. SECTION 2. Powers and Functions. The Commission, which shall have all the powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, is primarily tasked to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption referred to in Section 1, involving third level public officers and higher, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration and thereafter submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman. [Emphases supplied]

In this regard, it must be borne in mind that the Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution. Though the OSG enumerates several differences between the Arroyo administration and other past administrations, these distinctions are not substantial enough to merit the restriction of the investigation to the "previous administration" only. The reports of widespread corruption in the Arroyo administration cannot be taken as basis for distinguishing said administration from earlier administrations which were also blemished by similar widespread reports of impropriety. They are not inherent in, and do not inure solely to, the Arroyo administration. As Justice Isagani Cruz put it, "Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification." 88 The public needs to be enlightened why Executive Order No. 1 chooses to limit the scope of the intended investigation to the previous administration only. The OSG ventures to opine that "to include other past administrations, at this point, may unnecessarily overburden the commission and lead it to lose its effectiveness."89 The reason given is specious. It is without doubt irrelevant to the legitimate and noble objective of the PTC to stamp out or "end corruption and the evil it breeds."90 The probability that there would be difficulty in unearthing evidence or that the earlier reports involving the earlier administrations were already inquired into is beside the point. Obviously, deceased presidents and cases which have already prescribed can no longer be the subjects of inquiry by the PTC. Neither is the PTC expected to conduct simultaneous investigations of previous administrations, given the bodys limited time and resources. "The law does not require the impossible" (Lex non cogit ad impossibilia).91 Given the foregoing physical and legal impossibility, the Court logically recognizes the unfeasibility of investigating almost a centurys worth of graft cases. However, the fact remains that Executive Order No. 1 suffers from arbitrary classification. The PTC, to be true to its mandate of searching for the truth, must not exclude the other past administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the authority to investigate all past administrations. Whilereasonable prioritization is permitted, it should not be arbitrary lest it be struck down for being unconstitutional. In the often quoted language of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 92 Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution. [Emphasis supplied] It could be argued that considering that the PTC is an ad hoc body, its scope is limited. The Court, however, is of the considered view that although its focus is restricted, the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the laws should not in any way be circumvented. The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights determined and all public authority administered.93 Laws that do not conform to the Constitution should be stricken down for being unconstitutional. 94 While the thrust of the PTC is specific, that is, for investigation of acts of graft and corruption, Executive Order No. 1, to survive, must be read together with the provisions of the Constitution. To exclude the earlier administrations in the guise of "substantial distinctions" would only confirm the petitioners lament that the subject executive order is only an "adventure in partisan hostility." In the case of US v. Cyprian,95 it was written: "A rather limited number of such classifications have routinely been held or assumed to be arbitrary; those include: race, national origin, gender, political activity or membership in a political party, union activity or membership in a labor union, or more generally the exercise of first amendment rights." To reiterate, in order for a classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it must include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the class.96 "Such a classification must not be based on existing circumstances only, or so constituted as to preclude additions to the number included within a class, but must be of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be in similar circumstances and conditions. Furthermore, all who are in situations and circumstances which are relative to the discriminatory legislation and which are indistinguishable from those of the members of the class must be brought under the influence of the law and treated by it in the same way as are the members of the class." 97 The Court is not unaware that "mere underinclusiveness is not fatal to the validity of a law under the equal protection clause."98 "Legislation is not unconstitutional merely because it is not all-embracing and does not include all the evils within its reach."99 It has been written that a regulation challenged under the equal protection clause is not devoid of a rational predicate simply because it happens to be incomplete.100 In several instances, the underinclusiveness was not considered a valid reason to strike down a law or regulation where the purpose can be attained in future legislations or regulations. These cases refer to the "step by step" process.101 "With regard to equal protection claims, a legislature does not run the risk of losing the entire remedial scheme simply because it fails, through inadvertence or otherwise, to cover every evil that might conceivably have been attacked." 102 In Executive Order No. 1, however, there is no inadvertence. That the previous administration was picked out was deliberate and intentional as can be gleaned from the fact that it was underscored at least three times in the assailed executive order. It must be noted that Executive Order No. 1 does not even mention any particular act, event or report to be focused on unlike the investigative commissions created in the past. "The equal protection clause is violated by purposeful and intentional discrimination." 103

To disprove petitioners contention that there is deliberate discrimination, the OSG clarifies that the commission does not only confine itself to cases of large scale graft and corruption committed during the previous administration.104 The OSG points to Section 17 of Executive Order No. 1, which provides: SECTION 17. Special Provision Concerning Mandate. If and when in the judgment of the President there is a need to expand the mandate of the Commission as defined in Section 1 hereof to include the investigation of cases and instances of graft and corruption during the prior administrations, such mandate may be so extended accordingly by way of a supplemental Executive Order. The Court is not convinced. Although Section 17 allows the President the discretion to expand the scope of investigations of the PTC so as to include the acts of graft and corruption committed in other past administrations, it does not guarantee that they would be covered in the future. Such expanded mandate of the commission will still depend on the whim and caprice of the President. If he would decide not to include them, the section would then be meaningless. This will only fortify the fears of the petitioners that the Executive Order No. 1 was "crafted to tailor-fit the prosecution of officials and personalities of the Arroyo administration." 105 The Court tried to seek guidance from the pronouncement in the case of Virata v. Sandiganbayan,106 that the "PCGG Charter (composed of Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14) does not violate the equal protection clause." The decision, however, was devoid of any discussion on how such conclusory statement was arrived at, the principal issue in said case being only the sufficiency of a cause of action. A final word The issue that seems to take center stage at present is - whether or not the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its constitutionally mandated power of Judicial Review with respect to recent initiatives of the legislature and the executive department, is exercising undue interference. Is the Highest Tribunal, which is expected to be the protector of the Constitution, itself guilty of violating fundamental tenets like the doctrine of separation of powers? Time and again, this issue has been addressed by the Court, but it seems that the present political situation calls for it to once again explain the legal basis of its action lest it continually be accused of being a hindrance to the nations thrust to progress. The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, is vested with Judicial Power that "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 of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government." Furthermore, in Section 4(2) thereof, it is vested with the power of judicial review which is the power to declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional. This power also includes the duty to rule on the constitutionality of the application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations. These provisions, however, have been fertile grounds of conflict between the Supreme Court, on one hand, and the two co-equal bodies of government, on the other. Many times the Court has been accused of asserting superiority over the other departments. To answer this accusation, the words of Justice Laurel would be a good source of enlightenment, to wit: "And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them."107 Thus, the Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not imposing its own will upon a co-equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of government is done in consonance with the authorities and rights allocated to it by the Constitution. And, if after said review, the Court finds no constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of proscribing the actions under review. Otherwise, the Court will not be deterred to pronounce said act as void and unconstitutional. It cannot be denied that most government actions are inspired with noble intentions, all geared towards the betterment of the nation and its people. But then again, it is important to remember this ethical principle: "The end does not justify the means." No matter how noble and worthy of admiration the purpose of an act, but if the means to be employed in accomplishing it is simply irreconcilable with constitutional parameters, then it cannot still be allowed.108 The Court cannot just turn a blind eye and simply let it pass. It will continue to uphold the Constitution and its enshrined principles. "The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude."109 Lest it be misunderstood, this is not the death knell for a truth commission as nobly envisioned by the present administration. Perhaps a revision of the executive issuance so as to include the earlier past administrations would allow it to pass the test of reasonableness and not be an affront to the Constitution. Of all the branches of the government, it is the judiciary which is the most

interested in knowing the truth and so it will not allow itself to be a hindrance or obstacle to its attainment. It must, however, be emphasized that the search for the truth must be within constitutional bounds for "ours is still a government of laws and not of men."110 WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. As also prayed for, the respondents are hereby ordered to cease and desist from carrying out the provisions of Executive Order No. 1. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 122846 January 20, 2009

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA. MESA TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. CITY OF MANILA, represented by DE CASTRO, MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, Respondent. DECISION Tinga, J.: With another city ordinance of Manila also principally involving the tourist district as subject, the Court is confronted anew with the incessant clash between government power and individual liberty in tandem with the archetypal tension between law and morality. In City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr.,1 the Court affirmed the nullification of a city ordinance barring the operation of motels and inns, among other establishments, within the Ermita-Malate area. The petition at bar assails a similarly-motivated city ordinance that prohibits those same establishments from offering short-time admission, as well as pro-rated or "wash up" rates for such abbreviated stays. Our earlier decision tested the city ordinance against our sacred constitutional rights to liberty, due process and equal protection of law. The same parameters apply to the present petition. This Petition2 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, which seeks the reversal of the Decision 3 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 33316 of the Court of Appeals, challenges the validity of Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila" (the Ordinance). I. The facts are as follows: On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim) signed into law the Ordinance.4 The Ordinance is reproduced in full, hereunder: SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby the declared policy of the City Government to protect the best interest, health and welfare, and the morality of its constituents in general and the youth in particular. SEC. 2. Title. This ordinance shall be known as "An Ordinance" prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. SEC. 3. Pursuant to the above policy, short-time admission and rate [sic], wash-up rate or other similarly concocted terms, are hereby prohibited in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. SEC. 4. Definition of Term[s]. Short-time admission shall mean admittance and charging of room rate for less than twelve (12) hours at any given time or the renting out of rooms more than twice a day or any other term that may be concocted by owners or managers of said establishments but would mean the same or would bear the same meaning. SEC. 5. Penalty Clause. Any person or corporation who shall violate any provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction thereof be punished by a fine of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos or imprisonment for a period of not exceeding one (1) year or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court; Provided, That in case of [a] juridical person, the president, the manager, or the

persons in charge of the operation thereof shall be liable: Provided, further, That in case of subsequent conviction for the same offense, the business license of the guilty party shall automatically be cancelled. SEC. 6. Repealing Clause. Any or all provisions of City ordinances not consistent with or contrary to this measure or any portion hereof are hereby deemed repealed. SEC. 7. Effectivity. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon approval. Enacted by the city Council of Manila at its regular session today, November 10, 1992. Approved by His Honor, the Mayor on December 3, 1992. On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order ( TRO)5 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 9 impleading as defendant, herein respondent City of Manila (the City) represented by Mayor Lim. 6 MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional. MTDC claimed that as owner and operator of the Victoria Court in Malate, Manila it was authorized by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 259 to admit customers on a short time basis as well as to charge customers wash up rates for stays of only three hours. On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) filed a motion to intervene and to admit attached complaint-in-intervention7 on the ground that the Ordinance directly affects their business interests as operators of drive-in-hotels and motels in Manila.8 The three companies are components of the Anito Group of Companies which owns and operates several hotels and motels in Metro Manila. 9 On December 23, 1992, the RTC granted the motion to intervene.10 The RTC also notified the Solicitor General of the proceedings pursuant to then Rule 64, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. On the same date, MTDC moved to withdraw as plaintiff.11 On December 28, 1992, the RTC granted MTDC's motion to withdraw. 12 The RTC issued a TRO on January 14, 1993, directing the City to cease and desist from enforcing the Ordinance. 13 The City filed an Answer dated January 22, 1993 alleging that the Ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police power.14 On February 8, 1993, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the city to desist from the enforcement of the Ordinance.15 A month later, on March 8, 1993, the Solicitor General filed his Comment arguing that the Ordinance is constitutional. During the pre-trial conference, the WLC, TC and STDC agreed to submit the case for decision without trial as the case involved a purely legal question.16 On October 20, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and void. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, [O]rdinance No. 7774 of the City of Manila is hereby declared null and void. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction heretofor issued is hereby made permanent. SO ORDERED.17 The RTC noted that the ordinance "strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed and jealously guarded by the Constitution."18 Reference was made to the provisions of the Constitution encouraging private enterprises and the incentive to needed investment, as well as the right to operate economic enterprises. Finally, from the observation that the illicit relationships the Ordinance sought to dissuade could nonetheless be consummated by simply paying for a 12-hour stay, the RTC likened the law to the ordinance annulled in Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court,19 where the legitimate purpose of preventing indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos was sought to be effected through an inter-province ban on the transport of carabaos and carabeef. The City later filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.20 The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 112471. However in a resolution dated January 26, 1994, the Court treated the petition as a petition forcertiorari and referred the petition to the Court of Appeals.21 Before the Court of Appeals, the City asserted that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code which confers on cities, among other local government units, the power: [To] regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports.22

The Ordinance, it is argued, is also a valid exercise of the power of the City under Article III, Section 18(kk) of the Revised Manila Charter, thus: "to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, and such others as be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Chapter; and to fix penalties for the violation of ordinances which shall not exceed two hundred pesos fine or six months imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment for a single offense.23 Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of police power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance.24 First, it held that the Ordinance did not violate the right to privacy or the freedom of movement, as it only penalizes the owners or operators of establishments that admit individuals for short time stays. Second, the virtually limitless reach of police power is only constrained by having a lawful object obtained through a lawful method. The lawful objective of the Ordinance is satisfied since it aims to curb immoral activities. There is a lawful method since the establishments are still allowed to operate. Third, the adverse effect on the establishments is justified by the well-being of its constituents in general. Finally, as held in Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor of Manila, liberty is regulated by law. TC, WLC and STDC come to this Court via petition for review on certiorari. 25 In their petition and Memorandum, petitioners in essence repeat the assertions they made before the Court of Appeals. They contend that the assailed Ordinance is an invalid exercise of police power. II. We must address the threshold issue of petitioners standing. Petitioners allege that as owners of establishments offering "wash-up" rates, their business is being unlawfully interfered with by the Ordinance. However, petitioners also allege that the equal protection rights of their clients are also being interfered with. Thus, the crux of the matter is whether or not these establishments have the requisite standing to plead for protection of their patrons' equal protection rights. Standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. More importantly, the doctrine of standing is built on the principle of separation of powers,26 sparing as it does unnecessary interference or invalidation by the judicial branch of the actions rendered by its co-equal branches of government. The requirement of standing is a core component of the judicial system derived directly from the Constitution. 27The constitutional component of standing doctrine incorporates concepts which concededly are not susceptible of precise definition. 28 In this jurisdiction, the extancy of "a direct and personal interest" presents the most obvious cause, as well as the standard test for a petitioner's standing.29 In a similar vein, the United States Supreme Court reviewed and elaborated on the meaning of the three constitutional standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability in Allen v. Wright.30 Nonetheless, the general rules on standing admit of several exceptions such as the overbreadth doctrine, taxpayer suits, third party standing and, especially in the Philippines, the doctrine of transcendental importance. 31 For this particular set of facts, the concept of third party standing as an exception and the overbreadth doctrine are appropriate. In Powers v. Ohio,32 the United States Supreme Court wrote that: "We have recognized the right of litigants to bring actions on behalf of third parties, provided three important criteria are satisfied: the litigant must have suffered an injury-in-fact, thus giving him or her a "sufficiently concrete interest" in the outcome of the issue in dispute; the litigant must have a close relation to the third party; and there must exist some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests." 33 Herein, it is clear that the business interests of the petitioners are likewise injured by the Ordinance. They rely on the patronage of their customers for their continued viability which appears to be threatened by the enforcement of the Ordinance. The relative silence in constitutional litigation of such special interest groups in our nation such as the American Civil Liberties Union in the United States may also be construed as a hindrance for customers to bring suit.34 American jurisprudence is replete with examples where parties-in-interest were allowed standing to advocate or invoke the fundamental due process or equal protection claims of other persons or classes of persons injured by state action. In Griswold v. Connecticut,35 the United States Supreme Court held that physicians had standing to challenge a reproductive health statute that would penalize them as accessories as well as to plead the constitutional protections available to their patients. The Court held that: "The rights of husband and wife, pressed here, are likely to be diluted or adversely affected unless those rights are considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them." 36

An even more analogous example may be found in Craig v. Boren,37 wherein the United States Supreme Court held that a licensed beverage vendor has standing to raise the equal protection claim of a male customer challenging a statutory scheme prohibiting the sale of beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. The United States High Court explained that the vendors had standing "by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function." 38 Assuming arguendo that petitioners do not have a relationship with their patrons for the former to assert the rights of the latter, the overbreadth doctrine comes into play. In overbreadth analysis, challengers to government actionare in effect permitted to raise the rights of third parties. Generally applied to statutes infringing on the freedom of speech, the overbreadth doctrine applies when a statute needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights.39 In this case, the petitioners claim that the Ordinance makes a sweeping intrusion into the right to liberty of their clients. We can see that based on the allegations in the petition, the Ordinance suffers from overbreadth. We thus recognize that the petitioners have a right to assert the constitutional rights of their clients to patronize their establishments for a "wash-rate" time frame. III. To students of jurisprudence, the facts of this case will recall to mind not only the recent City of Manila ruling, but our 1967 decision in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila. 40Ermita-Malate concerned the City ordinance requiring patrons to fill up a prescribed form stating personal information such as name, gender, nationality, age, address and occupation before they could be admitted to a motel, hotel or lodging house. This earlier ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices deemed harmful to public morals. A purpose similar to the annulled ordinance in City of Manila which sought a blanket ban on motels, inns and similar establishments in the Ermita-Malate area. However, the constitutionality of the ordinance in Ermita-Malate was sustained by the Court. The common thread that runs through those decisions and the case at bar goes beyond the singularity of the localities covered under the respective ordinances. All three ordinances were enacted with a view of regulating public morals including particular illicit activity in transient lodging establishments. This could be described as the middle case, wherein there is no wholesale ban on motels and hotels but the services offered by these establishments have been severely restricted. At its core, this is another case about the extent to which the State can intrude into and regulate the lives of its citizens. The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.41 The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely wash rate admissions and renting out a room more than twice a day. The ban is evidently sought to be rooted in the police power as conferred on local government units by the Local Government Code through such implements as the general welfare clause. A. Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant.42 Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people.43 Police power has been used as justification for numerous and varied actions by the State. These range from the regulation of dance halls,44 movie theaters,45 gas stations46 and cockpits.47 The awesome scope of police power is best demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so years of presence in our nations legal system, its use has rarely been denied. The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. Those means must align with the Constitution, and our emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the people. The Bill of Rights stands as a rebuke to the seductive theory of Macchiavelli, and, sometimes even, the political majorities animated by his cynicism. Even as we design the precedents that establish the framework for analysis of due process or equal protection questions, the courts are naturally inhibited by a due deference to the co-equal branches of government as they exercise their political functions. But when we are compelled to nullify executive or legislative actions, yet another form of caution emerges. If the Court were animated by the same passing fancies or turbulent emotions that motivate many political decisions, judicial integrity is compromised by any perception that the judiciary is merely the third political branch of government. We derive our respect and good standing in the annals of history by acting as judicious and neutral arbiters of the rule of law, and there is no surer way to that end than through the development of rigorous and sophisticated legal standards through which the courts analyze the most fundamental and far-reaching constitutional questions of the day.

