Title: Antonio Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.

Date of Promulgation: March 24, 2009 Facts: Serrano was a seafarer hired by Gallant Maritime and Marlow Navigation Co. for twelve months as Chief Officer. On the date of his departure, he was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer, upon the assurance that he would be made Chief Officer after a month but such promise of employment did not happen. Serrano decided to refuse his stay as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines. He had served only two months and seven days of his contract leaving an unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days. Serrano filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against Gallant Maritime and Marlow for constructive dismissal and payment for his money claims. The Labor Arbiter rendered a favourable decision to Serrano by awarding him $8,770.00, representing his salary for three months of the unexpired portion of his contract of employment applying Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), Sec. 10 (5) which states: In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. Issue: Is the subject clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in 10 (5) of Republic Act 8042, constitutional? Law: Philippine Constitution: Article III, 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. Ruling: No. The subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a three-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts. However, there is none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. This clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar and unjustified disadvantage. It also violates the right of Serrano to equal protection and right to substantive due process because it deprives him of monetary benefits without any valid governmental purpose. Also, prior to Republic Act 8042, all OFWs, regardless of contact periods or unexpired portions, were treated alike in terms of computation of their monetary benefits in case of illegal dismissal. Their basic salaries multiplied by the entire unexpired portion of their employment contracts. Therefore, Serrano is entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period, too. G.R. No. 173176 August 26, 2008

THIRD DIVISION

JUDY ANNE L. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioner Judy Anne L. Santos (Santos) seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Resolution, 2dated 19 June 2006, of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) en banc in C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001 which denied petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. Petitioner intended to file the Petition for Review with the CTA en banc to appeal the Resolutions dated 23 February 20063 and 11 May 20064 of the CTA First Division in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012 denying, respectively, her Motion to Quash the Information filed against her for violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended; and her Motion for Reconsideration. There is no controversy as to the facts that gave rise to the present Petition. On 19 May 2005, then Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr. wrote to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul M. Gonzales a letter5 regarding the possible filing of criminal charges against petitioner. BIR Commissioner Parayno began his letter with the following statement: I have the honor to refer to you for preliminary investigation and filing of an information in court if evidence so warrants, the herein attached Joint Affidavit of RODERICK C. ABAD, STIMSON P. CUREG, VILMA V. CARONAN, RHODORA L. DELOS REYES under Group SupervisorTEODORA V. PURINO, of the National Investigation Division, BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City, recommending the criminal prosecution of MS. JUDY ANNE LUMAGUI SANTOS for substantial underdeclaration of income, which constitutes as prima facie evidence of false or fraudulent return under Section 248(B) of the NIRC and punishable under Sections 254 and 255 of the Tax Code. In said letter, BIR Commissioner Parayno summarized the findings of the investigating BIR officers that petitioner, in her Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 2002 filed with the BIR, declared an income of P8,033,332.70 derived from her talent fees solely from ABS-CBN; initial documents gathered from the BIR offices and those given by petitioners accountant and third parties, however, confirmed that petitioner received in 2002 income in the amount of at least P14,796,234.70, not only from ABS-CBN, but also from other sources, such as movies and product endorsements; the estimated tax liability arising from petitioners underdeclaration amounted to P1,718,925.52, including incremental penalties; the non-declaration by petitioner of an amount equivalent to at least 84.18% of the income declared in her return was considered a substantial underdeclaration of income, which constituted prima facie evidence of false or fraudulent return under Section 248(B)6 of the NIRC, as amended; and petitioners failure to account as part of her income the professional fees she received from sources other than ABS-CBN and her underdeclaration of the income she received from ABSCBN amounted to manifest violations of Sections 2547 and 255,8 as well as Section 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended.

After an exchange of affidavits and other pleadings by the parties, Prosecution Attorney Olivia LarozaTorrevillas issued a Resolution9 dated 21 October 2005 finding probable cause and recommending the filing of a criminal information against petitioner for violation of Section 255 in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended. The said Resolution was approved by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno. Pursuant to the 21 October 2005 DOJ Resolution, an Information10 for violation of Section 255 in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended, was filed with the CTA on 3 November 2005 and docketed as C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012. However, the CTA First Division, after noting several discrepancies in the Information filed, required the State Prosecutor to clarify and explain the same, and to submit the original copies of the parties affidavits, memoranda, and all other evidence on record.11 Consequently, Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas, on behalf of respondent People, submitted on 1 December 2005 a Compliance with Ex Parte Motion to Admit Attached Information.12 Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas moved that the documents submitted be admitted as part of the record of the case and the first Information be substituted by the attached second Information. The second Information 13addressed the discrepancies noted by the CTA in the first Information, by now reading thus: The undersigned Prosecution Attorney of the Department of Justice hereby accuses JUDY ANNE SANTOS y Lumagui of the offense of violation of Section 255, of Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the "Tax Reform Act of 1997," as amended, committed as follows: "That on or about the 15th day of April, 2003, at Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously file a false and fraudulent income tax return for taxable year 2002 by indicating therein a gross income of P8,033,332.70 when in truth and in fact her correct income for taxable year 2002 is P16,396,234.70 or a gross underdeclaration/difference ofP8,362,902 resulting to an income tax deficiency of P1,395,116.24 excluding interest and penalties thereon of P1,319,500.94 or a total income tax deficiency of P2,714,617.18 to the damage and prejudice of the government of the same amount.["] In a Resolution14 dated 8 December 2005, the CTA First Division granted the Peoples Ex Parte Motion and admitted the second Information. The CTA First Division then issued on 9 December 2005 a warrant for the arrest of petitioner.15 The tax court lifted and recalled the warrant of arrest on 21 December 2005 after petitioner voluntarily appeared and submitted herself to its jurisdiction and filed the required bail bond in the amount of P20,000.00.16 On 10 January 2006, petitioner filed with the CTA First Division a Motion to Quash17 the Information filed in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012 on the following grounds: 1. The facts alleged in the INFORMATION do not constitute an offense; 2. The officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; 3. The Honorable Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case; and 4. The information is void ab initio, being violative of due process, and the equal protection of the laws.

In a Resolution18 dated 23 February 2006, the CTA First Division denied petitioners Motion to Quash and accordingly scheduled her arraignment on 2 March 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation,19 which was again denied by the CTA First Division in a Resolution20 dated 11 May 2006. Petitioner received a copy of the 11 May 2006 Resolution of the CTA First Division on 17 May 2006. On 1 June 2006, petitioner filed with the CTA en banc a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, docketed as C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001. She filed her Petition for Review with the CTA en bancon 16 June 2006. However, in its Resolution21 dated 19 June 2006, the CTA en banc denied petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, ratiocinating that: In the case before Us, the petitioner is asking for an extension of time to file her Petition for Review to appeal the denial of her motion to quash in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012. As stated above, a resolution denying a motion to quash is not a proper subject of an appeal to the Court En Bancunder Section 11 of R.A. No. 9282 because a ruling denying a motion to quash is only an interlocutory order, as such, it cannot be made the subject of an appeal pursuant to said law and the Rules of Court. Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that "no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order" and Section 1 (i) of Rule 50 provides for the dismissal of an appeal on the ground that "the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable". Time and again, the Supreme Court had ruled that the remedy of the accused in case of denial of a motion to quash is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial and after an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. Since a denial of a Motion to Quash is not appealable, granting petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review will only be an exercise in futility considering that the dismissal of the Petition for Review that will be filed by way of appeal is mandated both by law and jurisprudence.22 Ultimately, the CTA en banc decreed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed on June 1, 2006 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.23 Now comes petitioner before this Court raising the sole issue of: WHETHER A RESOLUTION OF A CTA DIVISION DENYING A MOTION TO QUASH IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL TO THE CTA EN BANC UNDER SECTION 11 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9282, AMENDING SECTION 18 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125.24 Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125,25 as amended by Republic Act No. 9282,26 provides: SEC. 18. Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc. No civil proceedings involving matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs Code or the Local Government Code shall be maintained, except as herein provided, until and unless an appeal has been previously filed with the CTA and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act. A party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a petition for review with the CTA en banc.

Petitioners primary argument is that a resolution of a CTA Division denying a motion to quash is a proper subject of an appeal to the CTA en banc under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, because the law does not say that only a resolution that constitutes a final disposition of a case may be appealed to the CTA en banc. If the interpretation of the law by the CTA en banc prevails, a procedural void is created leaving the parties, such as petitioner, without any remedy involving erroneous resolutions of a CTA Division. The Court finds no merit in the petitioners assertion. The petition for review under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, may be new to the CTA, but it is actually a mode of appeal long available in courts of general jurisdiction. Petitioner is invoking a very narrow and literal reading of Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. Indeed, the filing of a petition for review with the CTA en banc from a decision, resolution, or order of a CTA Division is a remedy newly made available in proceedings before the CTA, necessarily adopted to conform to and address the changes in the CTA. There was no need for such rule under Republic Act No. 1125, prior to its amendment, since the CTA then was composed only of one Presiding Judge and two Associate Judges.27 Any two Judges constituted a quorum and the concurrence of two Judges was necessary to promulgate any decision thereof.28 The amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 9282 to Republic Act No. 1125 elevated the rank of the CTA to a collegiate court, with the same rank as the Court of Appeals, and increased the number of its members to one Presiding Justice and five Associate Justices.29 The CTA is now allowed to sit en bancor in two Divisions with each Division consisting of three Justices. Four Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions en banc, and the affirmative votes of four members of the Court en banc are necessary for the rendition of a decision or resolution; while two Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions of a Division and the affirmative votes of two members of the Division shall be necessary for the rendition of a decision or resolution. 30 In A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, the Revised CTA Rules, this Court delineated the jurisdiction of the CTA en banc31 and in Divisions.32 Section 2, Rule 4 of the Revised CTA Rules recognizes the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA en banc to review by appeal the following decisions, resolutions, or orders of the CTA Division: SEC. 2. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court en banc. The Court en banc shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (a) Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over: (1) Cases arising from administrative agencies Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, Department of Finance, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Agriculture; (2) Local tax cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction; and

(3) Tax collection cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties, where the principal amount of taxes and penalties claimed is less than one million pesos; xxxx (f) Decisions, resolutions or orders on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or the Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or Bureau of Customs. (g) Decisions, resolutions or order on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal offenses mentioned in the preceding subparagraph; x x x. Although the filing of a petition for review with the CTA en banc from a decision, resolution, or order of the CTA Division, was newly made available to the CTA, such mode of appeal has long been available in Philippine courts of general jurisdiction. Hence, the Revised CTA Rules no longer elaborated on it but merely referred to existing rules of procedure on petitions for review and appeals, to wit: RULE 7 PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS SEC. 1. Applicability of the Rules of the Court of Appeals. The procedure in the Court en bancor in Divisions in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as those in petitions for review and appeals before the Court of Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rules 42, 43, 44 and 46 of the Rules of Court, except as otherwise provided for in these Rules. RULE 8 PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES xxxx SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal. xxxx (b) An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in Division on a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be taken to the Court by petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en banc shall act on the appeal. xxxx RULE 9 PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES

SEC. 1. Review of cases in the Court. The review of criminal cases in the Court en banc or in Division shall be governed by the applicable provisions of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. xxxx SEC. 9. Appeal; period to appeal. xxxx (b) An appeal to the Court en banc in criminal cases decided by the Court in Division shall be taken by filing a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution appealed from. The Court may, for good cause, extend the time for filing of the petition for review for an additional period not exceeding fifteen days. (Emphasis ours.) Given the foregoing, the petition for review to be filed with the CTA en banc as the mode for appealing a decision, resolution, or order of the CTA Division, under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, is not a totally new remedy, unique to the CTA, with a special application or use therein. To the contrary, the CTA merely adopts the procedure for petitions for review and appeals long established and practiced in other Philippine courts. Accordingly, doctrines, principles, rules, and precedents laid down in jurisprudence by this Court as regards petitions for review and appeals in courts of general jurisdiction should likewise bind the CTA, and it cannot depart therefrom. General rule: The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order which is not the proper subject of an appeal or a petition for certiorari. According to Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, governing appeals from the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) to the Court of Appeals, an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or of a matter therein when declared by the Rules to be appealable. Said provision, thus, explicitly states that no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order.33 The Court distinguishes final judgments and orders from interlocutory orders in this wise: Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "(o)nly final judgments or orders shall be subject to appeal." Interlocutory or incidental judgments or orders do not stay the progress of an action nor are they subject of appeal "until final judgment or order is rendered for one party or the other." The test to determine whether an order or judgment is interlocutory or final is this: "Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final". A court order is final in character if it puts an end to the particular matter resolved or settles definitely the matter therein disposed of, such that no further questions can come before the court except the execution of the order. The term "final" judgment or order signifies a judgment or an order which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, reserving no further questions or directions for future determination. The order or judgment may validly refer to the entire controversy or to some definite and separate branch thereof. "In the absence of a statutory definition, a final judgment, order or decree has been held to be x x x one that finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the rights, or some right or rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on some definite and separate branch thereof, and which concludes them until it is reversed or set aside." The central point to consider is, therefore, the effects of the order on the rights

of the parties. A court order, on the other hand, is merely interlocutory in character if it is provisional and leaves substantial proceeding to be had in connection with its subject. The word "interlocutory" refers to "something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy."34 In other words, after a final order or judgment, the court should have nothing more to do in respect of the relative rights of the parties to the case. Conversely, "an order that does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions in determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court, is interlocutory."35 The rationale for barring the appeal of an interlocutory order was extensively discussed in Matute v. Court of Appeals,36 thus: It is settled that an "interlocutory order or decree made in the progress of a case is always under the control of the court until the final decision of the suit, and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at any time before final judgment . . ." Of similar import is the ruling of this Court declaring that "it is rudimentary that such (interlocutory) orders are subject to change in the discretion of the court." Moreover, one of the inherent powers of the court is "To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. In the language of Chief Justice Moran, paraphrasing the ruling in Veluz vs. Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, "since judges are human, susceptible to mistakes, and are bound to administer justice in accordance with law, they are given the inherent power of amending their orders or judgments so as to make them conformable to law and justice, and they can do so before they lose their jurisdiction of the case, that is before the time to appeal has expired and no appeal has been perfected." And in the abovecited Veluz case, this Court held that "If the trial court should discover or be convinced that it had committed an error in its judgment, or had done an injustice, before the same has become final, it may, upon its own motion or upon a motion of the parties, correct such error in order to do justice between the parties. . . . It would seem to be the very height of absurdity to prohibit a trial judge from correcting an error, mistake, or injustice which is called to his attention before he has lost control of his judgment." Corollarily, it has also been held "that a judge of first instance is not legally prevented from revoking the interlocutory order of another judge in the very litigation subsequently assigned to him for judicial action." Another recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case would necessarily be delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him, and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court.37 There is no dispute that a court order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory. The denial of the motion to quash means that the criminal information remains pending with the court, which must proceed with the trial to determine whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged therein. Equally settled is the rule that an order denying a motion to quash, being interlocutory, is not immediately appealable,38 nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial.39 The Court cannot agree in petitioners contention that there would exist a procedural void following the denial of her Motion to Quash by the CTA First Division in its Resolutions dated 23 February 2006 and 11 May 2006,