B. The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due process, as guaranteed under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Due process evades a precise definition.48 The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even corporations and partnerships are protected by the guaranty insofar as their property is concerned. The due process guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as imposing two related but distinct restrictions on government, "procedural due process" and "substantive due process." Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. 49 Procedural due process concerns itself with government action adhering to the established process when it makes an intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice given to the level of formality of a hearing. If due process were confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would arise absurd situation of arbitrary government action, provided the proper formalities are followed. Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. 50 The question of substantive due process, moreso than most other fields of law, has reflected dynamism in progressive legal thought tied with the expanded acceptance of fundamental freedoms. Police power, traditionally awesome as it may be, is now confronted with a more rigorous level of analysis before it can be upheld. The vitality though of constitutional due process has not been predicated on the frequency with which it has been utilized to achieve a liberal result for, after all, the libertarian ends should sometimes yield to the prerogatives of the State. Instead, the due process clause has acquired potency because of the sophisticated methodology that has emerged to determine the proper metes and bounds for its application. C. The general test of the validity of an ordinance on substantive due process grounds is best tested when assessed with the evolved footnote 4 test laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Carolene Products. 51 Footnote 4 of the Carolene Products case acknowledged that the judiciary would defer to the legislature unless there is a discrimination against a "discrete and insular" minority or infringement of a "fundamental right."52 Consequently, two standards of judicial review were established: strict scrutiny for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting the political process, and the rational basis standard of review for economic legislation. A third standard, denominated as heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on gender53 and legitimacy.54 Immediate scrutiny was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Craig,55 after the Court declined to do so in Reed v. Reed.56 While the test may have first been articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in the United States since been applied in all substantive due process cases as well. We ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainly in analysis of equal protection challenges.57 Using the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest.58 Under intermediate review, governmental interest is extensively examined and the availability of less restrictive measures is considered. 59 Applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest. In terms of judicial review of statutes or ordinances, strict scrutiny refers to the standard for determining the quality and the amount of governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms. 60 Strict scrutiny is used today to test 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.61 The United States Supreme Court has expanded the scope of strict scrutiny to protect fundamental rights such as suffrage,62 judicial access63 and interstate travel.64 If we were to take the myopic view that an Ordinance should be analyzed strictly as to its effect only on the petitioners at bar, then it would seem that the only restraint imposed by the law which we are capacitated to act upon is the injury to property sustained by the petitioners, an injury that would warrant the application of the most deferential standard the rational basis test. Yet as earlier stated, we recognize the capacity of the petitioners to invoke as well the constitutional rights of their patrons those persons who would be deprived of availing short time access or wash-up rates to the lodging establishments in question. Viewed cynically, one might say that the infringed rights of these customers were are trivial since they seem shorn of political consequence. Concededly, these are not the sort of cherished rights that, when proscribed, would impel the people to tear up their cedulas. Still, the Bill of Rights does not shelter gravitas alone. Indeed, it is those "trivial" yet fundamental freedoms which the people reflexively exercise any day without the impairing awareness of their constitutional consequence that accurately reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed by the people. Liberty, as integrally incorporated as a fundamental right in the Constitution, is not a Ten Commandments-style enumeration of what may or what may not be done; but rather an atmosphere of freedom where the people do not feel labored under a Big Brother presence as they interact with each other, their society and nature, in a manner innately understood by them as inherent, without doing harm or injury to others.

D. The rights at stake herein fall within the same fundamental rights to liberty which we upheld in City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr. We expounded on that most primordial of rights, thus: Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to include "the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the facilities with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraint as are necessary for the common welfare."[ 65] In accordance with this case, the rights of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; and to pursue any avocation are all deemed embraced in the concept of liberty.[66] The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roth v. Board of Regents, sought to clarify the meaning of "liberty." It said: While the Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . . guaranteed [by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments], the term denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of "liberty" must be broad indeed.67[Citations omitted] It cannot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinance is the curtailment of sexual behavior. The City asserts before this Court that the subject establishments "have gained notoriety as venue of prostitution, adultery and fornications in Manila since they provide the necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit and thus became the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers."68 Whether or not this depiction of a mise-en-scene of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that legitimate sexual behavior among willing married or consenting single adults which is constitutionally protected69 will be curtailed as well, as it was in the City of Manila case. Our holding therein retains significance for our purposes: The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual whose claim to privacy and interference demands respect. As the case of Morfe v. Mutuc, borrowing the words of Laski, so very aptly stated: Man is one among many, obstinately refusing reduction to unity. His separateness, his isolation, are indefeasible; indeed, they are so fundamental that they are the basis on which his civic obligations are built. He cannot abandon the consequences of his isolation, which are, broadly speaking, that his experience is private, and the will built out of that experience personal to himself. If he surrenders his will to others, he surrenders himself. If his will is set by the will of others, he ceases to be a master of himself. I cannot believe that a man no longer a master of himself is in any real sense free. Indeed, the right to privacy as a constitutional right was recognized in Morfe, the invasion of which should be justified by a compelling state interest. Morfe accorded recognition to the right to privacy independently of its identification with liberty; in itself it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. Governmental powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen.70 We cannot discount other legitimate activities which the Ordinance would proscribe or impair. There are very legitimate uses for a wash rate or renting the room out for more than twice a day. Entire families are known to choose pass the time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is momentarily out in their homes. In transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. Indeed any person or groups of persons in need of comfortable private spaces for a span of a few hours with purposes other than having sex or using illegal drugs can legitimately look to staying in a motel or hotel as a convenient alternative. E. That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights.71 It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.72 Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, the exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life, liberty or property is affected.73 However, this is not in any way meant to take it away from the vastness of State police power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of validity.74

Similar to the Comelec resolution requiring newspapers to donate advertising space to candidates, this Ordinance is a blunt and heavy instrument.75 The Ordinance makes no distinction between places frequented by patrons engaged in illicit activities and patrons engaged in legitimate actions. Thus it prevents legitimate use of places where illicit activities are rare or even unheard of. A plain reading of section 3 of the Ordinance shows it makes no classification of places of lodging, thus deems them all susceptible to illicit patronage and subject them without exception to the unjustified prohibition. The Court has professed its deep sentiment and tenderness of the Ermita-Malate area, its longtime home,76 and it is skeptical of those who wish to depict our capital city the Pearl of the Orient as a modern-day Sodom or Gomorrah for the Third World set. Those still steeped in Nick Joaquin-dreams of the grandeur of Old Manila will have to accept that Manila like all evolving big cities, will have its problems. Urban decay is a fact of mega cities such as Manila, and vice is a common problem confronted by the modern metropolis wherever in the world. The solution to such perceived decay is not to prevent legitimate businesses from offering a legitimate product. Rather, cities revive themselves by offering incentives for new businesses to sprout up thus attracting the dynamism of individuals that would bring a new grandeur to Manila. The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by applying existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through active police work would be more effective in easing the situation. So would the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing prostitution and drug use. These measures would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other legitimate merchants. Further, it is apparent that the Ordinance can easily be circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities. Moreover, drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect "wash rates" from their clientele by charging their customers a portion of the rent for motel rooms and even apartments. IV. We reiterate that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. The State is a leviathan that must be restrained from needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens. However well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their patrons. The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons without sufficient justification. The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting out a room more than twice a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous intentions. The promotion of public welfare and a sense of morality among citizens deserves the full endorsement of the judiciary provided that such measures do not trample rights this Court is sworn to protect. 77 The notion that the promotion of public morality is a function of the State is as old as Aristotle.78 The advancement of moral relativism as a school of philosophy does not de-legitimize the role of morality in law, even if it may foster wider debate on which particular behavior to penalize. It is conceivable that a society with relatively little shared morality among its citizens could be functional so long as the pursuit of sharply variant moral perspectives yields an adequate accommodation of different interests.79 To be candid about it, the oft-quoted American maxim that "you cannot legislate morality" is ultimately illegitimate as a matter of law, since as explained by Calabresi, that phrase is more accurately interpreted as meaning that efforts to legislate morality will fail if they are widely at variance with public attitudes about right and wrong.80 Our penal laws, for one, are founded on age-old moral traditions, and as long as there are widely accepted distinctions between right and wrong, they will remain so oriented. Yet the continuing progression of the human story has seen not only the acceptance of the right-wrong distinction, but also the advent of fundamental liberties as the key to the enjoyment of life to the fullest. Our democracy is distinguished from non-free societies not with any more extensive elaboration on our part of what is moral and immoral, but from our recognition that the individual liberty to make the choices in our lives is innate, and protected by the State. Independent and fair-minded judges themselves are under a moral duty to uphold the Constitution as the embodiment of the rule of law, by reason of their expression of consent to do so when they take the oath of office, and because they are entrusted by the people to uphold the law.81 Even as the implementation of moral norms remains an indispensable complement to governance, that prerogative is hardly absolute, especially in the face of the norms of due process of liberty. And while the tension may often be left to the courts to relieve, it is possible for the government to avoid the constitutional conflict by employing more judicious, less drastic means to promote morality. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, is REINSTATED. Ordinance No. 7774 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 163087 February 20, 2006

SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. and JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO, Petitioners, vs. ROGELIO S. SOLUTA, JOSELITO SANTOS, EDNA BERNATE, VICENTA DELOLA, FLORENTINO MATILLA, and GLOWHRAIN-SILAHIS UNION CHAPTER, Respondents. DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: The present Petition for Review on Certiorari partially assails the Court of Appeals Decision 1 of March 26, 2004 holding herein petitioners Silahis International Hotel, Inc. and Jose Marcel Panlilio, along with Floro Maniego and Steve Villanueva, civilly liable for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code, for violation of respondents constitutional right against unreasonable search of their office. Petitioner Jose Marcel Panlilio (Panlilio) was the Vice President for Finance of his co-petitioner Silahis International Hotel, Inc. (hotel), while respondents Rogelio Soluta (Soluta), Joselito Santos, Edna Bernate (Edna), Vicenta Delola (Vicenta), and Florentino Matilla (Matilla) were employees of the hotel and officers of the Glowhrain-Silahis Union Chapter, the hotel employees union (the union). Petitioners version of the antecedents of the case are as follows: In late 1987, as Coronel Floro Maniego (Maniego), General Manager of the Rapier Enforcement Professional Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. (REPISA) which the hotel contracted to provide its security force, had been receiving reports that sale and/or use of marijuana, dollar smuggling, and prostitution were going on in the union office at the hotel and that there existed a theft syndicate, he conducted a surveillance, with the approval of Panlilio, of suspected members and officers of the union.2 In the morning of January 11, 1988, Panlilio, his personal secretary Andy Dizon, Maniego, Bulletin reporter Nonoy Rosales, and REPISA security guard Steve Villanueva (Villanueva) entered the union office located at the hotel basement, with the permission of union officer Henry Babay (Babay) who was apprised about the suspected illegal activities, and searched the premises in the course of which Villanueva found a plastic bag under a table. When opened, the plastic bag yielded dry leaves of marijuana. 3 Panlilio thereupon ordered Maniego to investigate and report the matter to the authorities. On the other hand, respondents version follows: On January 10, 1988, Loida Somacera (Loida), a laundrywoman of the hotel, stayed overnight at the female locker room at the basement of the hotel. At dawn of January 11, 1988, she heard pounding sounds outside, prompting her to open the door of the locker room upon which she saw five men in barong tagalog whom she failed to recognize but she was sure were not employees of the hotel,4 forcibly opening the door of the union office.5 She even saw one of the men hid something behind his back. She then closed the door and went back to bed. Soon after she heard the door of the union office opened. In the morning of January 11, 1988, as union officer Soluta was trying in vain to open the door of the union office, Loida narrated to him what she had witnessed at dawn. Soluta thus immediately lodged a complaint before the Security Officer. And he fetched a locksmith, Efren Guevarra, who tried to assist him, Edna, Arnold Ilustrisimo and Ed Bautista open the door. At that instant, men in barong tagalog armed with clubs arrived and started hitting Soluta and his companions, drawing them to run to the female locker room, and to thereafter proceed to the Engineering Office where they called for police assistance.6 While awaiting the arrival of the police, Babay and Panlilio, on the latters request, met. At the meeting, Panlilio told Babay that they proceed to the union office where they would settle the mauling incident, to which Babay replied that the door of the office could not be opened. Panlilio thereupon instructed Villanueva to force open the door, and the latter did. Once inside, Panlilio and his companions began searching the office, over the objection of Babay who even asked them if they had a search warrant. 7 A plastic bag was found containing marijuana flowering tops. As a result of the discovery of the presence of marijuana in the union office and after the police conducted an investigation of the incident, a complaint against the 13 union officers,8 namely: Babay, Isaac Asuncion, Jr., Soluta, Teodoro Gimpayan, Vicenta, Edna, Arnulfo Ilustrisimo, Irene Velarde, Joselito Santos, Renato Lina, Avelino Meneses, Matilla, and Norman Agtani 9 was filed before the Fiscals Office of Manila, for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, as amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 179 (The Dangerous Drugs Act). An Information10 indicting the union officers was subsequently filed by the Fiscals Office before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.

After trial, Branch 5 of the RTC acquitted the accused. The trial court disposed: WHEREFORE, with the specimen and/or the marijuana flowering tops allegedly found inside the Union Office occupied by the accused not admissible in evidence, coupled by the suspicious circumstance of confiscation, for lack of sufficient evidence, accused Henry Babay, Isaac Asuncion, Jr., Rogelio Soluta, Teodoro F. Gimpayan, Vicente Delola, Edna Bernate, Arnulfo Ilustrisimo, Irene Velarde, Joselito Santos, Avelino Meneses, Florentino Matilla and Norman Agtani, are ACQUITTED of the charge. The bonds they put up for their provisional liberty are cancelled. The Branch Clerk is directed to turn over the custody of the seized plastic bag containing flowering tops of marijuana to the NBI Director as Permanent Custodian of the seized Dangerous Drugs. SO ORDERED.11 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Soluta and his fellow union officers, together with the union, thereafter filed before the Manila RTC a Complaint 12against petitioners et al. including prosecuting Fiscal Jose Bautista and Atty. Eduardo Tutaan who assisted in the prosecution of the case against them, for malicious prosecution and violation of their constitutional right against illegal search. After trial, Branch 55 of the Manila RTC, by Decision13 dated June 2, 1994, held the hotel, Panlilio, Maniego and Villanueva jointly and severally liable for damages as a result of malicious prosecution and illegal search of the union office. The dispositive portion of the trial courts decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants Silahis International Hotel, Inc., Jose Marcel Panlilio, Floro Maniego and Steve Villanueva, individually and collectively, jointly and severally, to pay to: 1. Plaintiffs Union, Rogelio S. Soluta, Joselito Santos, Florentino Matilla, Vicenta Delola and Edna Bernate-Dacanay, jointly, the sum of P70,900.00 as actual damages, and the further sum of P1,000.00 each for the same plaintiffs, except the Union, in the same concept and nature. 2. Plaintiffs Rogelio Soluta, Joselito Santos, Florentino Matilla, Vicenta Delola and Edna Bernate-Dacanay the sum of P100,000.00 each for moral damages. 3. Plaintiffs Joselito Santos, Florentino Matilla, Vicenta Delola and Edna-Bernate-Dacanay the sum of P30,000.00 each as exemplary damages. 4. To all the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, the sum of P30,000.00 for and as attorneys fees. The complaint, insofar as plaintiff Erlisa Ilustrisimo and defendants Ramos, Bautista and Tutaan are concerned, is DISMISSED for lack of merit. All the counterclaims of the defendants are likewise dismissed for lack of factual and legal basis. Costs against the remaining defendants. SO ORDERED.14 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial courts decision. It found herein petitioners et al. civilly liable for damages for violation of individual respondents constitutional right against illegal search, not for malicious prosecution, set aside the award of actual damages to respondent union, and reduced the award of actual damages to individual respondents to P50,000. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision reads: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 55, is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the first paragraph of the dispositive portion should read: "1. Plaintiffs Rogelio Soluta, Joselito Santos, Florentino Matilla, Vicenta Delola and Edna Bernate-Dacanay, jointly, the sum of P50,000.00 as actual damages, and the further sum of P1,000.00 each for the same plaintiffs in the same concept and nature." The Decision is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects. SO ORDERED.15

Hence, the present petition of Panlilio and the hotel, they contending that: THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CIVIL CODE IN THAT: 1. THE COURT OF APPEALS APPLICATION OF PEOPLE V. ARUTA (288 SCRA 626[1998]) AND SECTION 13, RULE 126 OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LEGALLY FLAWED. 2. PETITIONERS SEARCH OF THE UNION OFFICE IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS ENTIRELY REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.16 While petitioners concede that the appellate court correctly cited the principles enunciated in People v. Aruta17and Section 13, Rule 12618 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, it gravely erred when it applied Aruta to justify petitioners alleged liability under Article 32 of the New Civil Code. They argue that Aruta does not involve Article 32 as nowhere in the decision is there any reference to Article 32.19 Similarly, petitioners argue that being private persons, they are not covered by the standards set forth in Aruta as the constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures is not meant to be invoked against private individuals. 20 Petitioners further argue that the search of the union office was reasonable under the circumstances,21 given that the hotel owns the room where the union holds office; the search was not without probable cause as it was conducted precisely due to reports received by petitioners that the union office was being used as a venue for illegal activities, particularly the sale and/or use of prohibited drugs;22 and the search was conducted with the consent and in the presence of union officer Babay. 23 The petition fails. Article 32 of the New Civil Code provides: ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: xxxx (9) The right to be secure in ones person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; xxxx The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) As constitutional rights, like the right to be secure in ones person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, occupy a lofty position in every civilized and democratic community and not infrequently susceptible to abuse, their violation, whether constituting a penal offense or not, must be guarded against. As the Code Commission noted, xxxx (3) Direct and open violations of the Penal Code trampling upon the freedoms named are not so frequent as those subtle, clever and indirect ways which do not come within the pale of the penal law. It is in these cunning devices of suppressing or curtailing freedom, which are not criminally punishable, where the greatest danger to democracy lies. The injured citizen will always have, under the new Civil Code, adequate civil remedies before the courts because of the independent civil action, even in those instances where the act or omission complained of does not constitute a criminal offense. 24 The Code Commission thus deemed it necessary to hold not only public officers but also private individuals civilly liable for violation of rights enumerated in Article 32 of the Civil Code. That is why it is not even necessary that the defendant under this Article should have acted with malice or bad faith, otherwise, it would defeat its main purpose, which is the effective protection of individual rights.25 It suffices that there is a violation of the constitutional right of the plaintiff. In the present case, as priorly stated, petitioners had, by their own claim, already received reports in late 1987 of illegal activities allegedly undertaken in the union office and Maniego conducted surveillance of the union officers. Yet, in the morning of January 11, 1988, petitioners and their companions barged into and searched the union office without a search warrant, despite ample time for them to obtain one, and notwithstanding the objection of Babay.

The course taken by petitioners and company stinks in illegality, it not falling under any of the exceptional instances when a warrantless search is allowed by law. Petitioners violation of individual respondents constitutional right against unreasonable search thus furnishes the basis for the award of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. In MHP Garments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,26 a case for unfair competition, the progression of time between the receipt of the information and the raid of the stores of the therein private respondents premises showed that there was sufficient time for the therein petitioners and the raiding party to apply for a judicial warrant. Yet they did not apply for one. They went on with the raid and seized the goods of the therein private Respondents. Under the circumstances, this court upheld the grant of damages by the trial court to the therein private respondents for violation of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. As for petitioners contention that property rights justified the search of the union office, the same does not lie. For respondents, being the lawful occupants of the office, had the right to raise the question of validity of the search and seizure. 27 Neither does petitioners claim that they were allowed by union officer Babay to enter the union office lie. Babays account of why petitioners and company went to the union office to consider Panlilios suggestion to settle the mauling incident is more credible, as is his claim that he protested the search, and even asked if they were armed with a search warrant. While it is doctrinal that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived expressly or impliedly, a waiver by implication cannot be presumed. There must be clear and convincing evidence of an actual intention to relinquish it to constitute a waiver thereof.28 There must be proof of the following: (a) that the right exists; (b) that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and, (c) that the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. In other words, the waiver must be voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made. The evidence shows otherwise, however. That a violation of ones constitutional right against illegal search and seizure can be the basis for the recovery of damages under Article 32 in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the New Civil Code, there is no doubt. Since the complaint 29 filed before the trial court was for damages due to malicious prosecution and violation of constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, the award by the trial court of actual damages to respondent union was correctly set aside by the appellate court. Article 32 speaks of an officer or employee or person "directly or indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. Hence, it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages under Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party.30 Such being the case, petitioners, together with Maniego and Villanueva, the ones who orchestrated the illegal search, are jointly and severally liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages to herein individual respondents in accordance with the earlier-quoted pertinent provision of Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: xxxx (6) Illegal search; xxxx (10) Acts and action referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioners magnify the citation by the appellate court of Aruta allegedly "to justify [their] liability" under Article 32 of the Civil Code, which petitioners allege is erroneous as said case did not involve Article 32. Aruta was, however, cited by the appellate court, not to justify petitioners liability but to rule out the legality of the search in the union office as the search was not done as an incident of a lawful arrest. Petitioners cite People v. Marti31 to support their thesis that the determinants in the validity of the constitutional right against searches and seizure cannot be invoked against private individuals. But the ruling of this Court in Marti, a criminal case, bears on the issue of whether "an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of [ones] constitutional rights, [may] be invoked against the State." In other words, the issue in that case was whether the evidence obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity without the participation of the State, is admissible. The issue in the present civil case, however, is whether respondent individual can recover damages for violation of constitutional rights. As reflected above, Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code, allows so.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing ratiocinations, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-14078 March 7, 1919

RUBI, ET AL. (manguianes), plaintiffs, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, defendant. D. R. Williams & Filemon Sotto for plaintiff. Office of the Solicitor-General Paredes for defendant. MALCOLM, J.: In one of the cases which denote a landmark in American Constitutional History (Worcester vs. Georgia [1832], 6 Pet., 515), Chief Justice Marshall, the first luminary of American jurisprudence, began his opinion (relating to the status of an Indian) with words which, with a slight change in phraseology, can be made to introduce the present opinion This cause, in every point of view in which it can be placed, is of the deepest interest. The legislative power of state, the controlling power of the constitution and laws, the rights if they have any, the political existence of a people, the personal liberty of a citizen, are all involved in the subject now to be considered. To imitate still further the opinion of the Chief Justice, we adopt his outline and proceed first, to introduce the facts and the issues, next to give a history of the so called "non-Christians," next to compare the status of the "non-Christians" with that of the American Indians, and, lastly, to resolve the constitutional questions presented. I. INTRODUCTION. This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. It is alleged that the Maguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away form the reservation. The return of the Solicitor-General alleges: 1. That on February 1, 1917, the provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 which is as follows: The provincial governor, Hon. Juan Morente, Jr., presented the following resolution: "Whereas several attempts and schemes have been made for the advancement of the non-Christian people of Mindoro, which were all a failure, "Whereas it has been found out and proved that unless some other measure is taken for the Mangyan work of this province, no successful result will be obtained toward educating these people. "Whereas it is deemed necessary to obliged them to live in one place in order to make a permanent settlement, "Whereas the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board. "Whereas the provincial governor is of the opinion that the sitio of Tigbao on Lake Naujan is a place most convenient for the Mangyanes to live on, Now, therefore be it "Resolved, that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code, 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro subject to the approval of the Honorable Secretary of the Interior, and

"Resolved further, That Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor." 2. That said resolution No. 25 (series 1917) of the provincial board of Mindoro was approved by the Secretary of the Interior of February 21, 1917. 3. That on December 4, 1917, the provincial governor of Mindoro issued executive order No. 2 which says: "Whereas the provincial board, by Resolution No. 25, current series, has selected a site in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. "Whereas said resolution has been duly approve by the Honorable, the Secretary of the Interior, on February 21, 1917. "Now, therefore, I, Juan Morente, jr., provincial governor of Mindoro, pursuant to the provisions of section 2145 of the revised Administrative Code, do hereby direct that all the Mangyans in the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan, to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao, Naujan Lake, not later than December 31, 1917. "Any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days, in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code." 4. That the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro copied in paragraph 1 and the executive order of the governor of the same province copied in paragraph 3, were necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam, and to introduce civilized customs among them. 5. That Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be punished in accordance with section 2759 of Act No. 2711. 6. That the undersigned has not information that Doroteo Dabalos is being detained by the sheriff of Mindoro but if he is so detained it must be by virtue of the provisions of articles Nos. 2145 and 2759 of Act No. 2711. It thus appears that the provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in question to take up their habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected by the provincial governor and approved by the provincial board. The action was taken in accordance with section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by said action. Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code. This, therefore, becomes the paramount question which the court is called upon the decide. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows: SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christina upon sites selected by provincial governor. With the prior approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him an approved by the provincial board. In connection with the above-quoted provisions, there should be noted section 2759 of the same Code, which read as follows: SEC. 2759. Refusal of a non-Christian to take up appointed habitation. Any non-Christian who shall refuse to comply with the directions lawfully given by a provincial governor, pursuant to section two thousand one hundred and forty-five of this Code, to take up habitation upon a site designated by said governor shall upon conviction be imprisonment for a period not exceeding sixty days. The substance of what is now found in said section 2145 is not new to Philippine law. The genealogical tree of this section, if we may be permitted to use such terminology, would read: Section 2077, Administrative Code of 1916; section 62, Act No. 1397; section 2 of various special provincial laws, notably of Act No. 547, specifically relating to the Manguianes; section 69, Act No. 387. Section 2145 and its antecedent laws make use of the term "non-Christians." This word, as will later be disclosed, is also found in varying forms in other laws of the Philippine Islands. In order to put the phrase in its proper category, and in order to understand the policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands with reference to the uncivilized elements of the Islands, it is well first of all to set down a skeleton history of the attitude assumed by the authorities towards these "non-Christians," with particular regard for the legislation on the subject.

II. HISTORY. A. BEFORE ACQUISITION OF THE PHILIPPINE BY THE UNITED STATES. The most important of the laws of the Indies having reference to the subject at hand are compiled in Book VI, Title III, in the following language. LAW I. The Emperor Charles and the Prince, the governor, at Cigales, on March 21, 1551. Philip II at Toledo, on February 19, 1560. In the forest of Segovia on September 13, 1565. In the Escorial on November 10, 1568. Ordinance 149 of the poblaciones of 1573. In San Lorenzo, on May 20, 1578, THAT THE "INDIOS" BE REDUCED INTO "POBLACIONES" COMMUNITIES). In order that the indios may be instructed in the Sacred Catholic Faith and the evangelical law, and in order that they may forget the blunders of their ancient rites and ceremonies to the end that they may live in harmony and in a civilized manner, it has always been endeavored, with great care and special attention, to use all the means most convenient to the attainment of these purposes. To carry out this work with success, our Council of the Indies and other religious persons met at various times; the prelates of new Spain assembled by order of Emperor Charles V of glorious memory in the year one thousand five hundred and forty-six all of which meetings were actuated with a desire to serve God an our Kingdom. At these meetings it was resolved that indios be made to live in communities, and not to live in places divided and separated from one another by sierras and mountains, wherein they are deprived of all spiritual and temporal benefits and wherein they cannot profit from the aid of our ministers and from that which gives rise to those human necessities which men are obliged to give one another. Having realized that convenience of this resolution, our kings, our predecessors, by different orders, have entrusted and ordered the viceroys, presidents, and governors to execute with great care and moderation the concentration of the indios intoreducciones; and to deal with their doctrine with such forbearance and gentleness, without causing inconveniences, so that those who would not presently settle and who would see the good treatment and the protection of those already in settlements would, of their own accord, present themselves, and it is ordained that they be not required to pay taxes more than what is ordered. Because the above has been executed in the greater part of our Indies, we hereby order and decree that the same be complied with in all the remaining parts of the Indies, and the encomederos shall entreat compliance thereof in the manner and form prescribed by the laws of this title. xxx xxx xxx

LAW VIII. Philip II at the Pardo, on December 1, 1573. Philip III at Madrid, October 10, 1618. THE "REDUCCTIONES" BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THIS LAW. The places wherein the pueblos and reducciones shall be formed should have the facilities of waters. lands, and mountains, ingress and egress, husbandry and passageway of one league long, wherein the indios can have their live stock that they may not be mixed with those of the Spaniards. LAW IX. Philip II at Toledo, on February 19, 1956. THAT THE "INDIOS" IN "REDUCCIONES" BE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE LANDS PREVIOUSLY HELD BY THEM. With more good-will and promptness, the indios shall be concentrated in reducciones. Provided they shall not be deprived of the lands and granaries which they may have in the places left by them. We hereby order that no change shall be made in this respect, and that they be allowed to retain the lands held by them previously so that they may cultivate them and profit therefrom. xxx xxx xxx

LAW XIII.

THE SAME AS ABOVE. THAT THE "REDUCCIONES" BE NOT REMOVED WITHOUT ORDER OF THE KING, VICEROY, OR COURT. No governor, or magistrate, or alcalde mayor, or any other court, has the right to alter or to remove thepueblos or the reducciones once constituted and founded, without our express order or that of the viceroy, president, or the royal district court, provided, however, that the encomenderos, priests, or indios request such a change or consent to it by offering or giving information to that en. And, because these claims are often made for private interests and not for those of the indios, we hereby order that this law be always complied with, otherwise the change will be considered fraudulently obtained. The penalty of one thousand pesos shall be imposed upon the judge or encomendero who should violate this law. LAW XV. Philip III at Madrid, on October 10, 1618. THAT THERE BE MAYORS AND ALDERMEN IN THE "REDUCTIONES," WHO SHALL BE "INDIOS." We order that in each town and reduccion there be a mayor, who should be an indio of the same reduccion; if there be more than eighty houses, there should be two mayors and two aldermen, also indios; and, even if the town be a big one, there should, nevertheless, be more than two mayors and four aldermen, If there be less than eighty indios but not less than forty, there should be not more than one mayor and one alderman, who should annually elect nine others, in the presence of the priests , as is the practice in town inhabited by Spaniards and indios. LAW XXI. Philip II, in Madrid, On May 2, 1563, and on November 25, 1578. At Tomar, on May 8, 1581. At Madrid, on January 10, 1589. Philip III, at Todesillas, on July 12, 1600. Philip IV, at Madrid, on October 1 and December 17, 1646. For this law and the one following, see Law I, Tit. 4, Book 7. THAT IN THE TOWNS OF THE "INDIOS," THERE SHALL LIVE NO SPANIARDS, NEGROES, "MESTIZOS," AND MULATTOES. We hereby prohibit and forbid Spaniards, negroes, mulattores, or mestizos to live to live in the reduccionesand towns and towns of the indios, because it has been found that some Spaniards who deal, trade, live, and associate with the indios are men of troublesome nature, of dirty ways of living; robbers, gamblers, and vicious and useless men; and, to avoid the wrongs done them, the indios would leave their towns and provinces; and the negroes, mestizos, and mulattoes, besides maltreating them and utilizing their services, contaminate them with their bad customs, idleness, and also some of their blunders and vices which may corrupt and pervert the goal which we desire to reach with regard to their salvation, increase, and tranquillity. We hereby order the imposition of grave penalties upon the commission of the acts abovementioned which should not be tolerated in the towns, and that the viceroys, presidents, governors, and courts take great care in executing the law within their powers and avail themselves of the cooperation of the ministers who are truly honest. As regards the mestizos and Indian and Chinese half-breeds (zambaigos), who are children of indias and born among them, and who are to inherit their houses andhaciendas, they all not be affected by this law, it appearing to be a harsh thing to separate them from their parents. (Law of the Indies, vol. 2, pp. 228, 229, 230, 231.) A clear exposition of the purposes of the Spanish government, in its efforts to improve the condition of the less advanced inhabitants of the Islands by concentrating them in "reducciones," is found in the Decree of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands of January 14, 1881, reading as follows: It is a legal principle as well as a national right that every inhabitant of a territory recognized as an integral part of a nation should respect and obey the laws in force therein; while, on other hand, it is the duty to conscience and to humanity for all governments to civilize those backward races that might exist in the nation, and which living in the obscurity of ignorance, lack of all the nations which enable them to grasp the moral and material advantages that may be acquired in those towns under the protection and vigilance afforded them by the same laws. It is equally highly depressive to our national honor to tolerate any longer the separation and isolation of the non-Christian races from the social life of the civilized and Christian towns; to allow any longer the commission of depredations, precisely in the Island of Luzon wherein is located the seat of the representative of the Government of the, metropolis. It is but just to admit the fact that all the governments have occupied themselves with this most important question, and that much has been heretofore accomplished with the help and self-denial of the missionary fathers who have even sacrificed their lives to the end that those degenerate races might be brought to the principles of Christianity, but the means and the preaching employed to allure them have been insufficient to complete the work undertaken. Neither have

the punishments imposed been sufficient in certain cases and in those which have not been guarded against, thus giving and customs of isolation. As it is impossible to consent to the continuation of such a lamentable state of things, taking into account the prestige which the country demands and the inevitable duty which every government has in enforcing respect and obedience to the national laws on the part of all who reside within the territory under its control, I have proceeded in the premises by giving the most careful study of this serious question which involves important interests for civilization, from the moral and material as well as the political standpoints. After hearing the illustrious opinions of all the local authorities, ecclesiastics, and missionaries of the provinces of Northern Luzon, and also after finding the unanimous conformity of the meeting held with the Archbishop of Manila, the Bishops of Jaro and Cebu, and the provincial prelates of the orders of the Dominicans, Agustinians, Recoletos, Franciscans, and Jesuits as also of the meeting of the Council of Authorities, held for the object so indicated, I have arrived at an intimate conviction of the inevitable necessity of proceeding in a practical manner for the submission of the said pagan and isolated races, as well as of the manner and the only form of accomplishing such a task. For the reasons above stated and for the purpose of carrying out these objects, I hereby promulgate the following: DECREE. 1. All the indian inhabitants (indios) of the Islands of Luzon are, from this date, to be governed by the common law, save those exceptions prescribed in this decree which are bases upon the differences of instructions, of the customs, and of the necessities of the different pagan races which occupy a part of its territory. 2. The diverse rules which should be promulgated for each of these races which may be divided into three classes; one, which comprises those which live isolated and roaming about without forming a town nor a home; another, made up of those subdued pagans who have not as yet entered completely the social life; and the third, of those mountain and rebellious pagans shall be published in their respective dialects, and the officials, priests, and missionaries of the provinces wherein they are found are hereby entrusted in the work of having these races learn these rules. These rules shall have executive character, beginning with the first day of next April, and, as to their compliance, they must be observed in the manner prescribed below. 3. The provincial authorities in conjunction with the priests shall proceed, from now on, with all the means which their zeal may suggest to them, to the taking of the census of the inhabitants of the towns or settlement already subdued, and shall adopt the necessary regulations for the appointment of local authorities, if there be none as yet; for the construction of courts and schools, and for the opening or fixing up of means of communication, endeavoring, as regards the administrative organization of the said towns or settlements, that this be finished before the first day of next July, so that at the beginning of the fiscal year they shall have the same rights and obligations which affect the remaining towns of the archipelago, with the only exception that in the first two years they shall not be obliged to render personal services other than those previously indicated. 4. So long as these subdued towns or settlements are located infertile lands appropriate for cultivation, the inhabitants thereof shall not be obliged to move their dwelling-houses; and only in case of absolute necessity shall a new residence be fixed for them, choosing for this purpose the place most convenient for them and which prejudices the least their interest; and, in either of these cases, an effort must be made to establish their homes with the reach of the sound of the bell. 5. For the protection and defense of these new towns, there shall be established an armed force composed precisely of native Christian, the organization and service of which shall be determined in a regulations based upon that of the abolished Tercios de Policia (division of the Guardia Civil). 6. The authorities shall see to it that the inhabitants of the new towns understand all the rights and duties affecting them and the liberty which they have as to where and now they shall till their lands and sell the products thereof, with the only exception of the tobacco which shall be bought by the Hacienda at the same price and conditions allowed other producers, and with the prohibition against these new towns as well as the others from engaging in commerce of any other transaction with the rebellious indios, the violation of which shall be punished with deportation. 7. In order to properly carry out this express prohibition, the limits of the territory of the rebellious indiosshall be fixed; and whoever should go beyond the said limits shall be detained and assigned governmentally wherever convenient. 8. For the purpose of assisting in the conversion of the pagans into the fraternity of the Catholic Church, all by this fact along be exempt for eight years from rendering personal labor. 9. The authorities shall offer in the name of the State to the races not subdued (aetas and mountains igorrots the following advantages in returns for their voluntary submission: to live in towns; unity among their families; concession of good lands

and the right to cultivate them in the manner they wish and in the way them deem most productive; support during a year, and clothes upon effecting submission; respect for their habits and customs in so far as the same are not opposed to natural law; freedom to decide of their own accord as to whether they want to be Christians or not; the establishment of missions and families of recognized honesty who shall teach, direct, protect, and give them security and trust them; the purchase or facility of the sale of their harvests; the exemption from contributions and tributes for ten years and from thequintas (a kind of tax) for twenty years; and lastly, that those who are governed by the local authorities as the ones who elect such officials under the direct charge of the authorities of the province or district. 10. The races indicated in the preceding article, who voluntarily admit the advantages offered, shall, in return, have the obligation of constituting their new towns, of constructing their town hall, schools, and country roads which place them in communication with one another and with the Christians; provided, the location of these towns be distant from their actual residences, when the latter do not have the good conditions of location and cultivations, and provided further the putting of families in a place so selected by them be authorized in the towns already constituted. 11. The armed force shall proceed to the prosecution and punishment of the tribes, that, disregarding the peace, protection, and advantages offered them, continue in their rebellious attitude on the first of next April, committing from now on the crimes and vexations against the Christian towns; and for the this purposes, the Captain General's Office shall proceed with the organization of the divisions of the Army which, in conjunction with the rural guards (cuadrilleros), shall have to enter the territory of such tribes. On the expiration of the term, they shall destroy their dwelling-houses, labors, and implements, and confiscate their products and cattle. Such a punishment shall necessarily be repeated twice a year, and for this purpose the military headquarters shall immediately order a detachment of the military staff to study the zones where such operations shall take place and everything conducive to the successful accomplishment of the same. 12. The chiefs of provinces, priests, and missioners, local authorities, and other subordinates to my authorities, local authorities, and other subordinates to may authority, civil as well as military authorities, shall give the most effective aid and cooperation to the said forces in all that is within the attributes and the scope of the authority of each. 13. With respect to the reduccion of the pagan races found in some of the provinces in the southern part of the Archipelago, which I intend to visit, the preceding provisions shall conveniently be applied to them. 14. There shall be created, under my presidency as Governor-General, Vice-Royal Patron, a council or permanent commission which shall attend to and decide all the questions relative to the application of the foregoing regulations that may be brought to it for consultations by the chiefs of provinces and priests and missionaries. 15. The secondary provisions which may be necessary, as a complement to the foregoing, in brining about due compliance with this decree, shall be promulgated by the respective official centers within their respective jurisdictions. (Gaceta de Manila, No. 15) (Diccionario de la Administracion, vol. 7, pp. 128-134.) B. AFTER ACQUISITON OF THE PHILIPPINES BY THE UNITED STATES. Ever since the acquisition of the Philippine Islands by the United States, the question as to the best method for dealing with the primitive inhabitants has been a perplexing one. 1. Organic law. The first order of an organic character after the inauguration of the American Government in the Philippines was President McKinley's Instructions to the Commission of April 7, 1900, later expressly approved and ratified by section 1 of the Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902. Portions of these instructions have remained undisturbed by subsequent congressional legislation. One paragraph of particular interest should here be quoted, namely: In dealing with the uncivilized tribes of the Islands, the Commission should adopt the same course followed by Congress in permitting the tribes of our North American Indians to maintain their tribal organization and government and under which many of these tribes are now living in peace and contentment, surrounded by civilization to which they are unable or unwilling to conform. Such tribal governments should, however, be subjected to wise and firm regulation; and, without undue or petty interference, constant and active effort should be exercised to prevent barbarous practices and introduce civilized customs. Next comes the Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, in the nature of an Organic Act for the Philippines. The purpose of section 7 of the Philippine Bill was to provide for a legislative body and, with this end in view, to name the prerequisites for the organization of the Philippine Assembly. The Philippine Legislature, composed of the Philippine Commission and the Philippine Assembly, was to have jurisdiction over the Christian portion of the Islands. The Philippine Commission was to retain exclusive jurisdiction of that part of said Islands inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes.