leaving her helpless. The remedy of an accused from the denial of his or her motion to quash has already been clearly laid down as follows: An order denying a Motion to Acquit (like an order denying a motion to quash) is interlocutory and not a final order. It is, therefore, not appealable. Neither can it be the subject of a petition forcertiorari. Such order of denial may only be reviewed, in the ordinary course of law, by an appeal from the judgment, after trial. As stated in Collins vs. Wolfe, and reiterated in Mill vs. Yatco, the accused, after the denial of his motion to quash, should have proceeded with the trial of the case in the court below, and if final judgment is rendered against him, he could then appeal, and, upon such appeal, present the questions which he sought to be decided by the appellate court in a petition forcertiorari. In Acharon vs. Purisima, the procedure was well defined, thus: "Moreover, when the motion to quash filed by Acharon to nullify the criminal cases filed against him was denied by the Municipal Court of General Santos his remedy was not to file a petition for certiorari but to go to trial without prejudice on his part to reiterate the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if, after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. This is the procedure that he should have followed as authorized by law and precedents. Instead, he took the usual step of filing a writ of certiorari before the Court of First Instance which in our opinion is unwarranted it being contrary to the usual course of law."40 Hence, the CTA en banc herein did not err in denying petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, when such Petition for Review is the wrong remedy to assail an interlocutory order denying her Motion to Quash. While the general rule proscribes the appeal of an interlocutory order, there are also recognized exceptions to the same. The general rule is not absolute. Where special circumstances clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of an appeal, then the special civil action of certiorari or prohibition may exceptionally be allowed.41 This Court recognizes that under certain situations, recourse to extraordinary legal remedies, such as a petition for certiorari, is considered proper to question the denial of a motion to quash (or any other interlocutory order) in the interest of a "more enlightened and substantial justice";42or to promote public welfare and public policy;43 or when the cases "have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof";44 or when the order was rendered with grave abuse of discretion.45 Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. 46 Recourse to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court on the subject of appeal, which states: In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. As to whether the CTA en banc, under its expanded jurisdiction in Republic Act No. 9282, has been granted jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari is not raised as an issue in the Petition at bar, thus, precluding the Court from making a definitive pronouncement thereon. However, even if such an issue is answered in the negative, it would not substantially affect the ruling of this Court herein, for a party whose motion to quash had

been denied may still seek recourse, under exceptional and meritorious circumstances, via a special civil action for certiorari with this Court, refuting petitioners assertion of a procedural void. The CTA First Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners Motion to Quash. Assuming that the CTA en banc, as an exception to the general rule, allowed and treated petitioners Petition for Review in C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001 as a special civil action for certiorari, 47 it would still be dismissible for lack of merit. An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. In this connection, it is only upon showing that the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion that an interlocutory order such as that involved in this case may be impugned. Be that as it may, it must be emphasized that this practice is applied only under certain exceptional circumstances to prevent unnecessary delay in the administration of justice and so as not to unduly burden the courts.48 Certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judges findings and conclusions of law and fact. It is only in the presence of extraordinary circumstances evincing a patent disregard of justice and fair play where resort to a petition for certiorari is proper. A party must not be allowed to delay litigation by the sheer expediency of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court based on scant allegations of grave abuse.49 A writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling: it is resorted to only to correct a grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Its function is limited to keeping an inferior court within its jurisdiction and to relieve persons from arbitrary acts acts which courts or judges have no power or authority in law to perform. It is not designed to correct erroneous findings and conclusions made by the courts.50 The Petition for Review which petitioner intended to file before the CTA en banc relied on two grounds: (1) the lack of authority of Prosecuting Attorney Torrevillas to file the Information; and (2) the filing of the said Information in violation of petitioners constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. Anent the first ground, petitioner argues that the Information was filed without the approval of the BIR Commissioner in violation of Section 220 of NIRC, as amended, which provides: SEC. 220. Form and Mode of Proceeding in Actions Arising under this Code. - Civil and criminal actions and proceedings instituted in behalf of the Government under the authority of this Code or other law enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall be brought in the name of the Government of the Philippines and shall be conducted by legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue but no civil or criminal action for the recovery of taxes or the enforcement of any fine, penalty or forfeiture under this Code shall be filed in court without the approval of the Commissioner. Petitioners argument must fail in light of BIR Commissioner Paraynos letter dated 19 May 2005 to DOJ Secretary Gonzales referring "for preliminary investigation and filing of an information in court if evidence so warrants," the findings of the BIR officers recommending the criminal prosecution of petitioner. In said letter,

BIR Commissioner Parayno already gave his prior approval to the filing of an information in court should the DOJ, based on the evidence submitted, find probable cause against petitioner during the preliminary investigation. Section 220 of the NIRC, as amended, simply requires that the BIR Commissioner approve the institution of civil or criminal action against a tax law violator, but it does not describe in what form such approval must be given. In this case, BIR Commissioner Paraynos letter of 19 May 2005 already states his express approval of the filing of an information against petitioner and his signature need not appear on the Resolution of the State Prosecutor or the Information itself. Still on the purported lack of authority of Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas to file the Information, petitioner asserts that it is the City Prosecutor under the Quezon City Charter, who has the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses allegedly committed within the jurisdiction of Quezon City, such as petitioners case. The Court is not persuaded. Under Republic Act No. 537, the Revised Charter of Quezon City, the City Prosecutor shall have the following duties relating to the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses: SEC. 28. The City Attorney - His assistants - His duties. xxxx (g) He shall also have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of city ordinances, in the Court of First Instance and the municipal courts of the city, and shall discharge all the duties in respect to the criminal prosecutions enjoined by law upon provincial fiscals. (h) He shall cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances and have the necessary information or complaints prepared or made against the persons accused. He or any of his assistants may conduct such investigations by taking oral evidence of reputable witnesses, and for this purpose may issue subpoena, summon witnesses to appear and testify under oath before him, and the attendance or evidence of an absent or recalcitrant witness may be enforced by application to the municipal court or the Court of First Instance. No witness summoned to testify under this section shall be under obligation to give any testimony which tend to incriminate himself. Evident from the foregoing is that the City Prosecutor has the power to investigate crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the city, and which can be prosecuted before the trial courts of the said city. The charge against petitioner, however, is already within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the CTA,51 as the Information states that her gross underdeclaration resulted in an income tax deficiency of P1,395,116.24, excluding interest and penalties. The City Prosecutor does not have the authority to appear before the CTA, which is now of the same rank as the Court of Appeals. In contrast, the DOJ is the principal law agency of the Philippine government which shall be both its legal counsel and prosecution arm.52 It has the power to investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation and correction system.53 Under the DOJ is the Office of the State Prosecutor whose functions are described as follows: Sec. 8. Office of the Chief State Prosecutor. - The Office of the Chief State Prosecutor shall have the following functions:

(1) Assist the Secretary in the performance of powers and functions of the Department relative to its role as the prosecution arm of the government; (2) Implement the provisions of laws, executive orders and rules, and carry out the policies, plans, programs and projects of the Department relative to the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases; (3) Assist the Secretary in exercising supervision and control over the National Prosecution Service as constituted under P.D. No. 1275 and/or otherwise hereinafter provided; and (4) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law or assigned by the Secretary. 54 As explained by CTA First Division in its Resolution dated 11 May 2006: [T]he power or authority of the Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuo, Jr. and his deputies in the Department of Justice to prosecute cases is national in scope; and the Special Prosecutors authority to sign and file informations in court proceeds from the exercise of said persons authority to conduct preliminary investigations.55 Moreover, there is nothing in the Revised Quezon City Charter which would suggest that the power of the City Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the city is to the exclusion of the State Prosecutors. In fact, the Office of the State Prosecutor exercises control and supervision over City Prosecutors under Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987. As regards petitioners second ground in her intended Petition for Review with the CTA en banc, she asserts that she has been denied due process and equal protection of the laws when similar charges for violation of the NIRC, as amended, against Regina Encarnacion A. Velasquez (Velasquez) were dismissed by the DOJ in its Resolution dated 10 August 2005 in I.S. No. 2005-330 for the reason that Velasquezs tax liability was not yet fully determined when the charges were filed. The Court is unconvinced. First, a motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its face.56 The same cannot be said herein. The Information against petitioner appears valid on its face; and that it was filed in violation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws is not evident on the face thereof. As pointed out by the CTA First Division in its 11 May 2006 Resolution, the more appropriate recourse petitioner should have taken, given the dismissal of similar charges against Velasquez, was to appeal the Resolution dated 21 October 2005 of the Office of the State Prosecutor recommending the filing of an information against her with the DOJ Secretary.57 Second, petitioner cannot claim denial of due process when she was given the opportunity to file her affidavits and other pleadings and submit evidence before the DOJ during the preliminary investigation of her case and before the Information was filed against her. Due process is merely an opportunity to be heard. In addition, preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ is merely inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the merits. Its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether the respondent therein is probably guilty of the crime. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties evidence.

Hence, if the investigating prosecutor is already satisfied that he can reasonably determine the existence of probable cause based on the parties evidence thus presented, he may terminate the proceedings and resolve the case.58 Third, petitioner cannot likewise aver that she has been denied equal protection of the laws. The equal protection clause exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, the equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.59 Petitioner was not able to duly establish to the satisfaction of this Court that she and Velasquez were indeed similarly situated, i.e., that they committed identical acts for which they were charged with the violation of the same provisions of the NIRC; and that they presented similar arguments and evidence in their defense - yet, they were treated differently. Furthermore, that the Prosecution Attorney dismissed what were supposedly similar charges against Velasquez did not compel Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas to rule the same way on the charges against petitioner. In People v. Dela Piedra,60 this Court explained that: The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted, however, is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Where the official action purports to be in conformity to the statutory classification, an erroneous or mistaken performance of the statutory duty, although a violation of the statute, is not without more a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The unlawful administration by officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design over another not to be inferred from the action itself. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a showing of "clear and intentional discrimination." Appellant has failed to show that, in charging appellant in court, that there was a "clear and intentional discrimination" on the part of the prosecuting officials. The discretion of who to prosecute depends on the prosecutions sound assessment whether the evidence before it can justify a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense. The presumption is that the prosecuting officers regularly performed their duties, and this presumption can be overcome only by proof to the contrary, not by mere speculation.Indeed, appellant has not presented any evidence to overcome this presumption. The mere allegation that appellant, a Cebuana, was charged with the commission of a crime, while a Zamboanguea, the guilty party in appellants eyes, was not, is insufficient to support a conclusion that the prosecution officers denied appellant equal protection of the laws. There is also common sense practicality in sustaining appellants prosecution. While all persons accused of crime are to be treated on a basis of equality before the law, it does not follow that they are to be protected in the commission of crime. It would be unconscionable, for instance, to excuse a defendant guilty of murder because others have murdered with impunity. The remedy for unequal enforcement of the law in such instances does not lie in the exoneration of

the guilty at the expense of society x x x. Protection of the law will be extended to all persons equally in the pursuit of their lawful occupations, but no person has the right to demand protection of the law in the commission of a crime. Likewise, [i]f the failure of prosecutors to enforce the criminal laws as to some persons should be converted into a defense for others charged with crime, the result would be that the trial of the district attorney for nonfeasance would become an issue in the trial of many persons charged with heinous crimes and the enforcement of law would suffer a complete breakdown. (Emphasis ours.) In the case at bar, no evidence of a clear and intentional discrimination against petitioner was shown, whether by Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas in recommending the filing of Information against petitioner or by the CTA First Division in denying petitioners Motion to Quash. The only basis for petitioners claim of denial of equal protection of the laws was the dismissal of the charges against Velasquez while those against her were not. And lastly, the Resolutions of the CTA First Division dated 23 February 2006 and 11 May 2006 directly addressed the arguments raised by petitioner in her Motion to Quash and Motion for Reconsideration, respectively, and explained the reasons for the denial of both Motions. There is nothing to sustain a finding that these Resolutions were rendered capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily, as to constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In sum, the CTA en banc did not err in denying petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. Petitioner cannot file a Petition for Review with the CTA en banc to appeal the Resolution of the CTA First Division denying her Motion to Quash. The Resolution is interlocutory and, thus, unappealable. Even if her Petition for Review is to be treated as a petition for certiorari, it is dismissible for lack of merit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

EN BANC G.R. No. 189698 February 22, 2010

First, we shall resolve the procedural issues on the timeliness of the COMELECs motion for reconsideration which was filed on December 15, 2009, as well as the propriety of the motions for reconsideration-inintervention which were filed after the Court had rendered its December 1, 2009 Decision. i. Timeliness of COMELECs Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 56-A of the 1997 Rules of Court,5 in relation to Section 1, Rule 52 of the same rules,6COMELEC had a period of fifteen days from receipt of notice of the assailed Decision within which to move for its reconsideration. COMELEC received notice of the assailed Decision on December 2, 2009, hence, had until December 17, 2009 to file a Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion for Reconsideration of COMELEC was timely filed. It was filed on December 14, 2009. The corresponding Affidavit of Service (in substitution of the one originally submitted on December 14, 2009) was subsequently filed on December 17, 2009 still within the reglementary period. ii. Propriety of the Motions for Reconsideration-in-Intervention Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides: A person who has legal interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenors rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. Pursuant to the foregoing rule, this Court has held that a motion for intervention shall be entertained when the following requisites are satisfied: (1) the would-be intervenor shows that he has a substantial right or interest in the case; and (2) such right or interest cannot be adequately pursued and protected in another proceeding.7 Upon the other hand, Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides the time within which a motion for intervention may be filed, viz.: SECTION 2. Time to intervene. The motion for intervention may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties. (italics supplied) This rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule, when demanded by the higher interest of justice. Interventions have also been granted to afford indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court,8 when the petition for review of the judgment has already been submitted for decision before the Supreme Court,9 and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory.10 In Lim v. Pacquing,11 the motion for intervention filed by the Republic of the Philippines was allowed by this Court to avoid grave injustice and injury and to settle once and for all the substantive issues raised by the parties.