The latest Act of Congress, nearest to a Constitution for the Philippines, is the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, commonly known as the Jones Law. This transferred the exclusive legislative jurisdiction and authority theretofore exercised by the Philippine Commission, to the Philippine Legislature (sec. 12). It divided the Philippine Islands into twelve senatorial districts, the twelfth district to be composed of the Mountain Province, Baguio, Nueva Vizcaya, and the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. The GovernorGeneral of the Philippine Islands was authorized to appoint senators and representatives for the territory which, at the time of the passage of the Jones Law, was not represented in the Philippine Assembly, that is, for the twelfth district (sec. 16). The law establish a bureau to be known as the "Bureau of non-Christian Tribes" which shall have general supervision over the public affairs of the inhabitants which are represented in the Legislature by appointed senators and representatives( sec. 22). Philippine organic law may, therefore, be said to recognized a dividing line between the territory not inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes, and the territory which Moros or other non-Christian tribes, and the territory which is inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. 2. Statute law. Local governments in the Philippines have been provided for by various acts of the Philippine Commission and Legislature. The most notable are Acts Nos. 48 and 49 concerning the Province of Benguet and the Igorots; Act NO. 82, the Municipal Code; ;Act no. 83, the Provincial Government Act; Act No. 183, the Character of the city of Manila; Act No. 7887, providing for the organization and government of the Moro Province; Act No. 1396, the Special Provincial Government Act; Act No. 1397, the Township Government Act; Act No. 1667, relating to the organization of settlements; Act No. 1963, the Baguio charger; and Act No. 2408, the Organic Act of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. The major portion of these laws have been carried forward into the Administrative Codes of 1916 an d1917. Of more particular interest are certain special laws concerning the government of the primitive peoples. Beginning with Act No. 387, sections 68-71, enacted on April 9, 1902, by the United States Philippine Commission, having reference to the Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Acts Nos. 4111, 422, 445, 500, 547, 548, 549, 550, 579, 753, 855, 1113, 1145, 4568, 1306 were enacted for the provinces of Abra, Antique, Bataan, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Isabela. Lepanto-Bontoc, Mindoro, Misamis, Nueva Vizcaya, Pangasinan, Paragua (Palawan), Tarlac, Tayabas, and Zambales. As an example of these laws, because referring to the Manguianes, we insert Act No. 547: No. 547. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL CIVIL GOVERNMENTS FOR THE MANGUIANES IN THE PROVINCE OF MINDORO. By authority of the United States, be it enacted by the Philippine Commission, that: SECTION 1. Whereas the Manguianes of the Provinces of Mindoro have not progressed sufficiently in civilization to make it practicable to bring them under any form of municipal government, the provincial governor is authorized, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, in dealing with these Manguianes to appoint officers from among them, to fix their designations and badges of office, and to prescribe their powers and duties: Provided, That the powers and duties thus prescribed shall not be in excess of those conferred upon township officers by Act Numbered Three hundred and eightyseven entitled "An Act providing for the establishment of local civil Governments in the townships and settlements of Nueva Vizcaya." SEC. 2. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, the provincial governor is further authorized, when he deems such a course necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such Manguianes to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board. Manguianes who refuse to comply with such directions shall upon conviction be imprisonment for a period not exceeding sixty days. SEC. 3. The constant aim of the governor shall be to aid the Manguianes of his province to acquire the knowledge and experience necessary for successful local popular government, and his supervision and control over them shall be exercised to this end, an to the end that law and order and individual freedom shall be maintained. SEC. 4. When in the opinion of the provincial board of Mindoro any settlement of Manguianes has advanced sufficiently to make such a course practicable, it may be organized under the provisions of sections one to sixty-seven, inclusive, of Act Numbered three hundred and eighty-seven, as a township, and the geographical limits of such township shall be fixed by the provincial board. SEC. 5. The public good requiring the speedy enactment of this bill, the passage of the same is hereby expedited in accordance with section two of 'An Act prescribing the order of procedure by the Commission in the enactment of laws,' passed September twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred. SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect on its passage.

Enacted, December 4, 1902. All of these special laws, with the exception of Act No. 1306, were repealed by Act No. 1396 and 1397. The last named Act incorporated and embodied the provisions in general language. In turn, Act No. 1397 was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1916. The two Administrative Codes retained the provisions in questions. These different laws, if they of the non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines and a settled and consistent practice with reference to the methods to be followed for their advancement. C. TERMINOLOGY. The terms made use of by these laws, organic and statutory, are found in varying forms. "Uncivilized tribes" is the denomination in President McKinley's instruction to the Commission. The most commonly accepted usage has sanctioned the term "non-Christian tribes." These words are to be found in section 7 of the Philippine Bill and in section 22 of the Jones Law. They are also to be found in Act No. 253 of the Philippines Commission, establishing a Bureau of non-Christian Tribes and in Act No. 2674 of the Philippine Legislature, carried forward into sections 701705 of the Administrative Code of 1917, reestablishing this Bureau. Among other laws which contain the phrase, there can be mentioned Acts Nos. 127, 128, 387, 547, 548, 549, 550, 1397, 1639, and 2551. "Non-Christian people," "non-Christian inhabitants," and "non-Christian Filipinos" have been the favorite nomenclature, in lieu of the unpopular word "tribes," since the coming into being of a Filipinized legislature. These terms can be found in sections 2076, 2077, 2390, 2394, Administrative Code of 1916; sections 701-705, 2145, 2422, 2426, Administrative Code of 1917; and in Acts Nos. 2404, 2435, 2444, 2674 of the Philippine Legislatures, as well as in Act No. 1667 of the Philippine Commission. The Administrative Code specifically provides that the term "non-Christian" shall include Mohammedans and pagans. (Sec. 2576, Administrative Code of 1917; sec. 2561, Administrative Code of 1916, taken from Act No. 2408, sec. 3.) D. MEANING OF TERM "NON-CHRISTIAN." If we were to follow the literal meaning of the word "non-Christian," it would of course result in giving to it a religious signification. Obviously, Christian would be those who profess the Christian religion, and non-Christians, would be those who do not profess the Christian religion. In partial corroboration of this view, there could also be cited section 2576 of the last Administrative Code and certain well-known authorities, as Zuiga, "Estadismo de las Islas Filipinas," Professor Ferdinand Blumentritt, "Philippine Tribes and Languages," and Dr. N. M. Saleeby, "The Origin of Malayan Filipinos." (See Blair & Robertson, "The Philippine Islands," 1493-1898, vol. III, p. 300, note; Craig-Benitez, "Philippine Progress prior to 1898," vol. I. p. 107.) Not content with the apparent definition of the word, we shall investigate further to ascertain what is its true meaning. In one sense, the word can have a geographical signification. This is plainly to be seen by the provisions of many laws. Thus, according to the Philippine Bill, the authority of the Philippine Assembly was recognized in the "territory" of the Islands not inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. Again, the Jones Law confers similar recognition in the authorization of the twelfth senatorial district for the "territory not now represented in the Philippine Assembly." The Philippines Legislature has, time and again, adopted acts making certain other acts applicable to that "part" of the Philippine Islands inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. Section 2145, is found in article XII of the Provincial Law of the Administrative Code. The first section of this article, preceding section 2145, makes the provisions of the article applicable only in specially organized provinces. The specially organized provinces are the Mountain Province, Nueva Vizcaya, Mindoro, Batanes, and Palawan. These are the provinces to which the Philippine Legislature has never seen fit to give all the powers of local self-government. They do not, however, exactly coincide with the portion of the Philippines which is not granted popular representation. Nevertheless, it is still a geographical description. It is well-known that within the specially organized provinces, there live persons some of who are Christians and some of whom are not Christians. In fact, the law specifically recognizes this. ( Sec. 2422, Administrative Code of 1917, etc.) If the religious conception is not satisfactory, so against the geographical conception is likewise inadquate. The reason it that the motive of the law relates not to a particular people, because of their religion, or to a particular province because of its location, but the whole intent of the law is predicated n the civilization or lack of civilization of the inhabitants. At most, "non-Christian" is an awkward and unsatisfactory word. Apologetic words usually introduce the term. "The so-called nonChristian" is a favorite expression. The Secretary of the Interior who for so many years had these people under his jurisdiction, recognizing the difficulty of selecting an exact designation, speaks of the "backward Philippine peoples, commonly known as the

'non-Christian tribes."' (See Hearings before the Committee on the Philippines, United States Senate, Sixty-third Congress, third session on H.R. 18459, An Act to declare the purpose of the People of the United States as to the future political status of the Philippine Islands and to provide a more autonomous government for the Islands, pp. 346, 351; letter of the Secretary of the Interior of June 30, 1906, circulated by the Executive Secretary.) The idea that the term "non-Christian" is intended to relate to degree of civilization, is substantiated by reference to legislative, judicial, and executive authority. The legislative intent is borne out by Acts Nos. 48, 253, 387, 1667, and 2674, and sections 701 et seq, and sections 2422 et seq, of the Administrative Code of 1917. For instance, Act No. 253 charged the Bureau of non-Christian tribes to conduct "systematic investigations with reference to non-Christian tribes . . . with special view to determining the most practicable means for bringing about their advancement in civilization and material property prosperity." As authority of a judicial nature is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United States vs. Tubban [Kalinga] ([1915], 29, Phil., 434). The question here arose as to the effect of a tribal marriage in connection with article 423 of the Penal code concerning the husband who surprises his wife in the act of adultery. In discussing the point, the court makes use of the following language: . . . we are not advised of any provision of law which recognizes as legal a tribal marriage of so-called non-Christians or members of uncivilized tribes, celebrated within that province without compliance with the requisites prescribed by General Orders no. 68. . . . We hold also that the fact that the accused is shown to be a member of an uncivilized tribe, of a low order of intelligence, uncultured and uneducated, should be taken into consideration as a second marked extenuating circumstance. Of much more moment is the uniform construction of execution officials who have been called upon to interpret and enforce the law. The official who, as a member of the Philippine Commission, drafted much of the legislation relating to the so-called Christians and who had these people under his authority, was the former Secretary of the Interior. Under date of June 30, 1906, this official addressed a letter to all governor of provinces, organized under the Special Provincial Government Act, a letter which later received recognition by the Governor-General and was circulated by the Executive Secretary, reading as follows: Sir: Within the past few months, the question has arisen as to whether people who were originally non-Christian but have recently been baptized or who are children of persons who have been recently baptized are, for the purposes of Act 1396 and 1397, to be considered Christian or non-Christians. It has been extremely difficult, in framing legislation for the tribes in these islands which are not advanced far in civilization, to hit upon any suitable designation which will fit all cases. The number of individual tribes is so great that it is almost out of the question to enumerate all of them in an Act. It was finally decided to adopt the designation 'nonChristians' as the one most satisfactory, but the real purpose of the Commission was not so much to legislate for people having any particular religious belief as for those lacking sufficient advancement so that they could, to their own advantage, be brought under the Provincial Government Act and the Municipal Code. The mere act of baptism does not, of course, in itself change the degree of civilization to which the person baptized has attained at the time the act of baptism is performed. For practical purposes, therefore, you will give the member of socalled "wild tribes" of your province the benefit of the doubt even though they may recently have embraced Christianity. The determining factor in deciding whether they are to be allowed to remain under the jurisdiction of regularly organized municipalities or what form of government shall be afforded to them should be the degree of civilization to which they have attained and you are requested to govern yourself accordingly. I have discussed this matter with the Honorable, the Governor-General, who concurs in the opinion above expressed and who will have the necessary instructions given to the governors of the provinces organized under the Provincial Government Act. (Internal Revenue Manual, p. 214.) The present Secretary of the Interior, in a memorandum furnished a member of this court, has the following to say on the subject: As far as names are concerned the classification is indeed unfortunate, but while no other better classification has as yet been made the present classification should be allowed to stand . . . I believe the term carries the same meaning as the expressed in the letter of the Secretary of the Interior (of June 30, 1906, herein quoted). It is indicative of the degree of civilization rather than of religious denomination, for the hold that it is indicative of religious denomination will make the law invalid as against that Constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. Another official who was concerned with the status of the non-Christians, was the Collector of Internal Revenue. The question arose for ruling relatives to the cedula taxation of the Manobos and the Aetas. Thereupon, the view of the Secretary of the Interior was requested on the point, who, by return indorsement, agreed with the interpretation of the Collector of Internal Revenue. This

Construction of the Collector of Internal Revenue can be found in circular letter No. 188 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, dated June 11, 1907, reading as follows (Internal Revenue Manual, p. 214): The internal revenue law exempts "members of non-Christian tribes" from the payment of cedula taxes. The Collector of Internal Revenue has interpreted this provision of law to mean not that persons who profess some form of Christian worship are alone subject to the cedula tax, and that all other person are exempt; he has interpreted it to mean that all persons preserving tribal relations with the so-called non-Christian tribes are exempt from the cedula tax, and that all others, including Jews, Mohammedans, Confucians, Buddists, etc., are subject to said tax so long as they live in cities or towns, or in the country in a civilized condition. In other words, it is not so much a matter of a man's form of religious worship or profession that decides whether or not he is subject to the cedula tax; it is more dependent on whether he is living in a civilized manner or is associated with the mountain tribes, either as a member thereof or as a recruit. So far, this question has not come up as to whether a Christian, maintaining his religious belief, but throwing his lot and living with a non-Christian tribe, would or would not be subject to the cedula tax. On one occasion a prominent Hebrew of Manila claimed to this office that he was exempt from the cedula tax, inasmuch as he was not a Christian. This Office, however, continued to collect cedula taxes from all the Jews, East Indians, Arabs, Chinamen, etc., residing in Manila. Quite a large proportion of the cedula taxes paid in this city are paid by men belonging to the nationalities mentioned. Chinamen, Arabs and other s are quite widely scattered throughout the Islands, and a condition similar to that which exist in Manila also exists in most of the large provincial towns. Cedula taxes are therefore being collected by this Office in all parts of these Islands on the broad ground that civilized people are subject to such taxes, and non-civilized people preserving their tribal relations are not subject thereto. (Sgd.) JNO. S. HORD, Collector of Internal Revenue. On September 17, 1910, the Collector of Internal Revenue addressed circular letter No. 327, approved by the Secretary of Finance and Justice, to all provincial treasurers. This letter in part reads: In view of the many questions that have been raised by provincial treasurers regarding cedula taxes due from members of non-Christian tribes when they come in from the hills for the purposes of settling down and becoming members of the body politic of the Philippine Islands, the following clarification of the laws governing such questions and digest of rulings thereunder is hereby published for the information of all concerned: Non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippine Islands are so classed, not by reason of the fact that they do not profess Christianity, but because of their uncivilized mode of life and low state of development. All inhabitants of the Philippine Islands classed as members of non-Christian tribes may be divided into three classes in so far as the cedula tax law is concerned . . . Whenever any member of an non-Christian tribe leaves his wild and uncivilized mode of life, severs whatever tribal relations he may have had and attaches himself civilized community, belonging a member of the body politic, he thereby makes himself subject to precisely the same law that governs the other members of that community and from and after the date when he so attaches himself to the community the same cedula and other taxes are due from him as from other members thereof. If he comes in after the expiration of the delinquency period the same rule should apply to him as to persons arriving from foreign countries or reaching the age of eighteen subsequent to the expiration of such period, and a regular class A, D, F, or H cedula, as the case may be, should be furnished him without penalty and without requiring him to pay the tax for former years. In conclusion, it should be borne in mind that the prime factors in determining whether or not a man is subject to the regular cedula tax is not the circumstance that he does or does not profess Christianity, nor even his maintenance of or failure to maintain tribal relations with some of the well known wild tribes, but his mode of life, degree of advancement in civilization and connection or lack of connection with some civilized community. For this reason so called "Remontados" and "Montescos" will be classed by this office as members of non-Christian tribes in so far as the application of the Internal Revenue Law is concerned, since, even though they belong to no well recognized tribe, their mode of life, degree of advancement and so forth are practically the same as those of the Igorrots and members of other recognized nonChristina tribes. Very respectfully, (Sgd.) ELLIS CROMWELL, Collector of Internal Revenue, Approved: (Sgd.) GREGORIO ARANETA, Secretary of Finance and Justice.