ELEAZAR P. QUINTO and GERINO A. TOLENTINO, JR., Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. RESOLUTION PUNO, C.J.: Upon a careful review of the case at bar, this Court resolves to grant the respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) motion for reconsideration, and the movants-intervenors motions for reconsideration-inintervention, of this Courts December 1, 2009 Decision (Decision).1 The assailed Decision granted the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. and declared as unconstitutional the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369,2 Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code3 and Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678,4mainly on the ground that they violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution and suffer from overbreadth. The assailed Decision thus paved the way for public appointive officials to continue discharging the powers, prerogatives and functions of their office notwithstanding their entry into the political arena. In support of their respective motions for reconsideration, respondent COMELEC and movants-intervenors submit the following arguments: (1) The assailed Decision is contrary to, and/or violative of, the constitutional proscription against the participation of public appointive officials and members of the military in partisan political activity; (2) The assailed provisions do not violate the equal protection clause when they accord differential treatment to elective and appointive officials, because such differential treatment rests on material and substantial distinctions and is germane to the purposes of the law; (3) The assailed provisions do not suffer from the infirmity of overbreadth; and (4) There is a compelling need to reverse the assailed Decision, as public safety and interest demand such reversal. We find the foregoing arguments meritorious. I. Procedural Issues

In fine, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court12 after consideration of the appropriate circumstances.13 We stress again that Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice.14 Its purpose is not to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. 15 We rule that, with the exception of the IBP Cebu City Chapter, all the movants-intervenors may properly intervene in the case at bar. First, the movants-intervenors have each sufficiently established a substantial right or interest in the case. As a Senator of the Republic, Senator Manuel A. Roxas has a right to challenge the December 1, 2009 Decision, which nullifies a long established law; as a voter, he has a right to intervene in a matter that involves the electoral process; and as a public officer, he has a personal interest in maintaining the trust and confidence of the public in its system of government. On the other hand, former Senator Franklin M. Drilon and Tom V. Apacible are candidates in the May 2010 elections running against appointive officials who, in view of the December 1, 2009 Decision, have not yet resigned from their posts and are not likely to resign from their posts. They stand to be directly injured by the assailed Decision, unless it is reversed. Moreover, the rights or interests of said movants-intervenors cannot be adequately pursued and protected in another proceeding. Clearly, their rights will be foreclosed if this Courts Decision attains finality and forms part of the laws of the land. With regard to the IBP Cebu City Chapter, it anchors its standing on the assertion that "this case involves the constitutionality of elections laws for this coming 2010 National Elections," and that "there is a need for it to be allowed to intervene xxx so that the voice of its members in the legal profession would also be heard before this Highest Tribunal as it resolves issues of transcendental importance."16 Prescinding from our rule and ruling case law, we find that the IBP-Cebu City Chapter has failed to present a specific and substantial interest sufficient to clothe it with standing to intervene in the case at bar. Its invoked interest is, in character, too indistinguishable to justify its intervention. We now turn to the substantive issues. II. Substantive Issues

(2) They are overbroad insofar as they prohibit the candidacy of all civil servants holding appointive posts: (a) without distinction as to whether or not they occupy high/influential positions in the government, and (b) they limit these civil servants activity regardless of whether they be partisan or nonpartisan in character, or whether they be in the national, municipal or barangay level; and (3) Congress has not shown a compelling state interest to restrict the fundamental right of these public appointive officials. We grant the motions for reconsideration. We now rule that Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, and the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of RA 9369 are not unconstitutional, and accordingly reverse our December 1, 2009 Decision. III. Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution 8678 Compliant with Law Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution 8678 is a faithful reflection of the present state of the law and jurisprudence on the matter, viz.: Incumbent Appointive Official. - Under Section 13 of RA 9369, which reiterates Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Incumbent Elected Official. Upon the other hand, pursuant to Section 14 of RA 9006 or the Fair Election Act,17which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code18 and rendered ineffective Section 11 of R.A. 8436 insofar as it considered an elected official as resigned only upon the start of the campaign period corresponding to the positions for which they are running,19 an elected official is not deemed to have resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elected office or position. In fine, an elected official may run for another position without forfeiting his seat. These laws and regulations implement Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits civil service officers and employees from engaging in any electioneering or partisan political campaign. The intention to impose a strict limitation on the participation of civil service officers and employees in partisan political campaigns is unmistakable. The exchange between Commissioner Quesada and Commissioner Foz during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission is instructive: MS. QUESADA.

The assailed Decision struck down Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act (RA) 9369, and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, on the following grounds: (1) They violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because of the differential treatment of persons holding appointive offices and those holding elective positions;

xxxx Secondly, I would like to address the issue here as provided in Section 1 (4), line 12, and I quote: "No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any partisan political activity." This is almost the same provision as in the 1973 Constitution. However, we in the government service have actually experienced how this provision has been violated by the direct or indirect partisan political activities of many government officials.

So, is the Committee willing to include certain clauses that would make this provision more strict, and which would deter its violation? MR. FOZ. Madam President, the existing Civil Service Law and the implementing rules on the matter are more than exhaustive enough to really prevent officers and employees in the public service from engaging in any form of partisan political activity. But the problem really lies in implementation because, if the head of a ministry, and even the superior officers of offices and agencies of government will themselves violate the constitutional injunction against partisan political activity, then no string of words that we may add to what is now here in this draft will really implement the constitutional intent against partisan political activity. x x x 20 (italics supplied) To emphasize its importance, this constitutional ban on civil service officers and employees is presently reflected and implemented by a number of statutes. Section 46(b)(26), Chapter 7 and Section 55, Chapter 8 both of Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 respectively provide in relevant part: Section 44. Discipline: General Provisions: xxxx (b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action: xxxx (26) Engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political activities by one holding a non-political office. xxxx Section 55. Political Activity. No officer or employee in the Civil Service including members of the Armed Forces, shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity or take part in any election except to vote nor shall he use his official authority or influence to coerce the political activity of any other person or body. Nothing herein provided shall be understood to prevent any officer or employee from expressing his views on current political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of his candidates for public office whom he supports: Provided, That public officers and employees holding political offices may take part in political and electoral activities but it shall be unlawful for them to solicit contributions from their subordinates or subject them to any of the acts involving subordinates prohibited in the Election Code. Section 261(i) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (the Omnibus Election Code) further makes intervention by civil service officers and employees in partisan political activities an election offense, viz.: SECTION 261. Prohibited Acts. The following shall be guilty of an election offense: xxxx (i) Intervention of public officers and employees. Any officer or employee in the civil service, except those holding political offices; any officer, employee, or member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or any police force, special forces, home defense forces, barangay self-defense units and all other para-military units that now

exist or which may hereafter be organized who, directly or indirectly, intervenes in any election campaign or engages in any partisan political activity, except to vote or to preserve public order, if he is a peace officer. The intent of both Congress and the framers of our Constitution to limit the participation of civil service officers and employees in partisan political activities is too plain to be mistaken. But Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution and the implementing statutes apply only to civil servants holding apolitical offices. Stated differently, the constitutional ban does not cover elected officials, notwithstanding the fact that "[t]he civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters."21 This is because elected public officials, by the very nature of their office, engage in partisan political activities almost all year round, even outside of the campaign period.22 Political partisanship is the inevitable essence of a political office, elective positions included.23 The prohibition notwithstanding, civil service officers and employees are allowed to vote, as well as express their views on political issues, or mention the names of certain candidates for public office whom they support. This is crystal clear from the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, viz.: MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, my proposed amendment is on page 2, Section 1, subparagraph 4, lines 13 and 14. On line 13, between the words "any" and "partisan," add the phrase ELECTIONEERING AND OTHER; and on line 14, delete the word "activity" and in lieu thereof substitute the word CAMPAIGN. May I be allowed to explain my proposed amendment? THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Aquino may proceed. MS. AQUINO: The draft as presented by the Committee deleted the phrase "except to vote" which was adopted in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The phrase "except to vote" was not intended as a guarantee to the right to vote but as a qualification of the general prohibition against taking part in elections. Voting is a partisan political activity. Unless it is explicitly provided for as an exception to this prohibition, it will amount to disenfranchisement. We know that suffrage, although plenary, is not an unconditional right. In other words, the Legislature can always pass a statute which can withhold from any class the right to vote in an election, if public interest so required. I would only like to reinstate the qualification by specifying the prohibited acts so that those who may want to vote but who are likewise prohibited from participating in partisan political campaigns or electioneering may vote. MR. FOZ: There is really no quarrel over this point, but please understand that there was no intention on the part of the Committee to disenfranchise any government official or employee. The elimination of the last clause of this provision was precisely intended to protect the members of the civil service in the sense that they are not being deprived of the freedom of expression in a political contest. The last phrase or clause might have given the impression that a government employee or worker has no right whatsoever in an election campaign except to vote, which is not the case. They are still free to express their views although the intention is not really to allow them to take part actively in a political campaign.24 IV.

Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, Section 13 of RA 9369, and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code Do Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause We now hold that Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, and the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of RA 9369 are not violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. i. Farias, et al. v. Executive Secretary, et al. is Controlling In truth, this Court has already ruled squarely on whether these deemed-resigned provisions challenged in the case at bar violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution in Farias, et al. v. Executive Secretary, et al. 25 In Farias, the constitutionality of Section 14 of the Fair Election Act, in relation to Sections 66 and 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, was assailed on the ground, among others, that it unduly discriminates against appointive officials. As Section 14 repealed Section 67 (i.e., the deemed-resigned provision in respect of elected officials) of the Omnibus Election Code, elected officials are no longer considered ipso facto resigned from their respective offices upon their filing of certificates of candidacy. In contrast, since Section 66 was not repealed, the limitation on appointive officials continues to be operative they are deemed resigned when they file their certificates of candidacy. The petitioners in Farias thus brought an equal protection challenge against Section 14, with the end in view of having the deemed-resigned provisions "apply equally" to both elected and appointive officials. We held, however, that the legal dichotomy created by the Legislature is a reasonable classification, as there are material and significant distinctions between the two classes of officials. Consequently, the contention that Section 14 of the Fair Election Act, in relation to Sections 66 and 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, infringed on the equal protection clause of the Constitution, failed muster. We ruled: The petitioners' contention, that the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code pertaining to elective officials gives undue benefit to such officials as against the appointive ones and violates the equal protection clause of the constitution, is tenuous. The equal protection of the law clause in the Constitution is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from the other. The Court has explained the nature of the equal protection guarantee in this manner: The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory within which it is to operate. It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive officials. The former occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by

virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Another substantial distinction between the two sets of officials is that under Section 55, Chapter 8, Title I, Subsection A. Civil Service Commission, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), appointive officials, as officers and employees in the civil service, are strictly prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity or take (sic) part in any election except to vote. Under the same provision, elective officials, or officers or employees holding political offices, are obviously expressly allowed to take part in political and electoral activities. By repealing Section 67 but retaining Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, the legislators deemed it proper to treat these two classes of officials differently with respect to the effect on their tenure in the office of the filing of the certificates of candidacy for any position other than those occupied by them. Again, it is not within the power of the Court to pass upon or look into the wisdom of this classification. Since the classification justifying Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006, i.e., elected officials vis--vis appointive officials, is anchored upon material and significant distinctions and all the persons belonging under the same classification are similarly treated, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is, thus, not infringed.26 The case at bar is a crass attempt to resurrect a dead issue. The miracle is that our assailed Decision gave it new life. We ought to be guided by the doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere. This doctrine, which is really "adherence to precedents," mandates that once a case has been decided one way, then another case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided in the same manner.27 This doctrine is one of policy grounded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability of judicial decisions. As the renowned jurist Benjamin Cardozo stated in his treatise The Nature of the Judicial Process: It will not do to decide the same question one way between one set of litigants and the opposite way between another. "If a group of cases involves the same point, the parties expect the same decision. It would be a gross injustice to decide alternate cases on opposite principles. If a case was decided against me yesterday when I was a defendant, I shall look for the same judgment today if I am plaintiff. To decide differently would raise a feeling of resentment and wrong in my breast; it would be an infringement, material and moral, of my rights." Adherence to precedent must then be the rule rather than the exception if litigants are to have faith in the evenhanded administration of justice in the courts.28 Our Farias ruling on the equal protection implications of the deemed-resigned provisions cannot be minimalized as mere obiter dictum. It is trite to state that an adjudication on any point within the issues presented by the case cannot be considered as obiter dictum.29 This rule applies to all pertinent questions that are presented and resolved in the regular course of the consideration of the case and lead up to the final conclusion, and to any statement as to the matter on which the decision is predicated. 30 For that reason, a point expressly decided does not lose its value as a precedent because the disposition of the case is, or might have been, made on some other ground; or even though, by reason of other points in the case, the result reached might have been the same if the court had held, on the particular point, otherwise than it did. 31 As we held in Villanueva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, et al.:32 A decision which the case could have turned on is not regarded as obiter dictum merely because, owing to the disposal of the contention, it was necessary to consider another question, nor can an additional reason in a decision, brought forward after the case has been disposed of on one ground, be regarded as dicta. So, also,

where a case presents two (2) or more points, any one of which is sufficient to determine the ultimate issue, but the court actually decides all such points, the case as an authoritative precedent as to every point decided, and none of such points can be regarded as having the status of a dictum, and one point should not be denied authority merely because another point was more dwelt on and more fully argued and considered, nor does a decision on one proposition make statements of the court regarding other propositions dicta. 33 (italics supplied) ii. Classification Germane to the Purposes of the Law The Farias ruling on the equal protection challenge stands on solid ground even if reexamined. To start with, the equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction.34 What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification.35 The test developed by jurisprudence here and yonder is that of reasonableness,36 which has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purposes of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.37 Our assailed Decision readily acknowledged that these deemed-resigned provisions satisfy the first, third and fourth requisites of reasonableness. It, however, proffers the dubious conclusion that the differential treatment of appointive officials vis--vis elected officials is not germane to the purpose of the law, because "whether one holds an appointive office or an elective one, the evils sought to be prevented by the measure remain," viz.: For example, the Executive Secretary, or any Member of the Cabinet for that matter, could wield the same influence as the Vice-President who at the same time is appointed to a Cabinet post (in the recent past, elected Vice-Presidents were appointed to take charge of national housing, social welfare development, interior and local government, and foreign affairs). With the fact that they both head executive offices, there is no valid justification to treat them differently when both file their [Certificates of Candidacy] for the elections. Under the present state of our law, the Vice-President, in the example, running this time, let us say, for President, retains his position during the entire election period and can still use the resources of his office to support his campaign.38 Sad to state, this conclusion conveniently ignores the long-standing rule that to remedy an injustice, the Legislature need not address every manifestation of the evil at once; it may proceed "one step at a time." 39 In addressing a societal concern, it must invariably draw lines and make choices, thereby creating some inequity as to those included or excluded.40 Nevertheless, as long as "the bounds of reasonable choice" are not exceeded, the courts must defer to the legislative judgment.41 We may not strike down a law merely because the legislative aim would have been more fully achieved by expanding the class.42 Stated differently, the fact that a legislative classification, by itself, is underinclusive will not render it unconstitutionally arbitrary or invidious.43 There is no constitutional requirement that regulation must reach each and every class to which it might be applied;44 that the Legislature must be held rigidly to the choice of regulating all or none.

Thus, any person who poses an equal protection challenge must convincingly show that the law creates a classification that is "palpably arbitrary or capricious."45 He must refute all possible rational bases for the differing treatment, whether or not the Legislature cited those bases as reasons for the enactment, 46 such that the constitutionality of the law must be sustained even if the reasonableness of the classification is "fairly debatable."47 In the case at bar, the petitioners failed and in fact did not even attempt to discharge this heavy burden. Our assailed Decision was likewise silent as a sphinx on this point even while we submitted the following thesis: ... [I]t is not sufficient grounds for invalidation that we may find that the statutes distinction is unfair, underinclusive, unwise, or not the best solution from a public-policy standpoint; rather, we must find that there is no reasonably rational reason for the differing treatment.48 In the instant case, is there a rational justification for excluding elected officials from the operation of the deemed resigned provisions? I submit that there is. An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest expression of the sovereign power of the people.49 It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote.50 Considering that elected officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite term, it may justifiably be said that they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost respect for the mandate of the sovereign will. In other words, complete deference is accorded to the will of the electorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for which they were elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are concerned. The dichotomized treatment of appointive and elective officials is therefore germane to the purposes of the law. For the law was made not merely to preserve the integrity, efficiency, and discipline of the public service; the Legislature, whose wisdom is outside the rubric of judicial scrutiny, also thought it wise to balance this with the competing, yet equally compelling, interest of deferring to the sovereign will.51 (emphasis in the original) In fine, the assailed Decision would have us "equalize the playing field" by invalidating provisions of law that seek to restrain the evils from running riot. Under the pretext of equal protection, it would favor a situation in which the evils are unconfined and vagrant, existing at the behest of both appointive and elected officials, over another in which a significant portion thereof is contained. The absurdity of that position is self-evident, to say the least. The concern, voiced by our esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Nachura, in his dissent, that elected officials (vis-vis appointive officials) have greater political clout over the electorate, is indeed a matter worth exploring but not by this Court. Suffice it to say that the remedy lies with the Legislature. It is the Legislature that is given the authority, under our constitutional system, to balance competing interests and thereafter make policy choices responsive to the exigencies of the times. It is certainly within the Legislatures power to make the deemedresigned provisions applicable to elected officials, should it later decide that the evils sought to be prevented are of such frequency and magnitude as to tilt the balance in favor of expanding the class. This Court cannot and should not arrogate unto itself the power to ascertain and impose on the people the best state of affairs from a public policy standpoint. iii. Mancuso v. Taft Has Been Overruled Finding no Philippine jurisprudence to prop up its equal protection ruling, our assailed Decision adverted to, and extensively cited, Mancuso v. Taft.52 This was a decision of the First Circuit of the United States Court of

Appeals promulgated in March 1973, which struck down as unconstitutional a similar statutory provision. Pathetically, our assailed Decision, relying on Mancuso, claimed: (1) The right to run for public office is "inextricably linked" with two fundamental freedoms freedom of expression and association; (2) Any legislative classification that significantly burdens this fundamental right must be subjected to strict equal protection review; and (3) While the state has a compelling interest in maintaining the honesty and impartiality of its public work force, the deemed-resigned provisions pursue their objective in a far too heavy-handed manner as to render them unconstitutional. It then concluded with the exhortation that since "the Americans, from whom we copied the provision in question, had already stricken down a similar measure for being unconstitutional[,] it is high-time that we, too, should follow suit." Our assailed Decisions reliance on Mancuso is completely misplaced. We cannot blink away the fact that the United States Supreme Court effectively overruled Mancuso three months after its promulgation by the United States Court of Appeals. In United States Civil Service Commission, et al. v. National Association of Letter Carriers AFL-CIO, et al.53 and Broadrick, et al. v. State of Oklahoma, et al.,54 the United States Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether statutory provisions prohibiting federal55 and state56 employees from taking an active part in political management or in political campaigns were unconstitutional as to warrant facial invalidation. Violation of these provisions results in dismissal from employment and possible criminal sanctions. The Court declared these provisions compliant with the equal protection clause. It held that (i) in regulating the speech of its employees, the state as employer has interests that differ significantly from those it possesses in regulating the speech of the citizenry in general; (ii) the courts must therefore balance the legitimate interest of employee free expression against the interests of the employer in promoting efficiency of public services; (iii) if the employees expression interferes with the maintenance of efficient and regularly functioning services, the limitation on speech is not unconstitutional; and (iv) the Legislature is to be given some flexibility or latitude in ascertaining which positions are to be covered by any statutory restrictions.57 Therefore, insofar as government employees are concerned, the correct standard of review is an interest-balancing approach, a means-end scrutiny that examines the closeness of fit between the governmental interests and the prohibitions in question.58 Letter Carriers elucidated on these principles, as follows: Until now, the judgment of Congress, the Executive, and the country appears to have been that partisan political activities by federal employees must be limited if the Government is to operate effectively and fairly, elections are to play their proper part in representative government, and employees themselves are to be sufficiently free from improper influences. The restrictions so far imposed on federal employees are not aimed at particular parties, groups, or points of view, but apply equally to all partisan activities of the type described. They discriminate against no racial, ethnic, or religious minorities. Nor do they seek to control political opinions or beliefs, or to interfere with or influence anyone's vote at the polls. But, as the Court held in Pickering v. Board of Education,59 the government has an interest in regulating the conduct and the speech of its employees that differ(s) significantly from those it possesses in connection with

regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general. The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the (employee), as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the (government), as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. Although Congress is free to strike a different balance than it has, if it so chooses, we think the balance it has so far struck is sustainable by the obviously important interests sought to be served by the limitations on partisan political activities now contained in the Hatch Act. It seems fundamental in the first place that employees in the Executive Branch of the Government, or those working for any of its agencies, should administer the law in accordance with the will of Congress, rather than in accordance with their own or the will of a political party. They are expected to enforce the law and execute the programs of the Government without bias or favoritism for or against any political party or group or the members thereof. A major thesis of the Hatch Act is that to serve this great end of Government-the impartial execution of the laws-it is essential that federal employees, for example, not take formal positions in political parties, not undertake to play substantial roles in partisan political campaigns, and not run for office on partisan political tickets. Forbidding activities like these will reduce the hazards to fair and effective government. There is another consideration in this judgment: it is not only important that the Government and its employees in fact avoid practicing political justice, but it is also critical that they appear to the public to be avoiding it, if confidence in the system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent. Another major concern of the restriction against partisan activities by federal employees was perhaps the immediate occasion for enactment of the Hatch Act in 1939. That was the conviction that the rapidly expanding Government work force should not be employed to build a powerful, invincible, and perhaps corrupt political machine. The experience of the 1936 and 1938 campaigns convinced Congress that these dangers were sufficiently real that substantial barriers should be raised against the party in power-or the party out of power, for that matter-using the thousands or hundreds of thousands of federal employees, paid for at public expense, to man its political structure and political campaigns. A related concern, and this remains as important as any other, was to further serve the goal that employment and advancement in the Government service not depend on political performance, and at the same time to make sure that Government employees would be free from pressure and from express or tacit invitation to vote in a certain way or perform political chores in order to curry favor with their superiors rather than to act out their own beliefs. It may be urged that prohibitions against coercion are sufficient protection; but for many years the joint judgment of the Executive and Congress has been that to protect the rights of federal employees with respect to their jobs and their political acts and beliefs it is not enough merely to forbid one employee to attempt to influence or coerce another. For example, at the hearings in 1972 on proposed legislation for liberalizing the prohibition against political activity, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission stated that the prohibitions against active participation in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns constitute the most significant safeguards against coercion . . .. Perhaps Congress at some time will come to a different view of the realities of political life and Government service; but that is its current view of the matter, and we are not now in any position to dispute it. Nor, in our view, does the Constitution forbid it. Neither the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute in any event. 60 x x x xxxx As we see it, our task is not to destroy the Act if we can, but to construe it, if consistent with the will of Congress, so as to comport with constitutional limitations. (italics supplied)

Broadrick likewise definitively stated that the assailed statutory provision is constitutionally permissible, viz.: Appellants do not question Oklahoma's right to place even-handed restrictions on the partisan political conduct of state employees. Appellants freely concede that such restrictions serve valid and important state interests, particularly with respect to attracting greater numbers of qualified people by insuring their job security, free from the vicissitudes of the elective process, and by protecting them from political extortion. Rather, appellants maintain that however permissible, even commendable, the goals of s 818 may be, its language is unconstitutionally vague and its prohibitions too broad in their sweep, failing to distinguish between conduct that may be proscribed and conduct that must be permitted. For these and other reasons, appellants assert that the sixth and seventh paragraphs of s 818 are void in toto and cannot be enforced against them or anyone else. We have held today that the Hatch Act is not impermissibly vague.61 We have little doubt that s 818 is similarly not so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.62 Whatever other problems there are with s 818, it is all but frivolous to suggest that the section fails to give adequate warning of what activities it proscribes or fails to set out explicit standards' for those who must apply it. In the plainest language, it prohibits any state classified employee from being an officer or member of a partisan political club or a candidate for any paid public office. It forbids solicitation of contributions for any political organization, candidacy or other political purpose and taking part in the management or affairs of any political party or in any political campaign. Words inevitably contain germs of uncertainty and, as with the Hatch Act, there may be disputes over the meaning of such terms in s 818 as partisan, or take part in, or affairs of political parties. But what was said in Letter Carriers, is applicable here: there are limitations in the English language with respect to being both specific and manageably brief, and it seems to us that although the prohibitions may not satisfy those intent on finding fault at any cost, they are set out in terms that the ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently understand and comply with, without sacrifice to the public interest.' x x x xxxx [Appellants] nevertheless maintain that the statute is overbroad and purports to reach protected, as well as unprotected conduct, and must therefore be struck down on its face and held to be incapable of any constitutional application. We do not believe that the overbreadth doctrine may appropriately be invoked in this manner here. xxxx The consequence of our departure from traditional rules of standing in the First Amendment area is that any enforcement of a statute thus placed at issue is totally forbidden until and unless a limiting construction or partial invalidation so narrows it as to remove the seeming threat or deterrence to constitutionally protected expression. Application of the overbreadth doctrine in this manner is, manifestly, strong medicine. It has been employed by the Court sparingly and only as a last resort. x x x x x x But the plain import of our cases is, at the very least, that facial over-breadth adjudication is an exception to our traditional rules of practice and that its function, a limited one at the outset, attenuates as the otherwise unprotected behavior that it forbids the State to sanction moves from pure speech toward conduct and that conduct-even if expressive-falls within the scope of otherwise valid criminal laws that reflect legitimate state interests in maintaining comprehensive controls over harmful, constitutionally unprotected conduct. Although such laws, if too broadly worded, may deter protected speech to some unknown extent, there comes a point where that effect-at best a prediction-cannot, with confidence, justify invalidating a statute on its face and so prohibiting a State from enforcing the statute against conduct that is admittedly within its power to proscribe.

To put the matter another way, particularly where conduct and not merely speech is involved, we believe that the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep. It is our view that s 818 is not substantially overbroad and that whatever overbreadth may exist should be cured through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which its sanctions, assertedly, may not be applied. Unlike ordinary breach-of-the peace statutes or other broad regulatory acts, s 818 is directed, by its terms, at political expression which if engaged in by private persons would plainly be protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. But at the same time, s 818 is not a censorial statute, directed at particular groups or viewpoints. The statute, rather, seeks to regulate political activity in an even-handed and neutral manner. As indicted, such statutes have in the past been subject to a less exacting overbreadth scrutiny. Moreover, the fact remains that s 818 regulates a substantial spectrum of conduct that is as manifestly subject to state regulation as the public peace or criminal trespass. This much was established in United Public Workers v. Mitchell, and has been unhesitatingly reaffirmed today in Letter Carriers. Under the decision in Letter Carriers, there is no question that s 818 is valid at least insofar as it forbids classified employees from: soliciting contributions for partisan candidates, political parties, or other partisan political purposes; becoming members of national, state, or local committees of political parties, or officers or committee members in partisan political clubs, or candidates for any paid public office; taking part in the management or affairs of any political party's partisan political campaign; serving as delegates or alternates to caucuses or conventions of political parties; addressing or taking an active part in partisan political rallies or meetings; soliciting votes or assisting voters at the polls or helping in a partisan effort to get voters to the polls; participating in the distribution of partisan campaign literature; initiating or circulating partisan nominating petitions; or riding in caravans for any political party or partisan political candidate. x x x It may be that such restrictions are impermissible and that s 818 may be susceptible of some other improper applications. But, as presently construed, we do not believe that s 818 must be discarded in toto because some persons arguably protected conduct may or may not be caught or chilled by the statute. Section 818 is not substantially overbroad and it not, therefore, unconstitutional on its face. (italics supplied) It bears stressing that, in his Dissenting Opinion, Mr. Justice Nachura does not deny the principles enunciated in Letter Carriers and Broadrick. He would hold, nonetheless, that these cases cannot be interpreted to mean a reversal of Mancuso, since they "pertain to different types of laws and were decided based on a different set of facts," viz.: In Letter Carriers, the plaintiffs alleged that the Civil Service Commission was enforcing, or threatening to enforce, the Hatch Acts prohibition against "active participation in political management or political campaigns." The plaintiffs desired to campaign for candidates for public office, to encourage and get federal employees to run for state and local offices, to participate as delegates in party conventions, and to hold office in a political club. In Broadrick, the appellants sought the invalidation for being vague and overbroad a provision in the (sic) Oklahomas Merit System of Personnel Administration Act restricting the political activities of the States classified civil servants, in much the same manner as the Hatch Act proscribed partisan political activities of federal employees. Prior to the commencement of the action, the appellants actively participated in the 1970 reelection campaign of their superior, and were administratively charged for asking other Corporation Commission employees to do campaign work or to give referrals to persons who might help in the campaign, for soliciting money for the campaign, and for receiving and distributing campaign posters in bulk.

Mancuso, on the other hand, involves, as aforesaid, an automatic resignation provision. Kenneth Mancuso, a full time police officer and classified civil service employee of the City of Cranston, filed as a candidate for nomination as representative to the Rhode Island General Assembly. The Mayor of Cranston then began the process of enforcing the resign-to-run provision of the City Home Rule Charter. Clearly, as the above-cited US cases pertain to different types of laws and were decided based on a different set of facts, Letter Carriers and Broadrick cannot be interpreted to mean a reversal of Mancuso. x x x (italics in the original) We hold, however, that his position is belied by a plain reading of these cases. Contrary to his claim, Letter Carriers, Broadrick and Mancuso all concerned the constitutionality of resign-to-run laws, viz.: (1) Mancuso involved a civil service employee who filed as a candidate for nomination as representative to the Rhode Island General Assembly. He assailed the constitutionality of 14.09(c) of the City Home Rule Charter, which prohibits "continuing in the classified service of the city after becoming a candidate for nomination or election to any public office." (2) Letter Carriers involved plaintiffs who alleged that the Civil Service Commission was enforcing, or threatening to enforce, the Hatch Acts prohibition against "active participation in political management or political campaigns"63 with respect to certain defined activities in which they desired to engage. The plaintiffs relevant to this discussion are: (a) The National Association of Letter Carriers, which alleged that its members were desirous of, among others, running in local elections for offices such as school board member, city council member or mayor; (b) Plaintiff Gee, who alleged that he desired to, but did not, file as a candidate for the office of Borough Councilman in his local community for fear that his participation in a partisan election would endanger his job; and (c) Plaintiff Myers, who alleged that he desired to run as a Republican candidate in the 1971 partisan election for the mayor of West Lafayette, Indiana, and that he would do so except for fear of losing his job by reason of violation of the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act defines "active participation in political management or political campaigns" by cross-referring to the rules made by the Civil Service Commission. The rule pertinent to our inquiry states: 30. Candidacy for local office: Candidacy for a nomination or for election to any National, State, county, or municipal office is not permissible. The prohibition against political activity extends not merely to formal announcement of candidacy but also to the preliminaries leading to such announcement and to canvassing or soliciting support or doing or permitting to be done any act in furtherance of candidacy. The fact that candidacy, is merely passive is immaterial; if an employee acquiesces in the efforts of friends in furtherance of such candidacy such acquiescence constitutes an infraction of the prohibitions against political activity. (italics supplied) Section 9(b) requires the immediate removal of violators and forbids the use of appropriated funds thereafter to pay compensation to these persons.64