The two circular above quoted have since been repealed by Bureau of Internal Revenue Regulations No. 1, promulgated by Venancio Concepcion, Acting Collector of Internal Revenue, and approved on April 16, 1915, by Honorable Victorino Mapa, Secretary of Finance and Justice. Section 30 of the regulations is practically a transcript of Circular Letter No. 327. The subject has come before the Attorney-General for consideration. The Chief of Constabulary request the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral as to the status of a non-Christian who has been baptized by a minister of the Gospel. The precise questions were these: "Does he remain non-Christian or is he entitled to the privileges of a Christian? By purchasing intoxicating liquors, does he commit an infraction of the law and does the person selling same lay himself liable under the provision of Act No. 1639?" The opinion of Attorney-General Avancea, after quoting the same authorities hereinbefore set out, concludes: In conformity with the above quoted constructions, it is probable that is probable that the person in question remains a non-Christian, so that, in purchasing intoxicating liquors both he and the person selling the same make themselves liable to prosecution under the provisions of Act No. 1639. At least, I advise you that these should be the constructions place upon the law until a court shall hold otherwise. Solicitor-General Paredes in his brief in this case says: With respect to the meaning which the phrase non-Christian inhabitants has in the provisions of the Administrative code which we are studying, we submit that said phrase does not have its natural meaning which would include all nonChristian inhabitants of the Islands, whether Filipino or strangers, civilized or uncivilized, but simply refers to those uncivilized members of the non-Christian tribes of the Philippines who, living without home or fixed residence, roam in the mountains, beyond the reach of law and order . . . The Philippine Commission in denominating in its laws that portion of the inhabitants of the Philippines which live in tribes as non-Christian tribes, as distinguished from the common Filipinos which carry on a social and civilized life, did not intended to establish a distinction based on the religious beliefs of the individual, but, without dwelling on the difficulties which later would be occasioned by the phrase, adopted the expression which the Spanish legislation employed to designate the uncivilized portion of the inhabitants of the Philippines. The phrase 'non-Christian inhabitants' used in the provisions of articles 2077 and 2741 of Act No. 2657 (articles 2145 and 2759) should be understood as equivalent to members of uncivilized tribes of the Philippines, not only because this is the evident intention of the law, but because to give it its lateral meaning would make the law null and unconstitutional as making distinctions base the religion of the individual. The Official Census of 1903, in the portion written by no less an authority than De. David P. Barrows, then "Chief of the Bureau of non-Christian Tribes," divides the population in the Christian or Civilized Tribes, and non-Christian or Wild Tribes. (Census of the Philippine Islands [1903], vol. 1, pp. 411 et seq). The present Director of the Census, Hon. Ignacio Villamor, writes that the classification likely to be used in the Census now being taken is: "Filipinos and Primitive Filipinos." In a Pronouncing Gazetteer and Geographical Dictionary of the Philippine Islands, prepared in the Bureau of Insular Affairs, War Department, a sub-division under the title non-Christian tribes is, "Physical and Political Characteristics of the non-Christian Tribes," which sufficiently shows that the terms refers to culture and not to religion. In resume, therefore, the Legislature and the Judiciary, inferentially, and different executive officials, specifically, join in the proposition that the term "non-Christian" refers, not to religious belief, but, in a way , to geographical area, and, more directly, to natives of the Philippine Islands of a law grade of civilization, usually living in tribal relationship apart from settled communities. E. THE MANGUIANES. The so-called non-Christians are in various state approaching civilization. The Philippine Census of 1903 divided them into four classes. Of the third class, are the Manguianes (or Mangyans) of Mindoro. Of the derivation of the name "Manguian" Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera in his Etimilogia de los nombres de Rozas de Filipinas, says: In Tagalog, Bicol, and Visaya, Manguian signifies "savage," "mountainer," "pagan," "negro." It may be that the use of this word is applicable to a great number of Filipinos, but nevertheless it has been applied only to certain inhabitants of Mindoro. Even in primitive times without doubt this name was given to those of that island who bear it to-day, but its employed in three Filipino languages shows that the radical ngian had in all these languages a sense to-day forgotten. In Pampango this ending still exists and signifies "ancient," from which we can deduce that the name was applied to men considered to be the ancient inhabitants, and that these men were pushed back into the interior by the modern invaders, in whose language they were called the "ancients." The Manguianes are very low in culture. They have considerable Negrito blood and have not advanced beyond the Negritos in civilization. They are a peaceful, timid, primitive, semi-nomadic people. They number approximately 15,000. The manguianes have

shown no desire for community life, and, as indicated in the preamble to Act No. 547, have not progressed sufficiently in civilization to make it practicable to bring them under any form of municipal government. (See Census of the Philippine (Islands [1903], vol. I, pp. 22, 23, 460.) III. COMPARATIVE THE AMERICAN INDIANS. Reference was made in the Presidents' instructions to the Commission to the policy adopted by the United States for the Indian Tribes. The methods followed by the Government of the Philippines Islands in its dealings with the so-called non-Christian people is said, on argument, to be practically identical with that followed by the United States Government in its dealings with the Indian tribes. Valuable lessons, it is insisted, can be derived by an investigation of the American-Indian policy. From the beginning of the United States, and even before, the Indians have been treated as "in a state of pupilage." The recognized relation between the Government of the United States and the Indians may be described as that of guardian and ward. It is for the Congress to determine when and how the guardianship shall be terminated. The Indians are always subject to the plenary authority of the United States. Chief Justice Marshall in his opinion in Worcester vs. Georgia, hereinbefore mentioned, tells how the Congress passed an Act in 1819 "for promoting those humane designs of civilizing the neighboring Indians." After quoting the Act, the opinion goes on "This act avowedly contemplates the preservation of the Indian nations as an object sought by the United States, and proposes to effect this object by civilizing and converting them from hunters into agriculturists." A leading case which discusses the status of the Indians is that of the United States vs. Kagama ([1886], 118 U.S., 375). Reference is herein made to the clause of the United States Constitution which gives Congress "power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." The court then proceeds to indicate a brief history of the position of the Indians in the United States (a more extended account of which can be found in Marshall's opinion in Worcester vs. Georgia, supra), as follows: The relation of the Indian tribes living within the borders of the United States, both before and since the Revolution, to the people of the United States, has always been an anomalous one and of a complex character. Following the policy of the European Governments in the discovery of American towards the Indians who were found here, the colonies before the Revolution and the States and the United States since, have recognized in the Indians a possessory right to the soil over which they roamed and hunted and established occasional villages. But they asserted an ultimate title in the land itself, by which the Indian tribes were forbidden to sell or transfer it to other nations or peoples without the consent of this paramount authority. When a tribe wished to dispose of its lands, or any part of it, or the State or the United States wished to purchase it, a treaty with the tribe was the only mode in which this could be done. The United States recognized no right in private persons, or in other nations, to make such a purchase by treaty or otherwise. With the Indians themselves these relation are equally difficult to define. They were, and always have been, regarded as having a semi-independent position when they preserved their tribal relations; not as States, not as nation not a possessed of the fall attributes of sovereignty, but as a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and thus far not brought under the laws of the Union or of the State within whose limits they resided. The opinion then continues: It seems to us that this (effect of the law) is within the competency of Congress. These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. The are communities dependent on the United States. dependent largely for their daily food. Dependent for their political rights. They owe no allegiance to the States, and receive from the no protection. Because of the local ill feeling, the people of the States where they are found are often their deadliest enemies. From their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the Federal Government with them and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arise the duty of protection, and with it the power. This has always been recognized by the Executive and by Congress, and by this court, whenever the question has arisen . . . The power of the General Government over these remnants of race once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers, is necessary to their protection, as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell. it must exist in that government, because it never has existed anywhere else, because the theater of its exercise is within the geographical limits of the United States, because it has never been denied, and because it alone can enforce its laws on all the tribes. In the later case of United States vs. Sandoval ([1913], 231 U.S., 28) the question to be considered was whether the status of the Pueblo Indians and their lands was such that Congress could prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquor into those lands notwithstanding the admission of New Mexico to statehood. The court looked to the reports of the different superintendent charged with guarding their interests and founds that these Indians are dependent upon the fostering care and protection of the government "like reservation Indians in general." Continuing, the court said "that during the Spanish dominion, the Indians of the pueblos were treated as wards requiring special protection, where subjected to restraints and official supervisions in the alienation of their property." And finally, we not the following: "Not only does the Constitution expressly authorize Congress to regulate commerce with the Indians tribes, but long-continued legislative and executive usage and an unbroken current of judicial decisions have attributed to the United States as a superior and civilized nation the power and the duty of exercising a fostering care and protection over all

dependent Indian communities within its borders, whether within its original territory or territory subsequently acquired, and whether within or without the limits of a state." With reference to laws affecting the Indians, it has been held that it is not within the power of the courts to overrule the judgment of Congress. For very good reason, the subject has always been deemed political in nature, not subject to the jurisdiction of the judicial department of the government. (Matter of Heff [1905], 197 U.S., 488; U.S.vs. Celestine [1909], 215 U.S., 278; U.S. vs. Sandoval, supra; Worcester vs. Georgia, supra; U.S. vs. Rogers [1846], 4 How., 567; the Cherokee Tobacco [1871], 11 Wall, 616; Roff vs. Burney [1897], 168 U.S., 218; Thomasvs. Gay [1898], 169 U.S.., 264; Lone Wolf vs. Hitchcock[1903], 187 U.S., 553; Wallace vs. Adams [1907], 204 U.S., 415; Conley vs. Bollinger [1910], 216 U.S., 84; Tiger vs. Western Invest. Co. [1911], 221 U.S., 286; U.S. vs. Lane [1913], 232 U.S.., 598; Cyr vs. Walker (1911], 29 Okla, 281; 35 L.R.A. [N. S.], 795.) Whenever, therefore, the United States sets apart any public land as an Indian reservation, it has full authority to pass such laws and authorize such measures as may be necessary to give to the Indians thereon full protection in their persons and property. (U.S. vs. Thomas [1894], 151 U.S., 577.) All this borne out by long-continued legislative and executive usage, and an unbroken line of judicial decisions. The only case which is even remotely in point and which, if followed literally, might result in the issuance of habeas corpus, is that of United States vs. Crook ([1879], Fed. Cas. No. 14891). This was a hearing upon return to a writ of habeas corpus issued against Brigadier General George Crook at the relation of Standing Bear and other Indians, formerly belonging to the Ponca Tribe of Indians. The petition alleged in substance that the relators are Indians who have formerly belonged to the Ponca tribe of Indians, now located in the Indian Territory; that they had some time previously withdrawn from the tribe, and completely severed their tribal relations therewith, and had adopted the general habits of the whites, and were then endeavoring to maintain themselves by their own exertions, and without aid or assistance from the general government; that whilst they were thus engaged, and without being guilty of violating any of the laws of the United States, they were arrested and restrained of their liberty by order of the respondent, George Crook. The substance of the return to the writ was that the relators are individual members of, and connected with, the Ponca tribe of Indians; that they had fled or escaped form a reservation situated some place within the limits of the Indian Territory had departed therefrom without permission from the Government; and, at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, the General of the Army had issued an order which required the respondent to arrest and return the relators to their tribe in the Indian Territory, and that, pursuant to the said order, he had caused the relators to be arrested on the Omaha Indian Territory. The first question was whether an Indian can test the validity of an illegal imprisonment by habeas corpus. The second question, of much greater importance, related to the right of the Government to arrest and hold the relators for a time, for the purpose of being returned to the Indian Territory from which it was alleged the Indian escaped. In discussing this question, the court reviewed the policy the Government had adopted in its dealing with the friendly tribe of Poncase. Then, continuing, the court said: "Laws passed for the government of the Indian country, and for the purpose of regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, confer upon certain officers of the Government almost unlimited power over the persons who go upon the reservations without lawful authority . . . Whether such an extensive discretionary power is wisely vested in the commissioner of Indian affairs or not , need not be questioned. It is enough to know that the power rightfully exists, and, where existing, the exercise of the power must be upheld." The decision concluded as follows: The reasoning advanced in support of my views, leads me to conclude: 1. that an Indian is a 'person' within the meaning of the laws of the United States, and has, therefore, the right to sue out a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court, or before a federal judge, in all cases where he may be confined or in custody under color of authority of the United States or where he is restrained of liberty in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States. 2. That General George Crook, the respondent, being commander of the military department of the Platte, has the custody of the relators, under color of authority of the United States, and in violation of the laws therefore. 3. That n rightful authority exists for removing by force any of the relators to the Indian Territory, as the respondent has been directed to do. 4. that the Indians possess the inherent right of expatriation, as well as the more fortunate white race, and have the inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," so long as they obey the laws and do not trespass on forbidden ground. And, 5. Being restrained of liberty under color of authority of the United States, and in violation of the laws thereof, the relators must be discharged from custody, and it is so ordered. As far as the first point is concerned, the decision just quoted could be used as authority to determine that Rubi, the Manguian petitioner, a Filipino, and a citizen of the Philippine Islands, is a "person" within the meaning of theHabeas Corpus Act, and as such, entitled to sue out a writ in the Philippine courts. (See also In re Race Horse [1895], 70 Fed., 598.) We so decide.

As to the second point the facts in the Standing Bear case an the Rubi case are not exactly identical. But even admitting similarity of facts, yet it is known to all that Indian reservations do exist in the United States, that Indians have been taken from different parts of the country and placed on these reservation, without any previous consultation as to their own wishes, and that, when once so located, they have been made to remain on the reservation for their own good and for the general good of the country. If any lesson can be drawn form the Indian policy of the United States, it is that the determination of this policy is for the legislative and executive branches of the government and that when once so decided upon, the courts should not interfere to upset a carefully planned governmental system. Perhaps, just as may forceful reasons exists for the segregation as existed for the segregation of the different Indian tribes in the United States. IV. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. A. DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. The first constitutional objection which confronts us is that the Legislature could not delegate this power to provincial authorities. In so attempting, it is contended, the Philippine Legislature has abdicated its authority and avoided its full responsibility. That the maxim of Constitutional Law forbidding the delegation of legislative power should be zealously protected, we agree. An understanding of the rule will, however, disclose that it has not bee violated in his instance. The rule has nowhere been better stated than in the early Ohio case decided by Judge Ranney, and since followed in a multitude of case, namely: "The true distinction therefore is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the later no valid objection can be made." (Cincinnati, W. & Z. R. Co. vs. Comm'rs. Clinton County [1852], 1 Ohio S.t, 88.) Discretion, as held by Chief Justice Marshall in Wayman vs. Southard ([1825], 10 Wheat., 1) may be committed by the Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature may make decisions of executive departments of subordinate official thereof, to whom t has committed the execution of certain acts, final on questions of fact. (U.S. vs. Kinkead [1918], 248 Fed., 141.) The growing tendency in the decision is to give prominence to the "necessity" of the case. Is not all this exactly what the Legislature has attempted to accomplish by the enactment of section 21454 of the Administrative Code? Has not the Legislature merely conferred upon the provincial governor, with the approval of the provincial board and the Department Head, discretionary authority as to the execution of the law? Is not this "necessary"? The case of West vs. Hitchock, ([1906], 205 U.S., 80) was a petition for mandamus to require the Secretary of the Interior to approve the selection and taking of one hundred and sixty acres by the relator out of the lands ceded to the United States by the Wichita and affiliated bands of Indians. Section 463 of the United States Revised Statutes provided: "The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and agreeably to such regulations as the President may prescribe, have the management of all Indian affairs, and of all matters arising out to the Indian relations." Justice Holmes said: "We should hesitate a good deal, especially in view of the long established practice of the Department, before saying that this language was not broad enough to warrant a regulation obviously made for the welfare of the rather helpless people concerned. The power of Congress is not doubted. The Indians have been treated as wards of the nation. Some such supervision was necessary, and has been exercised. In the absence of special provisions naturally it would be exercised by the Indian Department." (See also as corroborative authority, it any is needed, Union Bridge Co. vs. U.S. [1907], 204 U.S.., 364, reviewing the previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court: U.S. vs. Lane [1914], 232 U.S., 598.) There is another aspect of the question, which once accepted, is decisive. An exception to the general rule. sanctioned by immemorial practice, permits the central legislative body to delegate legislative powers to local authorities. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province of Mindoro, to be exercised by the provincial governor and the provincial board. Who but the provincial governor and the provincial board, as the official representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge "when such as course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order?" As officials charged with the administration of the province and the protection of its inhabitants, who but they are better fitted to select sites which have the conditions most favorable for improving the people who have the misfortune of being in a backward state? Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to provincial official and a department head. B. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION The attorney de officio, for petitioners, in a truly remarkable brief, submitted on behalf of his unknown clients, says that "The statute is perfectly clear and unambiguous. In limpid English, and in words as plain and unequivocal as language can express, it provides for the segregation of 'non-Christians' and none other." The inevitable result, them, is that the law "constitutes an attempt by the Legislature to discriminate between individuals because of their religious beliefs, and is, consequently, unconstitutional."

Counsel's premise once being conceded, his arguments is answerable the Legislature must be understood to mean what it has plainly expressed; judicial construction is then excluded; religious equality is demanded by the Organic Law; the statute has violated this constitutional guaranty, and Q. E. D. is invalid. But, as hereinbefore stated, we do not feel free to discard the long continued meaning given to a common expression, especially as classification of inhabitants according to religious belief leads the court to what it should avoid, the nullification of legislative action. We hold that the term "non-Christian" refers to natives of the Philippines Islands of a low grade of civilization, and that section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, does not discriminate between individuals an account of religious differences. C. LIBERTY; DUE PROCESS OF LAW; EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. The third constitutional argument is grounded on those portions of the President's instructions of to the Commission, the Philippine Bill, and the Jones Law, providing "That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws." This constitutional limitation is derived from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and these provisions, it has been said "are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality." (Yick Wo vs.Hopkins [1886], 118 U.S., 356.) The protection afforded the individual is then as much for the non-Christian as for the Christian. The conception of civil liberty has been variously expressed thus: Every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties, compatible with the possession of like liberty by every other. (Spencer, Social Statistics, p. 94.) Liberty is the creature of law, essentially different from that authorized licentiousness that trespasses on right. That authorized licentiousness that trespasses on right. It is a legal and a refined idea, the offspring of high civilization, which the savage never understood, and never can understand. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint; the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have . . . that man is free who is protected from injury. (II Webster's Works, p. 393.) Liberty consists in the ability to do what one caught to desire and in not being forced to do what one ought not do desire. (Montesque, spirit of the Laws.) Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is no unrestricted license to ac according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. (Field, J., in Crowley vs. Christensen [1890], 137 U.S., 86.) Liberty does not import "an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others . . . There is, of course, a sphere with which the individual may asserts the supremacy of his own will, and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government especially of any free government existing under a written Constitution to interfere with the exercise of that will. But it is equally true that in very well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members, the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand." (Harlan, J., In Jacobson vs. Massachusetts [1905] 197 U.S., 11.) Liberty is freedom to do right and never wrong; it is ever guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience of the individual. (Apolinario Mabini.) Civil Liberty may be said to mean that measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized community, consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others. The right to Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the faculties with which he has been endowed by this Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. As enunciated in a long array of authorities including epoch-making decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Liberty includes the right of the citizens to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live an work where he will; to earn his livelihood by an lawful calling; to pursue any avocations, an for that purpose. to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out these purposes to a successful conclusion. The chief elements of the guaranty are the right to contract, the right to choose one's employment, the right to labor, and the right of locomotion.