(3) Broadrick was a class action brought by certain Oklahoma state employees seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of two sub-paragraphs of Section 818 of Oklahomas Merit System of Personnel Administration Act. Section 818 (7), the paragraph relevant to this discussion, states that "[n]o employee in the classified service shall be a candidate for nomination or election to any paid public office" Violation of Section 818 results in dismissal from employment, possible criminal sanctions and limited state employment ineligibility. Consequently, it cannot be denied that Letter Carriers and Broadrick effectively overruled Mancuso. By no stretch of the imagination could Mancuso still be held operative, as Letter Carriers and Broadrick (i) concerned virtually identical resign-to-run laws, and (ii) were decided by a superior court, the United States Supreme Court. It was thus not surprising for the First Circuit Court of Appeals the same court that decided Mancuso to hold categorically and emphatically in Magill v. Lynch65 that Mancuso is no longer good law. As we priorly explained: Magill involved Pawtucket, Rhode Island firemen who ran for city office in 1975. Pawtuckets "Little Hatch Act" prohibits city employees from engaging in a broad range of political activities. Becoming a candidate for any city office is specifically proscribed,66 the violation being punished by removal from office or immediate dismissal. The firemen brought an action against the city officials on the ground that that the provision of the city charter was unconstitutional. However, the court, fully cognizant of Letter Carriers and Broadrick, took the position that Mancuso had since lost considerable vitality. It observed that the view that political candidacy was a fundamental interest which could be infringed upon only if less restrictive alternatives were not available, was a position which was no longer viable, since the Supreme Court (finding that the governments interest in regulating both the conduct and speech of its employees differed significantly from its interest in regulating those of the citizenry in general) had given little weight to the argument that prohibitions against the coercion of government employees were a less drastic means to the same end, deferring to the judgment of Congress, and applying a "balancing" test to determine whether limits on political activity by public employees substantially served government interests which were "important" enough to outweigh the employees First Amendment rights.67 It must be noted that the Court of Appeals ruled in this manner even though the election in Magill was characterized as nonpartisan, as it was reasonable for the city to fear, under the circumstances of that case, that politically active bureaucrats might use their official power to help political friends and hurt political foes. Ruled the court: The question before us is whether Pawtucket's charter provision, which bars a city employee's candidacy in even a nonpartisan city election, is constitutional. The issue compels us to extrapolate two recent Supreme Court decisions, Civil Service Comm'n v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers and Broadrick v. Oklahoma. Both dealt with laws barring civil servants from partisan political activity. Letter Carriers reaffirmed United Public Workers v. Mitchell, upholding the constitutionality of the Hatch Act as to federal employees. Broadrick sustained Oklahoma's "Little Hatch Act" against constitutional attack, limiting its holding to Oklahoma's construction that the Act barred only activity in partisan politics. In Mancuso v. Taft, we assumed that proscriptions of candidacy in nonpartisan elections would not be constitutional. Letter Carriers and Broadrick compel new analysis. xxxx What we are obligated to do in this case, as the district court recognized, is to apply the Courts interest balancing approach to the kind of nonpartisan election revealed in this record. We believe that the district court found more residual vigor in our opinion in Mancuso v. Taft than remains after Letter Carriers. We have particular reference to our view that political candidacy was a fundamental interest which could be trenched

upon only if less restrictive alternatives were not available. While this approach may still be viable for citizens who are not government employees, the Court in Letter Carriers recognized that the government's interest in regulating both the conduct and speech of its employees differs significantly from its interest in regulating those of the citizenry in general. Not only was United Public Workers v. Mitchell "unhesitatingly" reaffirmed, but the Court gave little weight to the argument that prohibitions against the coercion of government employees were a less drastic means to the same end, deferring to the judgment of the Congress. We cannot be more precise than the Third Circuit in characterizing the Court's approach as "some sort of 'balancing' process". 68 It appears that the government may place limits on campaigning by public employees if the limits substantially serve government interests that are "important" enough to outweigh the employees' First Amendment rights. x x x (italics supplied) Upholding thus the constitutionality of the law in question, the Magill court detailed the major governmental interests discussed in Letter Carriers and applied them to the Pawtucket provision as follows: In Letter Carriers[,] the first interest identified by the Court was that of an efficient government, faithful to the Congress rather than to party. The district court discounted this interest, reasoning that candidates in a local election would not likely be committed to a state or national platform. This observation undoubtedly has substance insofar as allegiance to broad policy positions is concerned. But a different kind of possible political intrusion into efficient administration could be thought to threaten municipal government: not into broad policy decisions, but into the particulars of administration favoritism in minute decisions affecting welfare, tax assessments, municipal contracts and purchasing, hiring, zoning, licensing, and inspections. Just as the Court in Letter Carriers identified a second governmental interest in the avoidance of the appearance of "political justice" as to policy, so there is an equivalent interest in avoiding the appearance of political preferment in privileges, concessions, and benefits. The appearance (or reality) of favoritism that the charter's authors evidently feared is not exorcised by the nonpartisan character of the formal election process. Where, as here, party support is a key to successful campaigning, and party rivalry is the norm, the city might reasonably fear that politically active bureaucrats would use their official power to help political friends and hurt political foes. This is not to say that the city's interest in visibly fair and effective administration necessarily justifies a blanket prohibition of all employee campaigning; if parties are not heavily involved in a campaign, the danger of favoritism is less, for neither friend nor foe is as easily identified. A second major governmental interest identified in Letter Carriers was avoiding the danger of a powerful political machine. The Court had in mind the large and growing federal bureaucracy and its partisan potential. The district court felt this was only a minor threat since parties had no control over nominations. But in fact candidates sought party endorsements, and party endorsements proved to be highly effective both in determining who would emerge from the primary election and who would be elected in the final election. Under the prevailing customs, known party affiliation and support were highly significant factors in Pawtucket elections. The charter's authors might reasonably have feared that a politically active public work force would give the incumbent party, and the incumbent workers, an unbreakable grasp on the reins of power. In municipal elections especially, the small size of the electorate and the limited powers of local government may inhibit the growth of interest groups powerful enough to outbalance the weight of a partisan work force. Even when nonpartisan issues and candidacies are at stake, isolated government employees may seek to influence voters or their co-workers improperly; but a more real danger is that a central party structure will mass the scattered powers of government workers behind a single party platform or slate. Occasional misuse of the public trust to pursue private political ends is tolerable, especially because the political views of individual employees may balance each other out. But party discipline eliminates this diversity and tends to make abuse systematic. Instead of a handful of employees pressured into advancing their immediate superior's political ambitions, the entire government work force may be expected to turn out for many candidates in every election. In Pawtucket, where parties are a continuing presence in political campaigns, a carefully orchestrated use of city employees in

support of the incumbent party's candidates is possible. The danger is scarcely lessened by the openness of Pawtucket's nominating procedure or the lack of party labels on its ballots. The third area of proper governmental interest in Letter Carriers was ensuring that employees achieve advancement on their merits and that they be free from both coercion and the prospect of favor from political activity. The district court did not address this factor, but looked only to the possibility of a civil servant using his position to influence voters, and held this to be no more of a threat than in the most nonpartisan of elections. But we think that the possibility of coercion of employees by superiors remains as strong a factor in municipal elections as it was in Letter Carriers. Once again, it is the systematic and coordinated exploitation of public servants for political ends that a legislature is most likely to see as the primary threat of employees' rights. Political oppression of public employees will be rare in an entirely nonpartisan system. Some superiors may be inclined to ride herd on the politics of their employees even in a nonpartisan context, but without party officials looking over their shoulders most supervisors will prefer to let employees go their own ways. In short, the government may constitutionally restrict its employees' participation in nominally nonpartisan elections if political parties play a large role in the campaigns. In the absence of substantial party involvement, on the other hand, the interests identified by the Letter Carriers Court lose much of their force. While the employees' First Amendment rights would normally outbalance these diminished interests, we do not suggest that they would always do so. Even when parties are absent, many employee campaigns might be thought to endanger at least one strong public interest, an interest that looms larger in the context of municipal elections than it does in the national elections considered in Letter Carriers. The city could reasonably fear the prospect of a subordinate running directly against his superior or running for a position that confers great power over his superior. An employee of a federal agency who seeks a Congressional seat poses less of a direct challenge to the command and discipline of his agency than a fireman or policeman who runs for mayor or city council. The possibilities of internal discussion, cliques, and political bargaining, should an employee gather substantial political support, are considerable. (citations omitted) The court, however, remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in respect of the petitioners overbreadth charge. Noting that invalidating a statute for being overbroad is "not to be taken lightly, much less to be taken in the dark," the court held: The governing case is Broadrick, which introduced the doctrine of "substantial" overbreadth in a closely analogous case. Under Broadrick, when one who challenges a law has engaged in constitutionally unprotected conduct (rather than unprotected speech) and when the challenged law is aimed at unprotected conduct, "the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." Two major uncertainties attend the doctrine: how to distinguish speech from conduct, and how to define "substantial" overbreadth. We are spared the first inquiry by Broadrick itself. The plaintiffs in that case had solicited support for a candidate, and they were subject to discipline under a law proscribing a wide range of activities, including soliciting contributions for political candidates and becoming a candidate. The Court found that this combination required a substantial overbreadth approach. The facts of this case are so similar that we may reach the same result without worrying unduly about the sometimes opaque distinction between speech and conduct. The second difficulty is not so easily disposed of. Broadrick found no substantial overbreadth in a statute restricting partisan campaigning. Pawtucket has gone further, banning participation in nonpartisan campaigns as well. Measuring the substantiality of a statute's overbreadth apparently requires, inter alia, a rough balancing of the number of valid applications compared to the number of potentially invalid applications. Some sensitivity to reality is needed; an invalid application that is far-fetched does not deserve as much weight as one that is probable. The question is a matter of degree; it will never be possible to say that a ratio of one invalid to nine

valid applications makes a law substantially overbroad. Still, an overbreadth challenger has a duty to provide the court with some idea of the number of potentially invalid applications the statute permits. Often, simply reading the statute in the light of common experience or litigated cases will suggest a number of probable invalid applications. But this case is different. Whether the statute is overbroad depends in large part on the number of elections that are insulated from party rivalry yet closed to Pawtucket employees. For all the record shows, every one of the city, state, or federal elections in Pawtucket is actively contested by political parties. Certainly the record suggests that parties play a major role even in campaigns that often are entirely nonpartisan in other cities. School committee candidates, for example, are endorsed by the local Democratic committee. The state of the record does not permit us to find overbreadth; indeed such a step is not to be taken lightly, much less to be taken in the dark. On the other hand, the entire focus below, in the short period before the election was held, was on the constitutionality of the statute as applied. Plaintiffs may very well feel that further efforts are not justified, but they should be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate that the charter forecloses access to a significant number of offices, the candidacy for which by municipal employees would not pose the possible threats to government efficiency and integrity which Letter Carriers, as we have interpreted it, deems significant. Accordingly, we remand for consideration of plaintiffs' overbreadth claim. (italics supplied, citations omitted) Clearly, Letter Carriers, Broadrick, and Magill demonstrate beyond doubt that Mancuso v. Taft, heavily relied upon by the ponencia, has effectively been overruled.69 As it is no longer good law, the ponencias exhortation that "[since] the Americans, from whom we copied the provision in question, had already stricken down a similar measure for being unconstitutional[,] it is high-time that we, too, should follow suit" is misplaced and unwarranted.70 Accordingly, our assailed Decisions submission that the right to run for public office is "inextricably linked" with two fundamental freedoms those of expression and association lies on barren ground. American case law has in fact never recognized a fundamental right to express ones political views through candidacy, 71 as to invoke a rigorous standard of review.72 Bart v. Telford73 pointedly stated that "[t]he First Amendment does not in terms confer a right to run for public office, and this court has held that it does not do so by implication either." Thus, ones interest in seeking office, by itself, is not entitled to constitutional protection.74 Moreover, one cannot bring ones action under the rubric of freedom of association, absent any allegation that, by running for an elective position, one is advancing the political ideas of a particular set of voters.75 Prescinding from these premises, it is crystal clear that the provisions challenged in the case at bar, are not violative of the equal protection clause. The deemed-resigned provisions substantially serve governmental interests (i.e., (i) efficient civil service faithful to the government and the people rather than to party; (ii) avoidance of the appearance of "political justice" as to policy; (iii) avoidance of the danger of a powerful political machine; and (iv) ensuring that employees achieve advancement on their merits and that they be free from both coercion and the prospect of favor from political activity). These are interests that are important enough to outweigh the non-fundamental right of appointive officials and employees to seek elective office.1avvphi1 En passant, we find it quite ironic that Mr. Justice Nachura cites Clements v. Fashing76 and Morial, et al. v. Judiciary Commission of the State of Louisiana, et al.77 to buttress his dissent. Maintaining that resign-to-run provisions are valid only when made applicable to specified officials, he explains: U.S. courts, in subsequent cases, sustained the constitutionality of resign-to-run provisions when applied to specified or particular officials, as distinguished from all others,78 under a classification that is germane to the purposes of the law. These resign-to-run legislations were not expressed in a general and sweeping provision, and thus did not violate the test of being germane to the purpose of the law, the second requisite for a valid

classification. Directed, as they were, to particular officials, they were not overly encompassing as to be overbroad. (emphasis in the original) This reading is a regrettable misrepresentation of Clements and Morial. The resign-to-run provisions in these cases were upheld not because they referred to specified or particular officials (vis--vis a general class); the questioned provisions were found valid precisely because the Court deferred to legislative judgment and found that a regulation is not devoid of a rational predicate simply because it happens to be incomplete. In fact, the equal protection challenge in Clements revolved around the claim that the State of Texas failed to explain why some public officials are subject to the resign-to-run provisions, while others are not. Ruled the United States Supreme Court: Article XVI, 65, of the Texas Constitution provides that the holders of certain offices automatically resign their positions if they become candidates for any other elected office, unless the unexpired portion of the current term is one year or less. The burdens that 65 imposes on candidacy are even less substantial than those imposed by 19. The two provisions, of course, serve essentially the same state interests. The District Court found 65 deficient, however, not because of the nature or extent of the provision's restriction on candidacy, but because of the manner in which the offices are classified. According to the District Court, the classification system cannot survive equal protection scrutiny, because Texas has failed to explain sufficiently why some elected public officials are subject to 65 and why others are not. As with the case of 19, we conclude that 65 survives a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause unless appellees can show that there is no rational predicate to the classification scheme. The history behind 65 shows that it may be upheld consistent with the "one step at a time" approach that this Court has undertaken with regard to state regulation not subject to more vigorous scrutiny than that sanctioned by the traditional principles. Section 65 was enacted in 1954 as a transitional provision applying only to the 1954 election. Section 65 extended the terms of those offices enumerated in the provision from two to four years. The provision also staggered the terms of other offices so that at least some county and local offices would be contested at each election. The automatic resignation proviso to 65 was not added until 1958. In that year, a similar automatic resignation provision was added in Art. XI, 11, which applies to officeholders in home rule cities who serve terms longer than two years. Section 11 allows home rule cities the option of extending the terms of municipal offices from two to up to four years. Thus, the automatic resignation provision in Texas is a creature of the State's electoral reforms of 1958. That the State did not go further in applying the automatic resignation provision to those officeholders whose terms were not extended by 11 or 65, absent an invidious purpose, is not the sort of malfunctioning of the State's lawmaking process forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. A regulation is not devoid of a rational predicate simply because it happens to be incomplete. The Equal Protection Clause does not forbid Texas to restrict one elected officeholder's candidacy for another elected office unless and until it places similar restrictions on other officeholders. The provision's language and its history belie any notion that 65 serves the invidious purpose of denying access to the political process to identifiable classes of potential candidates. (citations omitted and italics supplied) Furthermore, it is unfortunate that the dissenters took the Morial line that "there is no blanket approval of restrictions on the right of public employees to become candidates for public office" out of context. A correct reading of that line readily shows that the Court only meant to confine its ruling to the facts of that case, as each equal protection challenge would necessarily have to involve weighing governmental interests vis--vis the specific prohibition assailed. The Court held:

The interests of public employees in free expression and political association are unquestionably entitled to the protection of the first and fourteenth amendments. Nothing in today's decision should be taken to imply that public employees may be prohibited from expressing their private views on controversial topics in a manner that does not interfere with the proper performance of their public duties. In today's decision, there is no blanket approval of restrictions on the right of public employees to become candidates for public office. Nor do we approve any general restrictions on the political and civil rights of judges in particular. Our holding is necessarily narrowed by the methodology employed to reach it. A requirement that a state judge resign his office prior to becoming a candidate for non-judicial office bears a reasonably necessary relation to the achievement of the state's interest in preventing the actuality or appearance of judicial impropriety. Such a requirement offends neither the first amendment's guarantees of free expression and association nor the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. (italics supplied) Indeed, the Morial court even quoted Broadrick and stated that: In any event, the legislature must have some leeway in determining which of its employment positions require restrictions on partisan political activities and which may be left unregulated. And a State can hardly be faulted for attempting to limit the positions upon which such restrictions are placed. (citations omitted) V.