In general, it may be said that Liberty means the opportunity to do those things which are ordinarily done by free men. (There can be noted Cummings vs. Missouri [1866], 4 Wall, 277; Wilkinson vs. Leland [1829], 2 Pet., 627; Williams vs. Fears [1900], 179 U.S., 274; Allgeyer vs. Louisiana [1896], 165, U.S., 578; State vs. Kreutzberg [1902], 114 Wis., 530. See 6 R.C.L., 258, 261.) One thought which runs through all these different conceptions of Liberty is plainly apparent. It is this: "Liberty" as understood in democracies, is not license; it is "Liberty regulated by law." Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the general well-being. No man can do exactly as he pleases. Every man must renounce unbridled license. The right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good. Whenever and wherever the natural rights of citizen would, if exercises without restraint, deprive other citizens of rights which are also and equally natural, such assumed rights must yield to the regulation of law. The Liberty of the citizens may be restrained in the interest of the public health, or of the public order and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope of the police power. (See Hall vs. Geiger-Jones [1916], 242 U.S., 539; Hardie-Tynes Manufacturing Co. vs.Cruz [1914], 189 Al., 66.) None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. Daniel Webster, in the course of the argument in the Dartmouth College Case before the United States Supreme Court, since a classic in forensic literature, said that the meaning of "due process of law" is, that "every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, an immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society." To constitute "due process of law," as has been often held, a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. In some instances, even a hearing and notice are not requisite a rule which is especially true where much must be left to the discretion of the administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases. (See McGehee, Due Process of Law, p. 371.) Neither is due process a stationary and blind sentinel of liberty. "Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and customs, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law." (Hurtado vs. California [1883], 110, U.S., 516.) "Due process of law" means simply . . . "first, that there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government; second, that this law shall be reasonable in its operation; third, that it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and fourth, that it shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class." (U.S. vs. Ling Su Fan [1908], 10 Phil., 104, affirmed on appeal to the United States Supreme Court. 1) "What is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject-matter and necessities of the situation." (Moyer vs. Peablody [1909], 212 U. S., 82.) The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute which is applicable to all of a class. The classification must have a reasonable basis and cannot be purely arbitrary in nature. We break off with the foregoing statement, leaving the logical deductions to be made later on. D. SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. The fourth constitutional contention of petitioner relates to the Thirteen Amendment to the United States Constitution particularly as found in those portions of Philippine Organic Law providing "That slavery shall not exist in said Islands; nor shall involuntary servitude exist except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." It is quite possible that the Thirteenth Amendment, since reaching to "any place subject to" the "jurisdiction" of the United States, has force in the Philippine. However this may be, the Philippine Legislature has, by adoption, with necessary modifications, of sections 268 to 271 inclusive of the United States Criminal Code, prescribed the punishment for these crimes. Slavery and involuntary servitude, together wit their corollary, peonage, all denote "a condition of enforced, compulsory service of one to another." (Hodges vs. U.S. [1906], 203 U.S., 1.) The term of broadest scope is possibly involuntary servitude. It has been applied to any servitude in fact involuntary, no matter under what form such servitude may have been disguised. (Bailey vs. Alabama [1910], 219 U.S., 219.) So much for an analysis of those constitutional provisions on which petitioners rely for their freedom. Next must come a description of the police power under which the State must act if section 2145 is to be held valid. E. THE POLICE POWER. Not attempting to phrase a definition of police power, all that it is necessary to note at this moment is the farreaching scope of the power, that it has become almost possible to limit its weep, and that among its purposes is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the State, develop its resources and add to is wealth and prosperity. (See Barbier vs. Connolly [1884], 113 U.S., 27.) What we are not interested in is the right of the government to restrain liberty by the exercise of the police power. "The police power of the State," one court has said, . . . "is a power coextensive with self-protection, and is not inaptly termed the 'law of overruling necessity.' It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society." (Lake View vs. Rose Hill Cemetery Co. [1873], 70 Ill., 191.) Carried onward by the current of legislation, the judiciary rarely attempt to dam the on rushing power of legislative discretion, provided the purposes of the law do not go beyond the great principles that mean security for the public welfare or do not arbitrarily interfere with the right of the individual.

The Government of the Philippine Islands has both on reason and authority the right to exercise the sovereign police power in the promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. "There can be not doubt that the exercise of the police power of the Philippine Government belongs to the Legislature and that this power is limited only by the Acts of Congress and those fundamental principles which lie at the foundation of all republican forms of government." (Churchill and Tait vs. Rafferty [1915], 32 Phil., 580; U.S. vs. Pompeya [1915], 31 Phil., 245.) With the foregoing approximation of the applicable basic principles before us, before finally deciding whether any constitutional provision has indeed been violated by section 2145 of the Administrative Code, we should endeavor to ascertain the intention of the Legislature in enacting this section. If legally possible, such legislative intention should be effectuated. F. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. The preamble of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro which set apart the Tigbao reservation, it will be remembered, assigned as reasons fort the action, the following: (1) The failure of former attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province; and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. The Solicitor-General adds the following; (3) The protection of the Manguianes; (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam; (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. The present Secretary of the Interior says of the Tigbao reservation and of the motives for its selection, the following: To inform himself of the conditions of those Manguianes who were taken together to Tigbao, the Secretary of the Interior on June 10 to 13, 1918, made a trip to the place. There he found that the site selected is a good one; that creditable progress has been made in the clearing of forests, construction of buildings, etc., that there appears to be encouraging reaction by the boys to the work of the school the requirements of which they appear to meet with enthusiastic interest after the first weeks which are necessarily a somewhat trying period for children wholly unaccustomed to orderly behaviour and habit of life. He also gathered the impression that the results obtained during the period of less than one year since the beginning of the institution definitely justify its continuance and development. Of course, there were many who were protesting against that segregation. Such was naturally to be expected. But the Secretary of the Interior, upon his return to Manila, made the following statement to the press: "It is not deemed wise to abandon the present policy over those who prefer to live a nomadic life and evade the influence of civilization. The Government will follow its policy to organize them into political communities and to educate their children with the object of making them useful citizens of this country. To permit them to live a wayfaring life will ultimately result in a burden to the state and on account of their ignorance, they will commit crimes and make depredation, or if not they will be subject to involuntary servitude by those who may want to abuse them." The Secretary of the Interior, who is the official charged with the supervision of all the non-Christian people, has adopted as the polaris of his administration "the advancement of the non-Christian elements of our population to equality and unification with the highly civilized Christian inhabitants." This is carried on by the adoption of the following measures: (a) Pursuance of the closer settlement policy whereby people of seminomadic race are induced to leave their wild habitat and settle in organized communities. (b) The extension of the public school system and the system of public health throughout the regions inhabited by the non-Christian people. (c) The extention of public works throughout the Mohammedan regions to facilitate their development and the extention of government control. (d) Construction of roads and trials between one place and another among non-Christians, to promote social and commercial intercourse and maintain amicable relations among them and with the Christian people. (e) Pursuance of the development of natural economic resources, especially agriculture. ( f ) The encouragement of immigration into, and of the investment of private capital in, the fertile regions of Mindanao and Sulu. The Secretary adds:

To attain the end desired, work of a civilizing influence have been continued among the non-Christian people. These people are being taught and guided to improve their living conditions in order that they may fully appreciate the benefits of civilization. Those of them who are still given to nomadic habits are being persuaded to abandon their wild habitat and settle in organized settlements. They are being made to understand that it is the purpose of the Government to organize them politically into fixed and per manent communities, thus bringing them under the control of the Government, to aid them to live and work, protect them from involuntary servitude and abuse, educate their children, and show them the advantages of leading a civilized life with their civilized brothers. In short, they are being impressed with the purposes and objectives of the Government of leading them to economic, social, and political equality, and unification with the more highly civilized inhabitants of the country. (See Report of the Department for 1917.) The fundamental objective of governmental policy is to establish friendly relations with the so-called non-Christians, and to promote their educational, agricultural, industrial, and economic development and advancement in civilization. (Note Acts Nos. 2208, 2404, 2444.) Act No. 2674 in reestablishing the Bureau of non-Christian Tribes, defines the aim of the Government towards the nonChristian people in the following unequivocal terms: It shall be the duty of the Bureau of non-Christian Tribes to continue the work for advancement and liberty in favor of the region inhabited by non-Christian Filipinos and foster by all adequate means and in a systematical, rapid, and complete manner the moral, material, economic, social, and political development of those regions, always having in view the aim of rendering permanent the mutual intelligence between, and complete fusion of, all the Christian and non-Christian elements populating the provinces of the Archipelago. (Sec. 3.) May the Manguianes not be considered, as are the Indians in the United States, proper wards of the Filipino people? By the fostering care of a wise Government, may not these unfortunates advance in the "habits and arts of civilization?" Would it be advisable for the courts to intrude upon a plan, carefully formulated, and apparently working out for the ultimate good of these people? In so far as the Manguianes themselves are concerned, the purpose of the Government is evident. Here, we have on the Island of Mindoro, the Manguianes, leading a nomadic life, making depredations on their more fortunate neighbors, uneducated in the ways of civilization, and doing nothing for the advancement of the Philippine Islands. What the Government wished to do by bringing than into a reservation was to gather together the children for educational purposes, and to improve the health and morals was in fine, to begin the process of civilization. this method was termed in Spanish times, "bringing under the bells." The same idea adapted to the existing situation, has been followed with reference to the Manguianes and other peoples of the same class, because it required, if they are to be improved, that they be gathered together. On these few reservations there live under restraint in some cases, and in other instances voluntarily, a few thousands of the uncivilized people. Segregation really constitutes protection for the manguianes. Theoretically, one may assert that all men are created free and equal. Practically, we know that the axiom is not precisely accurate. The Manguianes, for instance, are not free, as civilized men are free, and they are not the equals of their more fortunate brothers. True, indeed, they are citizens, with many but not all the rights which citizenship implies. And true, indeed, they are Filipinos. But just as surely, the Manguianes are citizens of a low degree of intelligence, and Filipinos who are a drag upon the progress of the State. In so far as the relation of the Manguianes to the State is concerned, the purposes of the Legislature in enacting the law, and of the executive branch in enforcing it, are again plain. Settlers in Mindoro must have their crops and persons protected from predatory men, or they will leave the country. It is no argument to say that such crimes are punished by the Penal Code, because these penalties are imposed after commission of the offense and not before. If immigrants are to be encouraged to develop the resources of the great Islands of Mindoro, and its, as yet, unproductive regions, the Government must be in a position to guarantee peace and order. Waste lands do not produce wealth. Waste people do not advance the interest of the State. Illiteracy and thriftlessness are not conducive to homogeneity. The State to protect itself from destruction must prod on the laggard and the sluggard. The great law of overwhelming necessity is all convincing. To quote again from the instructive memorandum of the Secretary of the Interior: Living a nomadic and a wayfaring life and evading the influence of civilization, they (the manguianes) are engaged in the works of destruction burning and destroying the forests and making illegal caigins thereon. Not bringing any benefit to the State but instead injuring and damaging its interests, what will ultimately become of these people with the sort of liberty they wish to preserve and for which they are now fighting in court? They will ultimately become a heavy burden to the State and on account of their ignorance they will commit crimes and make depredations, or if not they will be subjected to involuntary servitude by those who may want to abuse them. There is no doubt in my mind that this people a right conception of liberty and does not practice liberty in a rightful way. They understand liberty as the right to do anything they will going from one place to another in the mountains, burning and destroying forests and making illegal caigins thereon.

Not knowing what true liberty is and not practising the same rightfully, how can they allege that they are being deprived thereof without due process of law? xxx xxx xxx

But does the Constitutional guaranty that 'no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law' apply to a class of persons who do not have a correct idea of what liberty is and do not practise liberty in a rightful way? To say that it does will mean to sanction and defend an erroneous idea of such class of persons as to what liberty is. It will mean, in the case at bar, that the Government should not adopt any measures looking to the welfare and advancement of the class of persons in question. It will mean that this people should be let along in the mountains and in a permanent state of savagery without even the remotest hope of coming to understand liberty in its true and noble sense. In dealing with the backward population, like the Manguianes, the Government has been placed in the alternative of either letting them alone or guiding them in the path of civilization. The latter measure was adopted as the one more in accord with humanity and with national conscience. xxx xxx xxx

The national legislation on the subject of non-Christian people has tended more and more towards the education and civilization of such people and fitting them to be citizens. The progress of those people under the tutelage of the Government is indeed encouraging and the signs of the times point to a day which is not far distant when they will become useful citizens. In the light of what has already been accomplished which has been winning the gratitude of most of the backward people, shall we give up the noble work simply because a certain element, believing that their personal interests would be injured by such a measure has come forward and challenged the authority of the Government to lead this people in the pat of civilization? Shall we, after expending sweat, treasure, and even blood only to redeem this people from the claws of ignorance and superstition, now willingly retire because there has been erroneously invoked in their favor that Constitutional guaranty that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law? To allow them to successfully invoke that Constitutional guaranty at this time will leave the Government without recourse to pursue the works of civilizing them and making them useful citizens. They will thus left in a permanent state of savagery and become a vulnerable point to attack by those who doubt, nay challenge, the ability of the nation to deal with our backward brothers. The manguianes in question have been directed to live together at Tigbao. There they are being taught and guided to improve their living conditions. They are being made to understand that they object of the government is to organize them politically into fixed and permanent communities. They are being aided to live and work. Their children are being educated in a school especially established for them. In short, everything is being done from them in order that their advancement in civilization and material prosperity may be assured. Certainly their living together in Tigbao does not make them slaves or put them in a condition compelled to do services for another. They do not work for anybody but for themselves. There is, therefore, no involuntary servitude. But they are compelled to live there and prohibited from emigrating to some other places under penalty of imprisonment. Attention in this connection is invited to the fact that this people, living a nomadic and wayfaring life, do not have permanent individual property. They move from one place to another as the conditions of living warrants, and the entire space where they are roving about is the property of the nation, the greater part being lands of public domain. Wandering from one place to another on the public lands, why can not the government adopt a measure to concentrate them in a certain fixed place on the public lands, instead of permitting them to roam all over the entire territory? This measure is necessary both in the interest of the public as owner of the lands about which they are roving and for the proper accomplishment of the purposes and objectives of the government. For as people accustomed to nomadic habit, they will always long to return to the mountains and follow a wayfaring life, and unless a penalty is provinced for, you can not make them live together and the noble intention of the Government of organizing them politically will come to naught. G. APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. Our exhaustive study should have left us in a position to answer specific objections and to reach a general conclusion. In the first place, it is argued that the citizen has the right, generally speaking, to go where he pleases. Could be not, however, be kept away from certain localities ? To furnish an example from the Indian legislation. The early Act of Congress of 1802 (2 U.S. Stat. at L., p. 141) Indian reservation. Those citizens certainly did not possess absolute freedom of locomotion. Again the same law provided for the apprehension of marauding Indians. Without any doubt, this law and other similar were accepted and followed time and again without question. It is said that, if we hold this section to be constitutional, we leave this weak and defenseless people confined as in a prison at the mercy of unscrupulous official. What, it is asked, would be the remedy of any oppressed Manguian? The answer would naturally be

that the official into whose hands are given the enforcement of the law would have little or not motive to oppress these people; on the contrary, the presumption would all be that they would endeavor to carry out the purposes of the law intelligently and patriotically. If, indeed, they did ill-treat any person thus confined, there always exists the power of removal in the hands of superior officers, and the courts are always open for a redress of grievances. When, however, only the validity of the law is generally challenged and no particular case of oppression is called to the attention of the courts, it would seems that the Judiciary should not unnecessarily hamper the Government in the accomplishment of its laudable purpose. The question is above all one of sociology. How far, consistently with freedom, may the right and liberties of the individual members of society be subordinated to the will of the Government? It is a question which has assailed the very existence of government from the beginning of time. Now purely an ethical or philosophical subject, nor now to be decided by force, it has been transferred to the peaceful forum of the Judiciary. In resolving such an issue, the Judiciary must realize that the very existence of government renders imperatives a power to restrain the individual to some extent, dependent, of course, on the necessities of the class attempted to be benefited. As to the particular degree to which the Legislature and the Executive can go in interfering with the rights of the citizen, this is, and for a along time to come will be, impossible for the courts to determine. The doctrines of laissez faire and of unrestricted freedom of the individual, as axioms of economics and political theory, are of the past. The modern period has shown as widespread belief in the amplest possible demonstration of governmental activity. The courts unfortunately have sometimes seemed to trial after the other two branches of the government in this progressive march. Considered, therefore, purely as an exercise of the police power, the courts cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority. it is, indeed, an unusual exercise of that power. But a great malady requires an equally drastic remedy. Further, one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due process of law has not been followed. To go back to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the law, there exists a law ; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class. As a point which has been left for the end of this decision and which, in case of doubt, would lead to the determination that section 2145 is valid. it the attitude which the courts should assume towards the settled policy of the Government. In a late decision with which we are in full accord, Gambles vs. Vanderbilt University (200 Southwestern Reporter, 510) the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Tennessee writes: We can seen objection to the application of public policy as a ratio decidendi. Every really new question that comes before the courts is, in the last analysis, determined on that theory, when not determined by differentiation of the principle of a prior case or line of cases, or by the aid of analogies furnished by such prior case. In balancing conflicting solutions, that one is perceived to tip the scales which the court believes will best promote the public welfare in its probable operation as a general rule or principle. But public policy is not a thing inflexible. No court is wise enough to forecast its influence in all possible contingencies. Distinctions must be made from time to time as sound reason and a true sense of justice may dictate." Our attempt at giving a brief history of the Philippines with reference to the so-called non-Christians has been in vain, if we fail to realize that a consistent governmental policy has been effective in the Philippines from early days to the present. The idea to unify the people of the Philippines so that they may approach the highest conception of nationality. If all are to be equal before the law, all must be approximately equal in intelligence. If the Philippines is to be a rich and powerful country, Mindoro must be populated, and its fertile regions must be developed. The public policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to benefit the Filipino people as a whole. The Manguianes, in order to fulfill this governmental policy, must be confined for a time, as we have said, for their own good and the good of the country. Most cautiously should the power of this court to overrule the judgment of the Philippine Legislature, a coordinate branch, be exercised. The whole tendency of the best considered case is toward non-interference on the part of the courts whenever political ideas are the moving consideration. Justice Holmes, in one of the aphorisms for which he is justly famous, said that "constitutional law, like other mortal contrivances, has to take some chances." (Blinn vs. Nelson [1911], 222 U.S., 1.) If in the final decision of the many grave questions which this case presents, the courts must take "a chance," it should be with a view to upholding the law, with a view to the effectuation of the general governmental policy, and with a view to the court's performing its duty in no narrow and bigoted sense, but with that broad conception which will make the courts as progressive and effective a force as are the other departments of the Government. We are of the opinion that action pursuant to section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws, and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. We are further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power, somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United States. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue. This is the true ruling of the court. Costs shall be taxes against petitioners. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Avancea, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions CARSON, J., concurring: I fully concur in the reasoning and the conclusions of Justice Malcolm as set forth in the prevailing, opinion. The words "non-Christian' have a clear, definite and well settled signification when used in the Philippine statute-book as a descriptive adjective, applied to "tribes," "people," or "inhabitants," dwelling in more or less remote districts and provinces throughout the Islands. Justice Malcolm, as I think, correctly finds that these words, as used in this connection in our statute-book, denote the 'low grace of civilization" of the individuals included in the class to which they are applied. To this I would add that the tests for the determination of the fact that an individual or tribes is, or is not of the "non-Christian" are, and throughout the period of American occupation always have been, "the mode of life, the degree of advancement in civilization, and connection or lack of connection with some civilized community." (Cf. letter of Collector of Internal Revenue dated September 17, 1910, and set out in the principal opinion.) The legislative and administrative history of the Philippine Islands clearly discloses that the standard of civilization to which a specific tribe must be found to have advanced, to justify its removal from the class embraces with the descriptive term "nonChristian," as that term is used in the Philippine statute-book, is that degree of civilization which results in a mode of life within the tribe, such that it is feasible and practicable to extend to, and enforce upon its membership the general laws and regulations, administrative, legislative, and judicial, which control the conduct of the admitted civilized inhabitants of the Islands; a made of life, furthermore, which does not find expression in tribal customs or practices which tend to brutalize or debauch the members of the tribe indulging in such customs or practices, or to expose to loss or peril the lives or property of those who may be brought in contact with members of the tribe. So the standard of civilization to which any given number or group of inhabitants of particular province in these Islands, or any individual member of such a group, must be found to have advanced, in order to remove such group or individual from the class embraced within the statutory description of "non-Christian," is that degree of civilization which would naturally and normally result in the withdrawal by such persons of permanent allegiance or adherence to a "non-Christian" tribe, had they at any time adhered to or maintained allegiance to such a tribe; and which would qualify them whether they reside within or beyond the habitat of a "nonChristian" tribe, not only to maintain a mode of life independent of a apart from that maintain by such tribe, but a mode of life as would not be inimical to the lives or property or general welfare of the civilized inhabitants of the Islands with whom they are brought in contact. The contention that, in this particular case, and without challenging the validity of the statute, the writ should issue because of the failure to give these petitioners, as well as the rest of the fifteen thousand Manguianes affected by the reconcentration order, an opportunity to be heard before any attempt was made to enforce it, begs the question and is, of course, tantamount to a contention that there is no authority in law for the issuance of such an order. If the fifteen thousand manguianes affected by the order complained of had attained that degree of civilization which would have made it practicable to serve notice upon, and give an opportunity for a real hearing, to all the members of the tribe affected by the order, it may well be doubted whether the provincial board and the Secretary of the Interior would have been justified in its enforcement By what proceeding known to the law, or to be specially adopted in a particular case, could the offices of any province provide for a genuine hearing upon a proposal to issue a reconcentration order upon a head-hunting tribe in the north of the Island of Luzon; or upon one of the nomadic tribes whose habitat is in the mountain fastnesses of Mindanao, and whose individual members have no fixed or known place of residence, or upon the fifteen thousand Manguianes roaming in the wilds of Mindoro. Of course, friendly headmen or chief might and, as a rule, should be consulted, after the practice in the United States when tribes or groups of American Indians have been placed upon reservations; but since non-Christian head men and chiefs in the Philippines have no lawful authority to bind their acts or their consent, the objection based on lack of a hearing, would have the same force whether the issuance of a reconcentration order was or was not preceded by a pow-wow of this kind. The truth of the mater is that the power to provide for the issuance of such orders rests upon analogous principles to those upon which the liberty and freedom or action of children and persons of unsound minds is restrained, without consulting their wishes, but for their own good and the general welfare. The power rests upon necessity, that "great master of all things," and is properly exercised only where certain individuals or groups of individual are found to be of such a low grade of civilization that their own wishes cannot be permitted to determine their mode of life or place of residence.