Such a myopic view obviously fails to consider a different, yet equally plausible, threat to the government posed by the partisan potential of a large and growing bureaucracy: the danger of systematic abuse perpetuated by a "powerful political machine" that has amassed "the scattered powers of government workers" so as to give itself and its incumbent workers an "unbreakable grasp on the reins of power."80 As elucidated in our prior exposition:81 Attempts by government employees to wield influence over others or to make use of their respective positions (apparently) to promote their own candidacy may seem tolerable even innocuous particularly when viewed in isolation from other similar attempts by other government employees. Yet it would be decidedly foolhardy to discount the equally (if not more) realistic and dangerous possibility that such seemingly disjointed attempts, when taken together, constitute a veiled effort on the part of an emerging central party structure to advance its own agenda through a "carefully orchestrated use of [appointive and/or elective] officials" coming from various levels of the bureaucracy. [T]he avoidance of such a "politically active public work force" which could give an emerging political machine an "unbreakable grasp on the reins of power" is reason enough to impose a restriction on the candidacies of all appointive public officials without further distinction as to the type of positions being held by such employees or the degree of influence that may be attendant thereto. (citations omitted) ii. Limitation on Candidacy Regardless of Type of Office Sought, Valid

Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, Section 13 of RA 9369, and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code Do Not Suffer from Overbreadth Apart from nullifying Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, Section 13 of RA 9369, and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code on equal protection ground, our assailed Decision struck them down for being overbroad in two respects, viz.: (1) The assailed provisions limit the candidacy of all civil servants holding appointive posts without due regard for the type of position being held by the employee seeking an elective post and the degree of influence that may be attendant thereto;79 and (2) The assailed provisions limit the candidacy of any and all civil servants holding appointive positions without due regard for the type of office being sought, whether it be partisan or nonpartisan in character, or in the national, municipal or barangay level. Again, on second look, we have to revise our assailed Decision. i. Limitation on Candidacy Regardless of Incumbent Appointive Officials Position, Valid According to the assailed Decision, the challenged provisions of law are overly broad because they apply indiscriminately to all civil servants holding appointive posts, without due regard for the type of position being held by the employee running for elective office and the degree of influence that may be attendant thereto. Its underlying assumption appears to be that the evils sought to be prevented are extant only when the incumbent appointive official running for elective office holds an influential post.

The assailed Decision also held that the challenged provisions of law are overly broad because they are made to apply indiscriminately to all civil servants holding appointive offices, without due regard for the type of elective office being sought, whether it be partisan or nonpartisan in character, or in the national, municipal or barangay level. This erroneous ruling is premised on the assumption that "the concerns of a truly partisan office and the temptations it fosters are sufficiently different from those involved in an office removed from regular party politics [so as] to warrant distinctive treatment,"82 so that restrictions on candidacy akin to those imposed by the challenged provisions can validly apply only to situations in which the elective office sought is partisan in character. To the extent, therefore, that such restrictions are said to preclude even candidacies for nonpartisan elective offices, the challenged restrictions are to be considered as overbroad. Again, a careful study of the challenged provisions and related laws on the matter will show that the alleged overbreadth is more apparent than real. Our exposition on this issue has not been repudiated, viz.: A perusal of Resolution 8678 will immediately disclose that the rules and guidelines set forth therein refer to the filing of certificates of candidacy and nomination of official candidates of registered political parties, in connection with the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections.83 Obviously, these rules and guidelines, including the restriction in Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, were issued specifically for purposes of the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections, which, it must be noted, are decidedly partisan in character. Thus, it is clear that the restriction in Section 4(a) of RA 8678 applies only to the candidacies of appointive officials vying for partisan elective posts in the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections. On this score, the overbreadth challenge leveled against Section 4(a) is clearly unsustainable. Similarly, a considered review of Section 13 of RA 9369 and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, in conjunction with other related laws on the matter, will confirm that these provisions are likewise not intended to apply to elections for nonpartisan public offices.

The only elections which are relevant to the present inquiry are the elections for barangay offices, since these are the only elections in this country which involve nonpartisan public offices.84 In this regard, it is well to note that from as far back as the enactment of the Omnibus Election Code in 1985, Congress has intended that these nonpartisan barangay elections be governed by special rules, including a separate rule on deemed resignations which is found in Section 39 of the Omnibus Election Code. Said provision states: Section 39. Certificate of Candidacy. No person shall be elected punong barangay or kagawad ng sangguniang barangay unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy in triplicate on any day from the commencement of the election period but not later than the day before the beginning of the campaign period in a form to be prescribed by the Commission. The candidate shall state the barangay office for which he is a candidate. xxxx Any elective or appointive municipal, city, provincial or national official or employee, or those in the civil or military service, including those in government-owned or-controlled corporations, shall be considered automatically resigned upon the filing of certificate of candidacy for a barangay office. Since barangay elections are governed by a separate deemed resignation rule, under the present state of law, there would be no occasion to apply the restriction on candidacy found in Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, and later reiterated in the proviso of Section 13 of RA 9369, to any election other than a partisan one. For this reason, the overbreadth challenge raised against Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and the pertinent proviso in Section 13 of RA 9369 must also fail. 85 In any event, even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and the corresponding provision in Section 13 of RA 9369 are general rules that apply also to elections for nonpartisan public offices, the overbreadth challenge would still be futile. Again, we explained: In the first place, the view that Congress is limited to controlling only partisan behavior has not received judicial imprimatur, because the general proposition of the relevant US cases on the matter is simply that the government has an interest in regulating the conduct and speech of its employees that differs significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.86 Moreover, in order to have a statute declared as unconstitutional or void on its face for being overly broad, particularly where, as in this case, "conduct" and not "pure speech" is involved, the overbreadth must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statutes plainly legitimate sweep.87 In operational terms, measuring the substantiality of a statutes overbreadth would entail, among other things, a rough balancing of the number of valid applications compared to the number of potentially invalid applications.88In this regard, some sensitivity to reality is needed; an invalid application that is far-fetched does not deserve as much weight as one that is probable.89 The question is a matter of degree.90 Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that the partisan-nonpartisan distinction is valid and necessary such that a statute which fails to make this distinction is susceptible to an overbreadth attack, the overbreadth challenge presently mounted must demonstrate or provide this Court with some idea of the number of potentially invalid elections (i.e. the number of elections that were insulated from party rivalry but were nevertheless closed to appointive employees) that may in all probability result from the enforcement of the statute. 91

The state of the record, however, does not permit us to find overbreadth. Borrowing from the words of Magill v. Lynch, indeed, such a step is not to be taken lightly, much less to be taken in the dark, 92 especially since an overbreadth finding in this case would effectively prohibit the State from enforcing an otherwise valid measure against conduct that is admittedly within its power to proscribe.93 This Court would do well to proceed with tiptoe caution, particularly when it comes to the application of the overbreadth doctrine in the analysis of statutes that purportedly attempt to restrict or burden the exercise of the right to freedom of speech, for such approach is manifestly strong medicine that must be used sparingly, and only as a last resort.94 In the United States, claims of facial overbreadth have been entertained only where, in the judgment of the court, the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted and perceived grievances left to fester (due to the possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes) outweighs the possible harm to society in allowing some unprotected speech or conduct to go unpunished.95 Facial overbreadth has likewise not been invoked where a limiting construction could be placed on the challenged statute, and where there are readily apparent constructions that would cure, or at least substantially reduce, the alleged overbreadth of the statute.96 In the case at bar, the probable harm to society in permitting incumbent appointive officials to remain in office, even as they actively pursue elective posts, far outweighs the less likely evil of having arguably protected candidacies blocked by the possible inhibitory effect of a potentially overly broad statute.a1f In this light, the conceivably impermissible applications of the challenged statutes which are, at best, bold predictions cannot justify invalidating these statutes in toto and prohibiting the State from enforcing them against conduct that is, and has for more than 100 years been, unquestionably within its power and interest to proscribe.97 Instead, the more prudent approach would be to deal with these conceivably impermissible applications through case-by-case adjudication rather than through a total invalidation of the statute itself.98 Indeed, the anomalies spawned by our assailed Decision have taken place. In his Motion for Reconsideration, intervenor Drilon stated that a number of high-ranking Cabinet members had already filed their Certificates of Candidacy without relinquishing their posts.99 Several COMELEC election officers had likewise filed their Certificates of Candidacy in their respective provinces.100 Even the Secretary of Justice had filed her certificate of substitution for representative of the first district of Quezon province last December 14, 2009 101 even as her position as Justice Secretary includes supervision over the City and Provincial Prosecutors,102 who, in turn, act as Vice-Chairmen of the respective Boards of Canvassers.103 The Judiciary has not been spared, for a Regional Trial Court Judge in the South has thrown his hat into the political arena. We cannot allow the tilting of our electoral playing field in their favor. For the foregoing reasons, we now rule that Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678 and Section 13 of RA 9369, which merely reiterate Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, are not unconstitutionally overbroad. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT the respondents and the intervenors Motions for Reconsideration; REVERSE and SET ASIDE this Courts December 1, 2009 Decision; DISMISS the Petition; and ISSUE this Resolution declaring as not UNCONSTITUTIONAL (1) Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, (2) the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, and (3) Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Eleazar Quinto and Gerino Tolentino Jr. vs. Commission on Elections is a controversial decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines which paved way, albeit temporarily, for incumbent appointive executive officials to stay in office after filing their certificates of candidacy for election to an elective office. The decision was first decided by a slim majority of 8-6, but was eventually reversed 10-5 upon a Motion for Reconsideration after the retirement of one justice and the appointment of two new ones. The assailed Comelec Resolution In preparation for the upcoming 2010 National Elections, the Commission on Elections issued Resolution No. 8678 to govern the filing of Certificates of Candidacy for national and local positions. Section 4 of the Resolution reads: Sec. 4. Effects of Filing of Certificates of Candidacy. (a) Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. (b) Any person holding an elective office or position shall not be considered resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or position. Since they intend to run for elective office in the 2010 Elections, Department of Environment and Natural Resources Undersecretary Eleazar Quinto (running for Pangasinan congressman) and DENR Land Management Bureau Director Gerino Tolentino Jr. (running for Manila councilor) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify sec. 4(a) of Resolution 8678. According to them, imposing automatic resignation against appointive officials who file their certificates of candidacy is offensive to the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the Philippines because it gives an undue advantage to elective officials who are allowed to remain in office despite the filing of their certificates of candidacy. Representing the Commission, the Solicitor General raised several arguments against the petition. Firstly, certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are not the proper remedies against the assailed Comelec Resolution. Secondly, petitioners have no legal standing to question the Resolution because they are not yet candidates. Lastly, no error was committed by the Comelec in issuing sec. 4(a) of Resolution 8678 because it was merely copied verbatim from sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 9363 and sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code. However, the Solicitor General was of the opinion that the resign-to-run rule results to certain absurdities, and that it no longer has a place in our present election laws. The petitioners thus raise the questions on: (1) Whether the resort to certiorari and prohibition was the proper remedy; (2) Whether the petitioners have legal standing to assail Resolution 8678; and, (3) Whether applying the resign-to-run rule to appointive officials and not to elective ones violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Ruling on the procedural question The resort to certiorari and prohibition was inappropriate. While certiorari under Rule 65 (in relation to Rule 64) applies only to acts of the Comelec in exercise of its quasi-judicial powers, Resolution 8678 was issued in the exercise of the Commissions quasi-legislative functions. Thus, certiorari was not the proper remedy to question the said Resolution. Likewise, prohibition under Rule 65 must fail because what the petitioners actually sought was the proper construction of the Resolution and the declaration of their rights thereunder. The Court ruled that the petition was actually one for declaratory relief, which was not within jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, since the constitutionality of the Resolution and the law from which it was based were being questioned, the Court nevertheless decided to take cognizance of the case.

On the issue on the petitioners locus standi, while it is true that the petitioners were not yet candidates at the time the petition was filed, they still have the legal standing to assail the Resolution because they are qualified voters. The Court held that any restriction on candidacy affects the rights of the voters to choose their public officials; therefore, both candidate and voter may question the validity of such restriction. Original ruling on the substantial issues Right to run for elective office as a fundamental right The original decision struck down as unconstitutional not only sec. 4(a) of Resolution 8678, but also sec. 13 of R.A. 9369 and sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code. In nullifying these provisions, Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachuras ponencia extensively quoted Mancuso vs. Taft (476 F.2d 187, March 20, 1973), a 1973 decision of the United States Court of Appeals involving Kenneth Mancuso, a police officer who was nominated to the legislature of the State of Rhode Island. In that case, the U.S. appellate court ruled in favor of Mancuso and nullified the law which required a civil service official to vacate his post upon nomination to another public office. It held that the right to run for public office is a fundamental right protected by the Bill of Rights, and being so, any restriction thereto has to be subjected to strict equal protection review. To justify the application of the strict equal protection test to sec. 4(a), the original majority ruled that the petitioners interest to run for public office was likewise protected by the Philippine Constitution, specifically section 4 on Freedom of Expression and section 8 Right to Association of Article III (Bill of Rights). Overbroad application of the restriction Applying the strict equal protection test to the assailed Resolution, the original decision held that sec. 4(a) of Resolution 8678 (and its sources, sec. 13 of R.A. 9369 and sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code) created a sweeping effect on all appointive government officials and employees since the resign-to-run rule applied to all of them without any consideration to the kind of appointive office the candidate may actually hold. The original majority was convinced that the sweeping restriction of sec. 4(a) would create an absurdity that even a utility worker who intends to run for an elective post would be automatically resigned even if he cannot in any way use his position as utility worker to influence the results of the election. Thus, it was held that this restriction was overbroad since it applied to all appointive officials indiscriminately without regard to the degree of influence that their office may actually have. Violation of the equal protection clause The original ruling also saw no valid justification in applying the automatic resignation rule exclusively to appointive officials and not to elected ones. The classification between the two classes of officials failed to pass the test of equal protection, which requires a valid classification to be: (1) based upon substantial distinctions; (2) germane to the purposes of the law; (3) not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applicable equally to all members of the class. The first ponencia held that the classification under section 4 of Resolution 8678 must be struck down because it fails to satisfy the second requisite that the classification must be germane to the purposes of the law. If the purpose of the automatic resignation rule is to prevent either undue influence or neglect of duty on the part of the candidate, there is no reason to exclude elected officials from the coverage of the law. The original majority agreed that these fears are equally applicable to elected and appointive officials alike, thus, treating the one differently from the other should fail the test of equal protection.

The original decision also noted that the substantial distinction between elective and appointive government officials laid down in the case of Farias vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003) cannot be used to justify the different treatment of the two classes of officials because that doctrine was a mere obiter dictum. In that case, sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 was questioned as an invalid rider in so far as it repealed sec. 67 of the Omnibus Election Code without mention of it in the laws title. Incidentally, said sec. 67 provided for the automatic resignation of elected officials upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy. By repealing sec. 67, only the automatic resignation of appointive officials under sec. 66 remained in the law. Nevertheless, the Court upheld sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 on the ground, among others, that Congress merely recognized the substantial distinction between elective and appointive officials when it imposed the resign-to-run rule only on the latter. According to Justice Nachura, since the primary issue in that case was whether sec. 14 was an invalid rider, the discussion on substantial distinction was merely incidental and nothing but an obiter dictum. Reversed ruling on the substantial issues After the retirement of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario (who agreed with the Nachura decision) and the appointment of Justices Jose Perez and Jose C. Mendoza (who both agreed to Puno's opinion), the Supreme Court resolved to reverse the original decision and adopt the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Reynato Puno. In opposition to the Justice Nachuras original ponencia, Justice Reynato Puno made a very exhaustive discussion on the implications of the original ruling. The new Decision stressed that the doctrine of substantial distinction in Farias was not an obiter dictum because the seemingly unfair treatment caused by the repeal of sec. 67 and retention of sec. 66 was squarely raised in that case. Thus, the discussion on substantial distinction between appointive and elected officials was not merely incidental, but was actually necessary for the determination of that case. The new Decision upheld sec. 4(a) of Resolution 8678, sec. 13 of R.A. 9363 and sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code. Nine other justices adopted Justice Punos view that these provisions satisfy the requisites of the equal protection test, especially the second requirement that it must be germane to the purposes of the law. It was emphasized that the purpose of the law is to defer to the sovereign will of the people by letting elective officials serve until the end of the terms for which they were elected notwithstanding the filing of their certificates of candidacy. On the contrary, the automatic resignation rule was imposed upon appointive officials because unlike elected politicians, appointive officials, as officers and employees in the civil service, are strictly prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity or from taking part in any election, except to vote (Sec. 55 of the Administrative Code of 1987). Interestingly, the Chief Justice underscored the fact that Mancuso vs. Taft, the U.S. Court of Appeals case that was heavily relied upon by the Nachura's ponencia, had already been overturned by prevailing jurisprudence in the United States. The Court cited several decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court stating that the right to express ones views through candidacy is not a fundamental right and is neither covered by the freedom of expression nor the right to association. More importantly, it was ruled that the resign-to-run rule on appointive officials does not violate a persons right to run for public office because such right must give way to the substantial public interest being protected by the ruleto maintain a civil service that is impartial and free from the evils of partisan politics.