The status of the non-Christian inhabitants of these Islands, and the special and necessarily paternal attitude assume toward them by the Insular Government is well illustrated by the following provisions found in the Administrative Code of 1917: SEC. 705. Special duties and purposes of Bureau (of non-Christian tribes). It shall be the duty of the Bureau of nonChristian tribes to continue the work for advancement and liberty in favor of the regions inhabited by non-Christian Filipinos and to foster by all adequate means and in a systematic, rapid, and completely manner the moral, material, economic, social and political development of those regions, always having in view the aim of rendering permanent the mutual intelligence between and complete fusion of all the Christian and non-Christian elements populating the provinces of the Archipelago. SEC. 2116. Township and settlement fund. There shall be maintained in the provincial treasuries of the respective specially organized provinces a special fund to be known as the township and settlement fund, which shall be available, exclusively, for expenditures for the benefit of the townships and settlements of the province, and non-Christian inhabitants of the province, upon approval of the Secretary of the Interior. As I understand it, the case at bar does not raise any real question as to the jurisdiction of the courts of these Islands in habeas corpus proceedings, to review the action of the administrative authorities in the enforcement of reconcentration orders issued, under authority of section 2145 of the Administrative Code, against a petitioner challenging the alleged fact that he is a "non-Christian" as that term is used in the statute. I, therefore, express no opinion on that question at this time.

JOHNSON, J., dissenting: I dissent. The petitioners were deprived of their liberty without a hearing. That fact is not denied. I cannot give my consent to any act which deprives the humblest citizen of his just liberty without a hearing, whether he be a Christian or non-Christian. All persons in the Philippine Islands are entitled to a hearing, at least, before they are deprived of their liberty.

MOIR, J., dissenting: I dissent. I realize that a dissenting opinion carries little weight, but may sense of justice will not permit me to let this decision go on record without expressing may strong dissent from the opinion of Justice Malcolm, concurred in by a majority of the court. I shall not attempt to analyze the opinion or to go into the question in detail. I shall simply state, as briefly as may be, the legal and human side of the case as it presents itself to my mind. The facts are that one Rubi and various other Manguianes in the Province of Mindoro were ordered by the Provincial governor of Mindoro to remove their residence from their native habitat and to establish themselves on a reservation at Tigbao in the Province of Mindoro and to remain there, or be punished by imprisonment if they escaped. This reservation, as appears from the resolution of the provincial board, extends over an area of 800 hectares of land, which is approximately 2,000 acres, on which about three hundred manguianes are confined. One of the Manguianes, Dabalos, escaped from the reservation and was taken in hand by the provincial sheriff and placed in prision at Calapan, solely because he escaped from the reservation. The Manguianes used out a writ of habeas corpus in this court, alleging that they are deprived of their liberty in violation of law. The Solicitor-General of the Philippine Islands makes return to the writ copied in the majority opinion which states that the provincial governor of Mindoro with the prior approval of his act by the Department Secretary ordered the placing of the petitioners and others on a reservation. The manguianes, it is stated on page 694 of the majority opinion, "are very low in culture. They have considerable Negrito blood and have not advanced beyond the Negritos in civilization. They are peaceful, timid, primitive, seminomadic people. They number approximately 15,000 (?). The manguianes have shown no desire for community life, and, as indicated in the preamble to Act No. 547, have no progressed sufficiently in civilization to make it practicable to bring them under any for of municipal government." It may be well to add that the last P.I. Census (1903) shows that the Island of Mindoro (not including smaller islands which together make the Province of Mindoro) has an area of 3,851 square miles and a populations of 28, 361 of which 7, 369 are wild or uncivilized tribes (Manguianes). This appears to be the total Mangyan population of the province. The total population was less than seven to the mile (Vol. 2, P.I. Census, pp. 30 and 407).

The Island is fertile, heavily wooded and well watered. It has no savage population, but it is sparsely settled by Christian Filipinos along the coast and by Manguianes. The Manguianes roamed its mountains and valleys, fishing and hunting at will long before Magallanes [Magellan] anchored his boats in the water of Cebu. They have made little or no progress in the ways of civilization. "They are a peaceful, timid, primitive, seminomadic people," whom the Government of the Philippines Islands would bring under the beneficient influence of civilization and progress. The law provides for it in section 2145 of the Administrative Code, and for those who like Dadalos do not take kindly to the ways provided for civilizing them section 2759 provides the punishment. The attorney for the petitioners has raised various constitutional questions, but only the fundamental one will be considered by me. It is that the sections of the Administrative Code, 2145 and 2759, quoted in the majority opinion, are in violation of the first paragraph of section 3 of the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, which reads as follows: That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws. It is not necessary to argue that a Mangyan is one of the persons protected by that provision. The Attorney-General argues that the treatment provided for the Manguianes is similar to that accorded the Indians in the United States, and reference is made all through the court's decision to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court with reference to the Indians. It is not considered necessary to go into these cases for the simple reason that all the Indians nations in the United States were considered as separate nations and all acts taken in regard to them were the result of separate treaties made by the United States Government with the Indian nations, and, incompliance with these treaties, reservations were set apart for them on which they lived and were protected form intrusion and molestation by white men. Some these reservations were larger than the Islands of Luzon, and they were not measured in hectares but in thousands of square miles. The Manguianes are not a separate state. They have no treaty with the Government of the Philippine Islands by which they have agreed to live within a certain district where they are accorded exclusive rights. They are citizens of the Philippine Islands. Legally they are Filipinos. They are entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other citizen of this country. And when the provincial governor of the Province of Mindoro attempted to take them from their native habitat and to hold them on the little reservation of about 800 hectares, he deprived them of their rights and their liberty without due process of law, and they were denied the equal protection of the law. The majority opinion says "they are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines." They are to be made to accept the civilization of the more advanced Filipinos whether they want it or not. They are backward and deficient in culture and must be moved from their homes, however humble they may be and "bought under the bells" and made to stay on a reservation. Are these petitioners charged with any crime? There is no mention in the return of the Solicitor-General of the Philippine Islands of any crime having been committed by these "peacefully, timid, primitive, semi-nomadic people." A memorandum of the Secretary of the Interior of the Philippine Islands is copied in extenso in the majority opinion, and from it I gather the nature of their offense which is that Living a nomadic and wayfaring life and evading the influence of civilization, they (the manguianes) are engaged in the works of destruction burning and destroying the forests and making illegal caiginsthereon. No bringing any benefit to the State but, instead, injuring and damaging its interests, what will ultimately become of those people with the sort of liberty they wish to preserve and for which they are not fighting in court? They will ultimately become a heavy burden to the State and, on account of their ignorance, they will commit crimes and make depredations, or if not they will be subjected to involuntary servitude by those who may want to abuse them. There is no doubt in my mind that this people has not a right conception of liberty and does not practice liberty in a rightful way. They understand liberty as the right to do anything they will going from one place to another in the mountains, burning and destroying forests and making illegal caigins thereon. Not knowing what true liberty is and not practising the same rightfully, how can they are being deprived thereof without due process of law?

xxx

xxx

xxx

But does the constitutional guaranty that "no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law" apply to a class of persons who do not have a correct idea of what liberty is and do not practise liberty in a rightful way? To say that it does will mean to sanction and defend an erroneous idea of such class of persons as to what liberty is. It will mean, in the case at bar, that the Government should not adopt any measures looking to the welfare and advancement of the class of persons in question. It will mean that this people be let alone in the mountains and in a permanent state of savagery without even the remotest hope of coming to understand liberty in its true and noble sense. In dealing with the backward population, like the Manguianes, the Government has been placed in the alternative of either letting them alone or guiding them in the path of civilization. The latter measure was adopted as the one more in accord with humanity and with national conscience. xxx xxx xxx

The national legislation on the subject of non-Christian people has tended more and more towards the education and civilization of such people and fitting them to be citizens. There appear to be two intimations or charges in this memorandum; one is that the Manguianes destroy the forest by making a caigin. What is a "caigin?" Simply this. These people move their camp or place of abode frequently and when they do move to a new place, it is necessary to clear the land in order to plant corn and camotes (sweet potatoes) and they cut down the smaller trees and burn these around the larger ones, killing them, so that they can plant their crops. The fires never spread in the tropical undergrowth of an island like Mindoro, but the trees within the caigin are killed and crops are planted and harvested. This land may be abandoned later on due to superstition, to a lack of game in the neighborhood, to poor crops from exhausted fertility, or to a natural desire to move on. Granting that the Manguianes do make caigins or clear lands in spots and then abandon them for the more fertile lands, which every man knows to be just over the hills, we cannot see that they are committing such a great abuse as to justify incarcerating them on a small tract of land for incarceration it is and nothing less. The second intimation or charge is that "they will become a heavy burden to the state and on account of their ignorance they will commit crimes and make depredations, or if not they will be subjected to involuntary servitude by those who want to abuse them." They have never been a burden to the state and never will be. They have not committed crimes and, when they do, let the law punish them." The authorities are anticipating too much from these "peaceful, timid, primitive, semi-nomadic people." Their history does not demonstrate that we must expect them to commit crimes and jail them to prevent the possibility. But the Secretary says "they will be subjected to involuntary servitude by those want to abuse them." Are they more liable to be subjected to involuntary servitude when left free to roam their native hills and gain a livelihood as they have been accustomed to for hundreds of years, than they will be if closely confined on a narrow reservation from which they may not escape without facing a term in jail? Is not more likely that they will be glad to exchange their "freedom" on a small reservation for the great boon of binding themselves and their children to the more fortunate Christian Filipinos who will feed them and clothe them in return of their services.? It think it not only probable but almost a certainty that they will be all be subjected to involuntary personal servitude if their freedom is limited as it has been. How will they live? There may be persons who are willing to lend them money with which to buy food on the promise that they will work for them. And if they accept the loan and do not work for the lender we have another law on the statute books, Act No. 2098, into whose noose they run their necks, and they may be fined not more than two hundred pesos or imprisonment for not exceeding six months or both, and when the sentence expires they must again go into debt or starve, and if they do not work will again go to jail, and this maybe repeated till they are too old to work and are cast adrift. The manguianes have committed no offenses and are charged with none. It does not appear they were ever consulted about their reconcentration. It does not appear that they had any hearing or were allowed to make any defense. It seems they were gathered here and there whenever found by the authorities of the law and forcibly placed upon the reservation, because they are "nonChristian," and because the provincial governor ordered it. Let it be clear there is no discrimination because of religion. The term "non-Christian" means one who is not a Christian Filipino, but it also means any of the so-called "wild" or backward tribes of the Philippines. These non-Christian tribes are Moros, Igorrotes, Bukidnons, Ifugaos, Manguianes and various others, about one millions souls all together. Some of them, like the Moros, Tinguianes and Ifugaos, have made great progress in civilization. The have beautiful fields reclaimed by hard labor they have herds of cattle and horses and some few of them are well educated. Some of the non-Christians, like the Aetas and the Negritos, are very low in the scale of civilization, but they are one and all "nonChristians," as the term is used and understood in law and in fact. All of them, according to the court's opinion under the present law, may be taken from their homes and herded on a reservation at the instance of the provincial governor, with the prior approval of the department head. To state such a monstrous proposition is to show the wickedness and illegality of the section of the law under which these people are restrained of their liberty. But it is argued that there is no probability of the department head ever giving his approval to such a crime, but the fact that he can do it and has

done it in the present case in what makes the law unconstitutional. The arbitrary and unrestricted power to do harm should be the measure by which a law's legality is tested and not the probability of doing harm. It has been said that this is a government of laws and not of men; that there is no arbitrary body of individuals; that the constitutional principles upon which our government and its institutions rest do not leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power, but that all in authority are guided and limited by these provisions which the people have, the through the organic law, declared shall be the measure and scope of all control exercised over them. In particular the fourteenth amendment, and especially the equal protection clause, thereof, forbids that the individual shall be subjected to any arbitrary exercise of the powers of government; it was intended to prohibit, and does prohibit, any arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of property. As we have seen, a statute which makes a purely arbitrary or unreasonable classification, or which singles out any particular individuals or class as the subject of hostile and discriminating legislation, is clearly unconstitutional as being opposed to the fourteenth amendment and especially to the equal protection clause thereof. This is a plain case, and requires no further discussion. (Vol. 4, Encyclopedia of U.S. Supreme Court Reports, p. 366.) When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for its is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and, in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the Government of Commonwealth "may be a government of law and not of men." For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 U.S., 374.) It is said that the present law is an old Act being substance Act No. 547 of the Philippine Commission. But it has never been brought before this court for determination of its constitutionality. No matter how beneficient the motives of the lawmakers if the lawmakers if the law tends to deprive any man of life, liberty, or property without due process law, it is void. In may opinion the acts complained of which were taken in conformity with section 2145 of the Administrative Code not only deprive these Manguianes of their liberty, without due process of law, but will in all probability deprive them of their life, without due process of law. History teaches that to take a semi-nomadic tribe from their native fastnesses and to transfer them to the narrow confines of a reservation is to invite disease an suffering and death. From my long experience in the Islands, I should say that it would be a crime of title less magnitude to take the Ifugaos from their mountain homes where they have reclaimed a wilderness and made it a land of beauty and fruitfulness and to transfer them to the more fertile, unoccupied, malaria infested valleys which they look down upon from their fields than it would be to order their decapitation en masse. There can be no denial that the Ifugaos are "non-Christians," or "wild tribes" and are in exactly the same category as the Manguianes. If the Manguianes may be so taken from their native habitat and reconcentrated on a reservation in effect an open air jail then so may the Ifugaos, so may the Tinguianes, who have made more progress than the Ifugaos, and so may the Moros. There are "non-Christian" in nearly every province in the Philippine Islands. All of the thirty-nine governors upon the prior approval of the head of the department, have the power under this law to take the non-Christian inhabitants of their different provinces form their homes and put them on a reservation for "their own good and the general good of the Philippines," and the court will grant them no relief. These unfortunate citizens of the Philippine Islands would hold their liberty, and their lives, may be, subject to the unregulated discretion of the provincial governor. And who would be safe? After the reservation is once established might not a provincial governor decide that some political enemy was a non-Christian, and that he would be safer on the reservation. No matter what his education and culture, he could have no trial, he could make no defense, the judge of the court might be in a distant province and not within reach, and the provincial governor's fiat is final. The case of the United States vs. Crook (Federal Cases 14891), cited in the majority opinion, should be quoted at length. District Judge Dundy said:

During the fifteen years in which I have been engaged in administering the laws of my country, I have never been called upon to hear or decide a case that appealed so strongly to my sympathy as the one now under consideration. On the one side, we have a few of the remnants of a once numerous and powerful, but now weak, insignificant, unlettered, and generally despised race; and the other, we have the representative of one of the most powerful, most enlightened, and most christianized nations of modern times. On the one side, we have the representatives of this wasted race coming into this national tribunal of ours, asking for justice and liberty to enable them to adopt our boasted civilization, and to pursue the arts of peace, which have made us great and happy as a nation; on the other side, we have this magnificent, if not magnanimous, government, resisting this application with the determination of sending these people back to the country which is to them less desirable perpetual imprisonment in their own native land. But I think it is creditable to the heart and mind of the brave and distinguished officer who is made respondent herein to say that he has no sort of sympathy in the business in which he is forced by his position to bear a part so conspicuous; and, so far as I am individually concerned, I think it not improper to say that, if the strongest possible sympathy could give the relators title to freedom, they would have been restored to liberty the moment the arguments in their behalf were closed. no examination or further thought would then have been necessary or expedient. But in a country where liberty is regulated by law, something more satisfactory and enduring than mere sympathy must furnish and constitute the rule and basis of judicial action. It follows that this case must be examined and decided on principles of law, and that unless the relators are entitled to their discharge under the constitution or laws of the United States, or some treaty, they must be remanded to the custody of the officer who caused their arrest, to be returned to the Indian Territory which they left without the consent of the government. On the 8th of April, 1879, the relators Standing Bear and twenty-five others, during the session of the court held at that time of Lincoln, presented their petition, duly verified, praying for the allowance of a writ ofhabeas corpus and their final discharged from custody thereunder. The petition alleges, in substance, that the relators are Indians who have formerly belonged to the Ponca tribe of Indians now located in the Indian Territory; that they had some time previously withdrawn from the tribe, and completely severed their tribal relations therewith, and had adopted the general habits of the whites, and were then endeavoring to maintain themselves by their own exertions, and without aid or assistance from the general government; that whilst they were thus engaged, and without being guilty of violating any of the laws of the United States, they were arrested and restrained of their liberty by order of the respondent, George Crook. The writ was issued and served on the respondent on the 8th day of April, and, the distance between the place where the writ was made returnable and the place where the relators were confined being more than twenty miles, ten days were alloted in which to make return. On the 18th of April the writ was returned, and the authority for the arrest and detention is therein shown. The substance of the return to the writ, and the additional statement since filed, is that the relators are individual members of, and connected with, the Ponca Tribe of Indians; that they had fled or escaped from a reservation situated in some place within the limits of the indian Territory had departed therefrom without permission from the government; and, at the request of the secretary of the interior, the general of the army had issued an order which required the respondent to arrest and return the relators to their tribe in the Indian Territory, and that, pursuant to the said order, he had caused the relators to be arrested on the Omaha Indian reservation, and that they were in his custody for the purpose of being returned to the Indian Territory. It is claimed upon the one side, and denied upon the other, that the relators had withdrawn and severed, for all time, their connection with the tribe to which they belonged; and upon this point alone was there any testimony produced by either party hereto. The other matter stated in the petition and the return to the writ are conceded to be true; so that the questions to be determined are purely questions of law. On the 8th of Mar, 1859, a treaty was made by the United States with the Ponca tribe of Indians, by which a certain tract of country, north of the Niobrara river and west of the Missouri, was set apart for the permanent home of the aid Indians, in which the government agreed to protect them during their good behaviour. But just when or how, or why, or under what circumstances, the Indians left their reservation in Dakota and went to the Indian Territory does not appear. xxx xxx xxx

A question of much greater importance remains for consideration, which, when determined, will be decisive of this whole controversy. This relates to the right of the government to arrest and hold the relators for a time, for the purpose of being returned to a point in the Indian Territory from which it is alleged the Indians escaped. I am not vain enough to think that I can do full justice to a question like the one under consideration. But, as the mater furnishes so much valuable material for discussion, and so much food for reflection, I shall try to present it as viewed from my own standpoint, without reference to consequences or criticisms, which, though not specially invited, will be sure to follow. xxx xxx xxx

On the 15th day of August, 1876, congress passed the general Indian appropriation bill, and in it we find a provision authorizing the secretary of the interior to use $25,000 for the removal of the Poncas to the Indian Territory, and providing them a home therein, with consent of the tribe. (19 Sta., 192.) xxx xxx xxx

The Poncas lived upon their reservation in southern Dakota, and cultivated a portion of the same, until two or three years ago, when they removed therefrom, but whether by force or otherwise does not appear. At all event, we find a portion of them, including the relators, located at some point in the Indian Territory. There, the testimony seems to show, is where the trouble commenced. Standing Bear, the principal witness, states that out of five hundred and eighty-one Indians who went from the reservation in Dakota to the Indian Territory, one hundred and fifty-eight died within a year or so, and a great proportion of the others were sick and disabled, caused, in a great measure, no doubt, from change of climate; and to save himself and the survivors of his wasted family, and the feeble remnant of his little band of followers, he determined to leave the Indian Territory and return to his old home, where, to use his own language, "he might live and die in peace, and be buried with his fathers." He also stated that he informed the agent of their final purpose to leave, never to return, and that he and his followers had finally, fully, and forever severed his and their connection with the Ponca tribe of Indians, and had resolved to disband as a tribe, or band of Indians, and to cut loose from the government, go to work, become self-sustaining, and adopt the habits and customs of a higher civilization. To accomplish what would seem to be a desirable and laudable purpose, all who were able to do so went to work to earn a living. The Omaha Indians, who speak the same language, and with whom many of the Poncas have long continued to intermarry, gave them employment and ground to cultivate, so as to make them self-sustaining. And it was when at the Omaha reservation, and when thus employed, that they were arrested by order of the government, for the purpose of being taken back to the Indian Territory. They claim to be unable to see the justice, or reason, or wisdom, or necessity, of removing them by force from their own native plains and blood relations to a far-off country, in which they can see little but new-made graves opening for their reception. The land from which they fled in fear has no attractions for them. The love of home and native land was strong enough in the minds of these people to induce them to brave every peril to return and live and die where they had been reared. The bones of the dead son of Standing Bear were not to repose in the land they hoped to be leaving forever, but were carefully preserved and protected and formed a part of what was to them melancholy procession homeward. Such instances of parental affections, and such love home and native land, may be heathen in origin, but it seems to that they are not unlike Christian in principle. And the court declared that the Indians were illegally held by authority of the United States and in violation of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and ordered their release from custody. This case is very similarly to the case of Standing Bear and others. I think this Court should declare that section 2145 and 2759 of the Administrative Code of 1917 are unconstitutional, null and void, and that the petitioners are illegally restrained of their liberty, and that they have been denied the equal protection of the law, and order the respondents immediately to liberate all of the petitioners. G.R. No. 112386 June 14, 1994 MARCELINO C. LIBANAN, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and AGUSTIN B. DOCENA, respondents. Semaco P. Sacmar & Associates for petitioner. RESOLUTION VITUG, J.: Petitioner Marcelino C. Libanan, the incumbent Vice-Governor of Eastern Samar, was a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of that province prior to the 11 May 1992 elections. He was among those charged before the Sandiganbayan, on 25 May 1992, with having violated Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in an information, docketed Criminal Case No. 17756, stating That on or about 08 January 1991, and for sometime thereafter, in Borongan, Eastern Samar, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Lutgardo B. Barbo, Governor of Eastern Samar; Camilo A. Camenforte, Vice-Governor of same province; Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members Marcos B. Alido, Nonato A. Gerna, Ismael G. Kho, Marcelino C. Libanan, Nicolas O. Pimentel, and Generoso A. Yu, of the same province, conspiring with one another, did then and there, wilfully and unlawfully, through evident bad faith and manifest partiality, prevent and exclude Agustin B. Docena, a duly appointed and Qualified replacement of deceased Sangguniang Panlalawigan member Luis A. Capito, from exercising his rights and prerogatives as a

member of the said body, by promulgating in their official capacities Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 01, Series of 1991, wherein accused expressed their recognition of Atty. Socrates B. Alar as the official replacement of aforesaid deceased member, notwithstanding the recall of his appointment by the Department of Local Government, to the damage and prejudice of Agustin B. Docena.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On motion of the prosecution for the suspension of the accused public officials pendente lite, and finding that said accused were charged under a valid information, the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution, dated 26 July 1993, to the following effect: WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Gov. Lutgardo Barbo, Vice-Gov. Marcelino C. Libanan, and Sangguniang Panlalawigan members Nonato A. Gerna and Generoso A. Yu are hereby suspended from their respective public positions, or from any other public office that they may be holding, the same to commence upon their receipt hereof and for a period of ninety (90) days thereafter. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Hon. Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, and the Hon. Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, for their information and guidance and they are hereby directed to inform this Court within ten (10) days from receipt hereof of any action they have undertaken on the matter.

SO ORDERED.

Accused Barbo and Libanan filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which the Sandiganbayan denied in its resolution of 30 September 1993. From the orders, Libanan appealed. Petitioner presents three grounds to support his appeal, to wit: That I. THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION IF EXECUTED WOULD CONSTITUTE AN AFFRONT ON PETITIONER(S) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. II. THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION ONCE IMPLEMENTED WOULD AMOUNT TO AN ASSAULT OF THE SACRED COVENANT REPOSED ON PETITIONER VICEGOVERNOR, MARCELINO C. LIBANAN BY THE PEOPLE OF EASTERN SAMAR. III. THE REASONS SOUGHT TO BE PREVENTED BY THE SUSPENSION ORDERPENDENTE LITE NO LONGER EXIST. The petition is without merit. The amendatory provision of Section 13, Republic Act No. 3019, here applicable, provides: Sec. 13. Suspension and Loss of Benefits. Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under title 7, book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. . . . Petitioner contends that the order of suspension, being predicated on his acts supposedly committed while still a member of the Sangguniang Bayan, can no longer attach to him now that he is the duly elected and incumbent Vice-Governor of Eastern Samar. The implementation of the suspension order, he further claims, would amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. In Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 3 this Court rejected a similar argument advanced by Governor Deloso who, at the time of issuance of the suspension order, was already occupying the office of governor and not the position of municipal mayor that he held previously when charged with having violated the Anti-Graft Law. Prior to Deloso, inBayot vs. Sandiganbayan, 4 the suspension of then Cavite mayor Bayot was also sustained even as he was charged for acts committed as a government auditor of the Commission on Audit. In both instances, this Court ruled that the term "office" used in the law could apply to any office which the officer charged might currently be holding and not necessarily the particular office under which he was charged.

Obviously, the suspension order cannot amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Public office is "a public agency or trust," 5 and it is not the property envisioned by the Constitutional provision 6 which petitioner invokes. Libanans second contention neither holds water. His so-called "covenant" with the people of Eastern Samar is far from being synonymous to, or the equivalent of, license, and it is not one that can cut athwart the long arm of the law. In Oliveros vs. Villaluz, 7 we have said: Since the criminal prosecution against petitioner-accused is concededly not abated by the fact of his reelection, the pendency of such criminal case under a valid information under Republic Act 3019 may clearly be and supplies the legal basis for his suspension from office in a subsequent term in the event of his reelection by virtue of the provisions of section 13 of the Act. The third assigned error raised by petitioner need not be delved into. When the statute is clear and explicit, there is hardly room for any extended court ratiocination or rationalization of the law. Republic Act No. 3019 unequivocally mandates the suspension of a public official from office pending a criminal prosecution against him. This Court has repeatedly held that such preventive suspension is mandatory, 8 and there are no "ifs" and "buts" about it. 9 WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed resolution of respondent Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED. Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur. G.R. No. 141463 August 6, 2002

VICTOR ORQUIOLA and HONORATA ORQUIOLA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VIVENCIO S. BACLIG, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY and HIS/HER DEPUTIES and PURA KALAW LEDESMA, substituted by TANDANG SORA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.: This petition for review seeks the reversal of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated January 28, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 47422, which dismissed the petition to prohibit Judge Vivencio Baclig of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77, from issuing a writ of demolition against petitioners, and the sheriff and deputy sheriff of the same court from implementing an alias writ of execution. Also assailed is the resolution2 of the Court of Appeals dated December 29, 1999 which denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. The facts are as follows: Pura Kalaw Ledesma was the registered owner of Lot 689, covered by TCT Nos. 111267 and 111266, in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. This parcel of land was adjacent to certain portions of Lot 707 of the Piedad Estates, namely, Lot 707-A and 707-B, registered in the name of Herminigilda Pedro under TCT Nos. 16951 and 16952, respectively. On October 29, 1964, Herminigilda sold Lot 707A and 707-B to Mariano Lising who then registered both lots and Lot 707-C in the name of M.B. Lising Realty and subdivided them into smaller lots.
1wphi 1.nt

Certain portions of the subdivided lots were sold to third persons including herein petitioners, spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola, who purchased a portion of Lot 707-A-2, Lot 5, Block 1 of the subdivision plan (LRC), Psd-42965. The parcel is now #33 Doa Regina St., Regina Village, Tandang Sora, Quezon City. The other portions were registered in the name of the heirs of Pedro, heirs of Lising, and other third persons. Sometime in 1969, Pura Kalaw Ledesma filed a complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-12918, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against Herminigilda Pedro and Mariano Lising for allegedly encroaching upon Lot 689. During the pendency of the action, Tandang Sora Development Corporation replaced Pura Kalaw Ledesma as plaintiff by virtue of an assignment of Lot 689 made by Ledesma in favor of said corporation. Trial continued for three decades. On August 21, 1991, the trial court finally adjudged defendants Pedro and Lising jointly and severally liable for encroaching on plaintiffs land and ordered them:

(a) to solidarily pay the plaintiff Tandang Sora Dev. Corp. actual damages in the amount of P20,000 with interest from date of filing of the complaint; (b) to remove all construction, including barbed wires and fences, illegally constructed by defendants on plaintiffs property at defendants expense; (c) to replace the removed concrete monuments removed by defendants, at their own expense; (d) to pay attorneys fees in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) with interest computed from the date of filing of the complaint; (e) to relocate the boundaries to conform with the Commissioners Report, particularly, Annexes "A" and "B" thereof, at the expense of the defendants.3 As a result, in February 1998, the Deputy Sheriff of Quezon City directed petitioners, through an alias writ of execution, to remove the house they constructed on the land they were occupying. On April 2, 1998, petitioners received a Special Order dated March 30, 1998, from the trial court stating as follows: Before the Court for resolution is the "Ex-Parte Motion For The Issuance of A Writ of Demolition," filed by plaintiff, through counsel, praying for the issuance of an Order directing the Deputy Sheriff to cause the removal and/or demolition of the structures on the plaintiffs property constructed by defendants and/or the present occupants. The defendants-heirs of Herminigilda Pedro filed their comment on the said Motion. Considering that the decision rendered in the instant case had become final and executory, the Court, in its Order of November 14, 1997, directed the issuance of an alias writ of execution for the enforcement of the said decision. However, despite the service of the said writ to all the defendants and the present occupants of the subject property, they failed to comply therewith, as per the Partial Sheriffs Return, dated February 9, 1998, issued by the Deputy Sheriff of this branch of the Court. Thus, there is now a need to demolish the structures in order to implement the said decision. WHEREFORE, the defendants are hereby directed to remove, at their expense, all constructions, including barbed wires and fences, which defendants constructed on plaintiffs property, within fifteen (15) days from notice of this Order; otherwise, this Court will issue a writ of demolition against them. SO ORDERED.4 To prohibit Judge Vivencio Baclig of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City from issuing a writ of demolition and the Quezon City sheriff from implementing the alias writ of execution, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition with prayer for a restraining order and preliminary injunction on April 17, 1998.5 Petitioners alleged that they bought the subject parcel of land in good faith and for value, hence, they were parties in interest. Since they were not impleaded in Civil Case No. Q-12918, the writ of demolition issued in connection therewith cannot be enforced against them because to do so would amount to deprivation of property without due process of law. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on January 28, 1999. It held that as buyers and successors-in-interest of Mariano Lising, petitioners were considered privies who derived their rights from Lising by virtue of the sale and could be reached by the execution order in Civil Case No. Q-12918. Thus, for lack of merit, the petition was ordered dismissed.6 Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition, where petitioners aver that: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-12918 CAN ALSO BE ENFORCED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT IMPLEADED AS PARTIES THERETO. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING PETITIONERS TITLE DESPITE THEIR BEING BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH AND INNOCENT PURCHASER AND FOR VALUE. III.

PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CONSIDERING THAT THEY STAND TO SUFFER GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY IF ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION AND THE SPECIAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT A QUO IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-12918 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF ALL THE STRUCTURES ON THE DISPUTED PROPERTY WERE ENFORCED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS WHO WERE NOT EVEN GIVEN THEIR DAY IN COURT.7 For our resolution are the following issues: (1) whether the alias writ of execution may be enforced against petitioners; and (2) whether petitioners were innocent purchasers for value and builders in good faith. On the first issue, petitioners claim that the alias writ of execution cannot be enforced against them. They argue that the appellate court erred when it relied heavily on our ruling in Vda. de Medina vs. Cruz8 in holding that petitioners are successors-in-interest of Mariano Lising, and as such, they can be reached by the order of execution in Civil Case No. Q-12918 even though they were not impleaded as parties thereto. Petitioners submit that Medina is not applicable in this case because the circumstances therein are different from the circumstances in the present case. In Medina, the property in dispute was registered under Land Registration Act No. 496 in 1916 and Original Certificate of Title No. 868 was issued in the name of Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). In 1949, Benedicta Mangahas and Francisco Ramos occupied and built houses on the lot without the PRCs consent. In 1959, PRC sold the lot to Remedios Magbanua. Mangahas and Ramos opposed and instituted Civil Case No. C-120 to annul the sale and to compel PRC to execute a contract of sale in their favor. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered Mangahas and Ramos to vacate the lot and surrender possession thereof to Magbanua. The judgment became final and executory. When Magbanua had paid for the land in full, PRC executed a deed of absolute sale in her favor and a new title was consequently issued in her name. Magbanua then sought the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. C-120. This was opposed by petitioner Medina who alleged that she owned the houses and lot subject of the dispute. She said that she bought the houses from spouses Ricardo and Eufrocinia de Guzman, while she purchased the lot from the heirs of the late Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. The latter held the land by virtue of a Titulo de Composicion Con El Estado Num. 4136, dated April 29, 1894. In opposing the execution, Medina argued that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over her, claiming that she was not a party in Civil Case No. C-120, thus, she could not be considered as "a person claiming under" Ramos and Mangahas. When Medina reached this Court, we held that the decision in Civil Case No. C-120, which had long become final and executory, could be enforced against petitioner even though she was not a party thereto. We found that the houses on the subject lot were formerly owned by Mangahas and Ramos who sold them to spouses de Guzman, who in turn sold them to Medina. Under the circumstances, petitioner was privy to the two judgment debtors Mangahas and Ramos, and thus Medina could be reached by the order of execution and writ of demolition issued against the two. As to the lot under dispute, we sustained Magbanuas ownership over it, she being the holder of a Torrens title. We declared that a Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of ownership of the land referred to therein, and a strong presumption exists that a Torrens title was regularly issued and valid. A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any informacion possessoria, or other title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the Torrens title. Moreover, persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond what appears on its face. Medina markedly differs from the present case on major points. First, the petitioner in Medina acquired the right over the houses and lot subject of the dispute after the original action was commenced and became final and executory. In the present case, petitioners acquired the lot before the commencement of Civil Case No. Q-12918.Second, the right over the disputed land of the predecessorsin-interest of the petitioner in Medina was based on a title of doubtful authenticity, allegedly a Titulo de Composicion Con El Estado issued by the Spanish Government in favor of one Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, while the right over the land of the predecessors-in-interest of herein petitioners is based on a fully recognized Torrens title. Third, petitioners in this case acquired the registered title in their own names, while the petitioner in Medina merely relied on the title of her predecessor-in-interest and tax declarations to prove her alleged ownership of the land. We must stress that where a case like the present one involves a sale of a parcel of land under the Torrens system, the applicable rule is that a person dealing with the registered property need not go beyond the certificate of title; he can rely solely on the title and he is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title. 9 It is our view here that the petitioners, spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola, are fully entitled to the legal protection of their lot by the Torrens system, unlike the petitioner in the Medina case who merely relied on a mere Titulo de Composicion. Coming now to the second issue, were petitioners purchasers in good faith and for value? A buyer in good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property. He is a buyer for value if he pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property.10 The determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue which generally is outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review. An exception is when the Court of Appeals failed to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.11 The instant case is covered by this exception to the general rule. As found by the Court of Appeals and not refuted by private respondent, petitioners purchased the subject land in 1964 from Mariano Lising.12 Civil Case No. Q-12918 was commenced sometime in 1969. The Court of Appeals overlooked the fact that the purchase of the land took place prior to the institution of Civil Case No. Q-12918. In other words, the sale to petitioners was made before Pura Kalaw Ledesma claimed the lot. Petitioners could reasonably rely on Mariano Lisings Certificate of Title which at the

time of purchase was still free from any third party claim. Hence, considering the circumstances of this case, we conclude that petitioners acquired the land subject of this dispute in good faith and for value. The final question now is: could we consider petitioners builders in good faith? We note that this is the first time that petitioners have raised this issue. As a general rule, this could not be done. Fair play, justice, and due process dictate that parties should not raise for the first time on appeal issues that they could have raised but never did during trial and even during proceedings before the Court of Appeals.13 Nevertheless, we deem it proper that this issue be resolved now, to avoid circuitous litigation and further delay in the disposition of this case. On this score, we find that petitioners are indeed builders in good faith. A builder in good faith is one who builds with the belief that the land he is building on is his, and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title.14 As earlier discussed, petitioner spouses acquired the land in question without knowledge of any defect in the title of Mariano Lising. Shortly afterwards, they built their conjugal home on said land. It was only in 1998, when the sheriff of Quezon City tried to execute the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-12918, that they had notice of private respondents adverse claim. The institution of Civil Case No. Q-12918 cannot serve as notice of such adverse claim to petitioners since they were not impleaded therein as parties. As builders in good faith and innocent purchasers for value, petitioners have rights over the subject property and hence they are proper parties in interest in any case thereon.15 Consequently, private respondents should have impleaded them in Civil Case No. Q12918. Since they failed to do so, petitioners cannot be reached by the decision in said case. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution and demolition issued pursuant thereto.16 In our view, the spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola have valid and meritorious cause to resist the demolition of their house on their own titled lot, which is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.
1wphi 1.nt

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 28, 1999, and its resolution dated December 29, 1999, in CA-G.R. SP No. 47422, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents are hereby enjoined from enforcing the decision in Civil Case No. Q-12918 through a writ of execution and order of demolition issued against petitioners. Costs against private respondent. SO ORDERED.