EN BANC G.R. No. 192935 December 7, 2010

LOUIS "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 cases5 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 Constitution 6 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 writer12 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 quasi-judicial 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 factfinding 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 non-existent 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 "Quasijudicial 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 non-application 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. 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. Laurel Facts: 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. 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 Constitution as it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds therefor. 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. 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). Issues: 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; Violation of the Equal Protection Clause 4. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause; and 5. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to injunctive relief. Held: Legal Standing of the Petitioners 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.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 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. Power of the Truth Commission to Investigate 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: 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." 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." 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. The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just those of the legislature. 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. 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"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. Decision 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. 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. 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." 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.

FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 169084 January 18, 2012

Criminal Case No. 10841 That on or about March 21, 2000, at around 9:00 oclock in the evening at Sitio Bulihan, Brgy. Balete, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one another, while armed with bolos, kitchen knife and pointed instrument, all deadly weapons, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and stab with said deadly weapons one Victor Noriega y Blanco, thereby hitting him on the different parts of his body, which directly caused the victims death.(emphases and italics supplied).3 The cases were consolidated for arraignment and trial. On April 7, 2000, the accused pleaded not guilty to the informations.4 Version of the Prosecution The witnesses for the State were Froilan R. Perfinian, PO3 Pablo Aguda Jr., Dr. Luz M. Tiuseco, Rosalia Delgado, Domingo Guinhawa, Abella Perez Noriega, SPO3 Felizardo Panaligan, Sr. Insp. Marcos Barte and SPO3 Danilo Magtibay. The eyewitness version of Perfinian follows. On March 20, 2000, at about 9:00 pm, he had just left the house of one Lemuel located in Sitio Bulihan, Barangay Balete, Batangas City (Bulihan) to walk to his own home located also in Bulihan when he heard someone pleading: Huwag po, huwag po! He followed the direction of the voice, and saw the assault by all the accused against Sabino D. Guinhawa (Sabino), Graciano A. Delgado (Graciano), and Victor B. Noriega (Victor). He recognized each of the accused because he saw them from only six meters away and the moon was very bright. Besides, he was a godfather of Hermogenes son, and the other accused usually passed by his house. Perfinian recalled that the accused surrounded their victims during the assault; that Arnold stabbed Graciano on the stomach with a bolo, causing Graciano to fall to the ground; that Rico hacked Graciano with a bolo; that when Victor tried to escape by running away, Hermogenes and Felix pursued and caught up with him; that Felix hacked Victor; and that when Sabino ran away, Melanio and Joven pursued him. Perfinian rushed home as soon as all the accused had left. He narrated to his wife everything he had just witnessed. On the following day, he learned that the police authorities found the dead bodies of Sabino, Graciano and Victor. Afraid of being implicated and fearing for his own safety, he left for his fathers house in Marinduque. He did not return to Bulihan until after he learned from the TV newscast that all the accused had been arrested. Once returning home, he relayed to the victims families everything he knew about the killings. Also, he gave a statement to the Batangas City Police.5 PO3 Aguda was on duty as the desk officer of the Batangas City Police Station in the morning of March 22, 2000 when he received the report about the dead bodies found in Bulihan. He and other police officers went to Bulihan, and found the dead bodies of Sabino, Graciano, and Victor sprawled on the road about 20 meters from each other. The bodies were all bloodied and full of hack wounds. During his investigation, he came upon one Rene Imbig (Rene) who mentioned seeing the six accused wielding bolos and running on the night of March 21, 2000. From the site of the crime, he and his fellow officers went to the houses of Melanio and Rico, which were about 20 meters from where the bodies were found. The houses were abandoned, but he recovered a bloodstained knife with a curved end in Melanios house. Returning to the station, he saw Hermogenes there, who informed him that the other suspects had fled to Sitio Tangisan, Barangay Mayamot, Antipolo, Rizal (Sitio

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO y VARGAS, HERMOGENES DEL CASTILLO y VARGAS, ARNOLD AVENGOZA y DOGOS, FELIX AVENGOZA y DOGOS, RICO DEL CASTILLO y RAMOS, and JOVEN DEL CASTILLO yABESOLA, Accused-Appellants. DECISION BERSAMIN, J.: This case illustrates yet again why denial and alibi are not the best defenses when there is positive identification of the accused for their complicity in the commission of a crime. Antecedents All the accused are related to one another either by consanguinity or by affinity. Melanio del Castillo and Hermogenes del Castillo are brothers. Rico del Castillo and Joven del Castillo are, respectively, Melanios son and nephew. Felix Avengoza is the son-in-law of Melanio and the brother of Arnold Avengoza. Both Felix and Arnold lived in the house of Melanio. On March 28, 2000, the City Prosecutors Office of Batangas City charged all the accused in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Batangas City with three counts of murder, alleging as follows: Criminal Case No. 10839 That on or about March 21, 2000, at around 9:00 oclock in the evening at Sitio Bulihan, Brgy. Balete, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one another, while armed with bolos, kitchen knife and pointed instrument, all deadly weapons, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and stab with said deadly weapons one Sabino Guinhawa y Delgado @ "Benny," thereby hitting him on the different parts of his body, which directly caused the victims death.1 Criminal Case No. 10840 That on or about March 21, 2000, at around 9:00 oclock in the evening at Sitio Bulihan, Brgy. Balete, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one another, while armed with bolos, kitchen knife and pointed instrument, all deadly weapons, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and stab with said deadly weapons one Graciano Delgado y Aguda @ "Nonoy," thereby hitting him on the different parts of his body, which directly caused the victims death.2

Tangisan), where Melanios mother-in-law resided. Accompanied by Rene and other police officers, he travelled to Sitio Tangisan that afternoon. Upon arriving in Sitio Tangisan, Rene pointed to Melanio who was just stepping out of his mother-in-laws house. Melanio ran upon seeing their approach, but they caught up with him and subdued him. They recovered a bolo from Melanio. They found and arrested the other suspects in the house of Melanios mother-in-law, and brought all the arrested suspects back to Batangas City for investigation. There, the suspects admitted disposing some of their clothes by throwing them into the Pasig River, and said that their other clothes were in the house of Melanio. They mentioned that the bolo used by Hermogenes was still in his house. On the morning of March 23, 2000, PO3 Aguda and his fellow officers recovered two shorts, a shirt, and a knife all blood-stained from Melanios house in Bulihan. Going next to the house of Hermogenes, Winifreda del Castillo, the latters wife, turned over the bolo of Hermogenes. They learned that prior to the killings, Melanio had been fuming at being cheated in a cockfight, and had uttered threats to kill at least three persons in Bulihan.6 Sr. Insp. Barte, SPO3 Panaligan and SPO3 Magtibay corroborated PO3 Agudas recollections.7 Dr. Luz M. Tiuseco (Dr. Tiuseco), a Medical Officer of Batangas City Health Office, conducted the post-mortem examinations on the remains of Sabino, Graciano, and Victor on March 22, 2001. She found that Sabino sustained 11 hack wounds and 12 stab wounds; that Graciano suffered four stab wounds and a hack wound; and that Victor had three hack wounds. She certified that the victims had died from hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple stab and hack wounds.8 Domingo Guinhawa, the elder brother of Sabino, declared that his family spent P50,000.00 for Sabinos funeral and burial expenses.9 Rosalia Delgado, a sister of Graciano, attested that the expenses incurred for Gracianos burial amounted to P51,510.00.10 Abella Perez Noriega, the wife of Victor, claimed that her family spentP53,395.00 for Victors wake and interment.11 Version of the Accused The Defense offered the testimonies of the accused and Winifreda. The accused admitted being in Bulihan at the time of the incident, but denied liability. Arnold and Joven invoked self-defense and defense of strangers, while Melanio, Hermogenes, Rico and Felix interposed denial. Winifreda corroborated the testimonies of Arnold and Joven. The evidence of the accused was rehashed in the appellees brief submitted by the Public Attorneys Office, as follows: Arnold Avengoza testified that on March 21, 2001, he had a drinking spree with Rico del Castillo in their house. After about an hour, he was requested by Winifreda del Castillo, wife of Hermogenes del Castillo, to accompany them to their house. Together with Joven del Castillo, they brought Winifreda and her son to their house. Before they were able to reach Winifredas house, three (3) men appeared. One of them held Winifreda and when he tried to help her, the other persons attempted to draw something from their waists prompting him to hacked one of them. He told the man to stop, but the latter refused. When the other man got mad, he hacked him twice. Then, they brought Winnie and her son to the house of Melanio del Castillo. He did not inform Melanio del Castillo about what transpired, but told him to take his family away, because he saw dead persons near his place. He threw his bolo into the Pasig River.

Joven del Castillo, corroborated Ricos testimony and admitted that he was the one who stabbed the other man, who attempted to draw something from his waist while Arnold hacked the other man. He was no longer aware how many times he stabbed the said man. Victor Noriega was one of the three (3) men who blocked their way. They left Sitio Bulihan at about 11:00 oclock in the evening, together with Felix Avengoza, Arnold Avengoza, Rico del Castillo, Melanio del Castillo and his family. They went to Antipolo, Rizal, where they were arrested by the police authorities. Hermogenes del Castillo slept the whole night of March 21, 2000 and came to know that the three (3) persons were killed during the night near the house of his brother Melanio only from his wife Winifreda. Fearing retaliation from the relatives of the persons who were killed, because the bodies were found near his brothers house, he went to the house of Barangay Captain Aloria, who in turn told him to go to the police station. He came to know that he was being implicated in the killing when he was incarcerated. Rico del Castillo testified that on the night of March 21, 2001 at about 7:00 oclock in the evening, he fetched Winifreda del Castillo to treat the sprain of his daughter. At about 9:00 oclock in the evening, since his daughter was still crying, he requested Joven and Arnold to accompany Winifreda and her son in going home. Arnold and Joven returned at around 10:00clock in the evening. He was told that they saw dead people and was asked to leave the place together with his family. Felix Avengoza said that on the night of March 21, 2001, he was informed by Joven and Arnold that they saw two (2) dead persons near their house. For fear of becoming a suspect, he was told to leave his house together with his family. Melanio del Castillo affirmed the testimony of Felix and added that he was at first hesitant to leave his house because of his personal belongings and animals, but due to insistence of Arnold and Joven, he also left with them for Manila. Winifreda del Castillo confirmed that she was fetched by Rico del Castillo to treat his daughter. When Rico was unable to bring her back home, Joven and Arnold accompanied her. While they were on their way, three (3) persons suddenly blocked them. One of them held her hand and tried to drag her away. When Arnold tried to pacify them, they got angry and attempted to pull something from their waists so Arnold hacked him.12 Decision of the RTC On October 23, 2001, the RTC convicted the accused of murder, but appreciated voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance in favor of Hermogenes, viz: In the light of all the foregoing considerations, accused Arnold Avengoza, Felix Avengoza, alias Alex, Rico del Castillo, Joven del Castillo, Hermogenes del Castillo, alias Menes and Melanio del Castillo are all hereby found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 charged in these three cases namely: Criminal Case No. 10839, Criminal Case No. 10840 and Criminal Case No. 10841. Wherefore, accused Arnold Avengoza, Felix Avengoza, Rico del Castillo, Joven del Castillo and Melanio del Castillo are sentenced in each of the above mentioned criminal cases to suffer the imprisonment of reclusion perpetua together with all the accessory penalties inherent therewith and to pay the costs. With respect to accused Hermogenes del Castillo, considering the presence of mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor and further applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, in each of the aforesaid

criminal cases, he is hereby sentenced to imprisonment of Fourteen (14) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day as minimum to Twenty (20) Years of reclusion temporal as maximum together with its inherent accessory penalties. As to the civil aspects of these cases, in Criminal Case No. 10839, all the herein accused are directed to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Sabino Guinhawa the amount of P58,510,00 as actual funeral expenses and the sum of P75,000.00 as moral damages. In Criminal Case No. 10840, all the herein accused are directed to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Graciano Delgado with the sum of P51,510.00 as actual funeral expenses and P75,000.00 as moral damages. And in Criminal Case No. 10841, all the above-named accused are further directed to indemnify the heirs of Victor Noriega with the sum of P53,395.00 as actual funeral expenses and the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages. Finally, let accused Hermogenes del Castillo be credited with his preventive imprisonment if he is entitled to any. SO ORDERED.13 Decision of the CA The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) upon the following assigned errors, to wit: I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ALL THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE THE FACT THAT TWO OF THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED KILLING THE THREE VICTIMS IN DEFENSE OF WINIFREDA DEL CASTILLO. II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF STRANGERS IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ARNOLD AVENGOZA AND JOVEN DEL CASTILLO. III. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES DESPITE THE LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SAME. On April 28, 2005, the CA affirmed the convictions, correcting only the awards of damages and the penalty imposed on Hermogenes,14 to wit: WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that appellant Hermogenes Del Castillo is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and all the accused are ordered to pay jointly and severally the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of each

victim; the sum of P15,000.00 and P8,000.00 as actual damages to the heirs of Sabino Guinhawa and Graciano Delgado, respectively, and P10,000.00 as nominal damages to the heirs of Victor Noriega. SO ORDERED. Issues Hence, the accused have come to us in a final appeal, submitting that because Arnold and Joven had already admitted killing the victims, the rest of them should be exculpated; that Arnold and Joven should be absolved of criminal liability because they acted in self-defense and defense of strangers; and that conspiracy among them was not proven.15 Ruling The conviction of appellants is affirmed, but the damages awarded and their corresponding amounts are modified in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence. I. Factual findings of the RTC and CA are accorded respect Both the RTC and the CA considered Perfinians eyewitness testimony credible. We concur with both lower courts. We reiterate that the trial judges evaluation of the credibility of a witness and of his testimony is accorded the highest respect because of the trial judges unique opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witness that enables him to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not.16 Such evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless the appellant reveals facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case.17 The accused did not present any fact or circumstance of weight that the RTC or the CA overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would alter the result herein. Accordingly, we have no reason to disregard their having accorded total credence to Perfinians eyewitness account of the killings. In contrast, we have the bare denials of Melanio, Hermogenes, Felix, and Rico, but such denials were weak for being self-serving and unnatural. Their own actuations and conduct following the attack even confirmed their guilt, for had Melanio, Felix, and Rico been innocent, it was puzzling that they had to suddenly abandon their homes to go to Antipolo City in Rizal. Their explanation for the hasty departure - that Arnold and Joven warned them to leave because dead bodies had been found near Melanios house, and they might be implicated - was unnatural and contrary to human nature. The normal reaction of innocent persons was not to run away, or instead to report to the police whatever they knew about the dead bodies. In any case, they did not need to be apprehensive about being implicated if they had no participation in the crimes. The lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence. To us, Perfinians identification of all the accused as the perpetrators was positive and reliable for being based on his recognition of each of them during the incident. His

being familiar with each of them eliminated any possibility of mistaken identification. He spotted them from a distance of only six meters away under a good condition of visibility (i.e., the moon then being "very bright"). Consequently, their denials and alibi were properly rejected. Likewise, Perfinian detailed the distinct acts done by each of the accused during their assault. Such recollection of the fatal events was categorical and strong, and there was no better indicator of the reliability and accuracy of his recollection than its congruence with the physical evidence adduced at the trial. For one, the results of the post-mortem examinations showing that the victims had sustained multiple stab and hack wounds (i.e., Sabino sustained 11 hack wounds and 12 stab wounds; Graciano suffered four stab wounds and a hack wound; and Victor had three hack wounds) confirmed his testimonial declarations about the victims having been repeatedly stabbed and hacked.18 Also, the blood-stained bolos and blood-stained clothing recovered from the possession of the accused confirmed his declarations that the accused had used bolos in inflicting deadly blows on their victims. It is notable, on the other hand, that the Defense did not challenge the sincerity of Perfinians eyewitness identification. The accused did not show if Perfinian had harbored any ill-feeling towards any or all of them that he was moved to testify falsely against them. Any such ill-feeling was even improbable in light of the revelation that he and Hermogenes had spiritual bonds as compadres. Without such showing by the Defense, therefore, Perfinian was presumed not to have been improperly actuated, entitling his incriminating testimony to full faith and credence.19 II. Arnold and Joven did not act in self-defense and in defense of strangers In order for self-defense to be appreciated, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.20 On the other hand, the requisites of defense of strangers are, namely: (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it; and (c) the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.21 In self-defense and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a condition sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense and defense of strangers are unavailing, because there would be nothing to repel.22 The character of the element of unlawful aggression has been aptly described in People v. Nugas,23 as follows: Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of selfdefense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.

Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot. By invoking self-defense and defense of strangers, Arnold and Joven in effect admitted their parts in killing the victims. The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accuseds defense is self-defense he thereby admits being the author of the death of the victim, that it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court.24 The rationale for the shifting of the burden of evidence is that the accused, by his admission, is to be held criminally liable unless he satisfactorily establishes the fact of self-defense. But the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not thereby lifted from the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the end of the proceedings. In other words, only the onus probandi shifts to the accused, for self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof.25 He must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of that of the Prosecution, considering that the Prosecutions evidence, even if weak, cannot be disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing.26 Arnold and Joven did not discharge their burden. Arnold and Joven did not adequately prove unlawful aggression; hence, neither self-defense nor defense of stranger was a viable defense for them. We note that in addition to the eyewitness account of Perfinian directly incriminating them, their own actuations immediately after the incident confirmed their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As the CA cogently noted,27 their flight from the neighborhood where the crimes were committed, their concealing of the weapons used in the commission of the crimes, their non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and their failure to surrender themselves to the police authorities fully warranted the RTCs rejection of their claim of self-defense and defense of stranger. Winifredas testimonial claim that the victims were the aggressors deserves no consideration. Her story was that one of the victims had tried to attack her with a balisong.28 Yet, her story would not stand scrutiny because of the fact that no such weapon had been recovered from the crime scene; and because of the fact that none of the accused had substantiated her thereon. Neither Arnold nor Joven attested in court seeing any of the victims holding any weapon.29 Nonetheless, even if we were to believe Arnold and Jovens version of the incident, the element of unlawful aggression by the victims would still be lacking. The allegation that one of the victims had held Winifredas hand did not indicate that the act had gravely endangered Winifredas life. Similarly, the victims supposed motion to draw something from their waists did not put Arnold and Jovens lives in any actual or imminent danger. What the records inform us is that Arnold and Joven did not actually see if the victims had any weapons to draw from their waists. That no weapons belonging to the victims were recovered from the crime scene confirmed their being unarmed. Lastly, had they been only defending themselves, Arnold and Joven did not tell the trial court why they had repeatedly hacked their victims with their bolos; or why they did not themselves even sustain any physical injury. Thus, the CA and the RTC rightly rejected their plea of self-defense and defense of stranger, for the nature and the number of wounds sustained by the victims were important indicia to disprove selfdefense.30

III. The State duly established conspiracy and abuse of superior strength The CA upheld the RTCs finding that conspiracy and abuse of superior strength were duly established. We affirm the CA. The accused, armed with bolos, surrounded and attacked the victims, and pursued whoever of the latter attempted to escape from their assault. Thereafter, the accused, except Hermogenes, fled their homes and together hastily proceeded to Antipolo, Rizal. Their individual and collective acts prior to, during and following the attack on the victims reflected a common objective of killing the latter. Thereby, all the accused, without exception, were co-conspirators. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.31 Conspiracy is either express or implied. Thus, the State does not always have to prove the actual agreement to commit the crime in order to establish conspiracy, for it is enough to show that the accused acted in concert to achieve a common purpose. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest. 32 Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.33 Once a conspiracy is established, each co-conspirator is as criminally liable as the others, for the act of one is the act of all. A co-conspirator does not have to participate in every detail of the execution; neither does he have to know the exact part performed by the co-conspirator in the execution of the criminal act.34 In view of the foregoing, the Court rejects the pleas for exculpation of the other accused grounded on their respective alibis considering that Arnold and Jovens admission of sole responsibility for the killings did not eliminate their liability as co-conspirators. Abuse of superior strength is an aggravating circumstance that qualifies the killing of a person to murder. 35 It is present if the accused purposely uses excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked, or if there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of superior strength. Superiority in strength may refer to the number of aggressors and weapons used.36 A gross disparity of forces existed between the accused and the victims. Not only did the six accused outnumber the three victims but the former were armed with bolos while the latter were unarmed. The accused clearly used their superiority in number and arms to ensure the killing of the victims. Abuse of superior strength is attendant if the accused took advantage of their superiority in number and their being armed with bolos.37 Accordingly, the crimes committed were three counts of murder. The CA concluded that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should not be appreciated in favor of Hermogenes.

In order that voluntary surrender is appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must concur: (a) the accused has not been actually arrested; (b) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latters agent; and (c) surrender is voluntary.38 The third requisite requires the surrender to be spontaneous, indicating the intent of the accused to unconditionally submit himself to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessary for his search and capture.39 Although Hermogenes went to Barangay Chairman Aloria of Bulihan after the killings, he did so to seek protection against the retaliation of the victims relatives, not to admit his participation in the killing of the victims.40 Even then, Hermogenes denied any involvement in the killings when the police went to take him from Chairman Alorias house.41 As such, Hermogenes did not unconditionally submit himself to the authorities in order to acknowledge his participation in the killings or in order to save the authorities the trouble and expense for his arrest.42 Nonetheless, any determination of whether or not Hermogenes was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was vain in light of the penalty for murder being reclusion perpetua to death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. Due to both such penalties being indivisible, the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances would not affect the penalties except to aid the trial court in pegging the penalty to reclusion perpetua if the only modifying circumstance was mitigating, or the mitigating circumstances outnumbered the aggravating circumstances; or to prescribe the death penalty (prior to its prohibition under Republic Act No. 934643 ) should there be at least one aggravating circumstance and there was no mitigating circumstance, or the aggravating circumstances outnumbered the mitigating circumstances. This effect would conform to Article 63, (2), of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: xxx 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied. xxx IV. Civil liability The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are also proper, but their corresponding amounts should be increased to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.44 The actual damages of P15,000.00 and P8,000.00 granted to the heirs of Sabino and Graciano, respectively, were also warranted due to their being proven by receipts.45 However, the Court has held that when actual damages proven by receipts amount to less thanP25,000.00, as in the case of Sabino and Graciano, the award of temperate damages amounting

to P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount.46 This is based on the sound reasoning that it would be anomalous and unfair that the heirs of the victim who tried and succeeded in proving actual damages of less thanP25,000.00 only would be put in a worse situation than others who might have presented no receipts at all but would be entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages.47 Hence, instead of only P15,000.00 and P8,000.00, the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages should be awarded each to the heirs of Sabino and Graciano.1awphil The heirs of Victor did not present receipts proving the expenses they incurred by virtue of Victors death. Nonetheless, it was naturally expected that the heirs had spent for the wake and burial of Victor. Article 2224 of the Civil Code provides that temperate damages may be recovered when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Hence, in lieu of nominal damages of P10,000.00 awarded by the CA, temperate damages of P25,000.00 are awarded to the heirs of Victor. Exemplary damages of P30,000.00 should be further awarded to the heirs of the victims because of the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be granted when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstance. It was immaterial that such aggravating circumstance was necessary to qualify the killing of each victim as murder. 48 WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on April 28, 2005, with the followingMODIFICATIONS, to wit: (a) the civil indemnity and moral damages are each increased to P75,000.00; (b) temperate damages of P25,000.00 is granted, respectively, to the heirs of Sabino and Graciano in lieu of actual damages; (c) instead of nominal damages, temperate damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of Victor; and (d) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is given, respectively, to the heirs of Sabino, Graciano and Victor.

United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the constitutionality of "anticipatory" search warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that such warrants, which are issued in advance of a "triggering condition" that makes them executable, are constitutional and do not need to describe that condition on their face. In this particular decision, which arose from a federal child pornography prosecution, the Court ruled that a warrant that was predicated on the undercover delivery of a videotape to the defendant's home, but did not state this on its face, was properly issued and executed because it described the place to be searched and the objects to be seized, and the search was conducted after the delivery was made. Evidence seized from the defendant's house from that search was therefore admissible in court against him. Criminal investigation The defendant, Jeffrey Grubbs, became the subject of an undercover federal investigation and prosecution when he ordered a videotape containing child pornography from a website operated by an undercover U.S. postal inspector. The Postal Inspection Service then arranged a controlled delivery of the tape to Grubbs. An application was submitted to a magistrate judge for the Eastern District of California requesting an "anticipatory" search warrant, so-called because it is based upon the probable cause that at some time in the future (but not at present) certain evidence of a crime will be located at a specified place. An affidavit accompanying the warrant application stated as the "triggering condition" that the search warrant would not be executed until the tape had been delivered and taken into Grubbs' home. However, this condition was omitted from the issued warrant. Two days later, the undercover delivery occurred and Grubbs' house was searched after the tape was taken inside. The videotape and other items were seized, and Grubbs was arrested. District Court and Court of Appeals proceedings A grand jury for the Eastern District of California indicted Grubbs on one count of "receiving a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct." Grubbs' defense counsel, Mark Reichel moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his residence, arguing in part that the warrant was invalid because it failed to list the triggering condition and that the 4th Amendment requires officers to provide a copy of the search warrant to the homeowner when conducting a search. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied the motion. Grubbs pleaded guilty, but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that the Fourth Amendment's requirement that warrants describe with particularity the things, persons, or places to be searched fully applied to the triggering conditions necessary for an anticipatory search warrant. Because the postal inspectors failed to present the application affidavitthe only document in which the triggering conditions were listedto Grubbs or his wife, the court ruled that the "warrant was...inoperative, and the search was illegal." The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. The court's decision Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. The judgment was unanimous as to the eight members of the Court participating, as were the first two parts of Scalia's opinion that upheld the constitutionality of anticipatory warrants in general. The third and last part of the Court's opinion, which further ruled that anticipatory warrants were not required by the Fourth Amendment to state their triggering requirements on their face, was joined by four Justices; the remaining three concurred separately in an opinion by Justice David Souter.

Scalia's majority opinion The defendant had argued that anticipatory warrants in general violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause," because the anticipated probable cause does not exist at the time of the warrant's issuance. The Court first noted that the courts of appeals had unanimously rejected this argument. It asserted that all warrants are in a sense "anticipatory," because any search is only reasonable if there is probable cause for it when the search is conducted. "In the typical case where the police seek permission to search a house for an item they believe is already located there, the magistrate's determination that there is probable cause for the search amounts to a prediction that the item will still be there when the warrant is executed." The Court concluded that this makes anticipatory warrants no different in principle from ordinary warrants. When the anticipatory warrant is predicated on a triggering condition, the Fourth Amendment requires that there is probable cause to believe that the triggering condition will occur, and that if it occurs, that there is a fair probability that the contraband will be found at the place to be searched. In this case, the warrant application satisfied both conditions, based on the delivery of the tape as the triggering condition. Regarding the warrant's failure to describe that triggering condition, Scalia wrote in Part III of the Court's opinion that, contrary to the Ninth Circuit's ruling, the Fourth Amendment does not have a general "particularity requirement." Warrants must only describe with particularity "the place to be searched" and "the persons or things to be seized," and the Court stated that it had previously rejected attempts to expand that scope. The defendant also argued that any "precondition to the valid exercise of executive power" must be identified on the face of the warrant. The Court denied that there was such a constitutional principle, especially considering that while a judge must find probable cause to issue a warrant, the warrant itself does not need to state the basis for the judge's finding. Finally, the defendant claimed that the omission of the triggering condition prevents the person whose property is being seized of being notified of the lawfulness of the search and seizure. However, the Court pointed out that there is no requirement that the property owner be shown the warrant prior to the search. Souter's concurrence Justice Souter wrote separately to "qualify some points" made in Part III of the Court's opinion. Though joining the majority in reversing the Ninth Circuit's decision, Souter wrote that the term "warrant" itself in the Fourth Amendment may be read to mean "a statement of authority that sets out the time at which (or in the case of anticipatory warrants, the condition on which) the authority begins." He stated that the majority's rule against requiring this condition may cause consequences of "constitutional significance," as when an officer who is ignorant of the triggering condition executes the warrant before the condition occurs; Souter wrote that the government should be held to the terms of the condition in that situation, despite the unconditionally framed warrant. Souter also stated that the interest a property owner has in being notified of the accurate terms of a search has yet to be determined. G.R. No. 171465 June 8, 2007

THIRD DIVISION

AAA *, petitioner, vs. HON. ANTONIO A. CARBONELL, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 27, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City, La Union and ENGR. JAIME O. ARZADON, respondents. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This petition for certiorari1 assails the December 16, 20052 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union in Criminal Case No. 6983, dismissing the rape case filed against private respondent Jaime O. Arzadon for lack of probable cause; and its February 3, 2006 3 Order denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. Petitioner worked as a secretary at the Arzadon Automotive and Car Service Center from February 28, 2001 to August 16, 2001. On May 27, 2001 at about 6:30 p.m., Arzadon asked her to deliver a book to an office located at another building but when she returned to their office, the lights had been turned off and the gate was closed. Nevertheless, she went inside to get her handbag. On her way out, she saw Arzadon standing beside a parked van holding a pipe. He told her to go near him and upon reaching his side, he threatened her with the pipe and forced her to lie on the pavement. He removed her pants and underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She wept and cried out for help but to no avail because there was nobody else in the premises. Petitioner did not report the incident because Arzadon threatened to kill her and her family. But when she discovered that she was pregnant as a consequence of the rape, she narrated the incident to her parents. On July 24, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint for rape against Arzadon. On September 16, 2002, Assistant City Prosecutor Imelda Cosalan issued a Resolution 4 finding probable cause and recommending the filing of an information for rape. Arzadon moved for reconsideration and during the clarificatory hearing held on October 11, 2002, petitioner testified before the investigating prosecutor. However, she failed to attend the next hearing hence, the case was provisionally dismissed. On March 5, 2003, petitioner filed another Affidavit-Complaint5 with a comprehensive account of the alleged rape incident. The case was assigned to 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Georgina Hidalgo. During the preliminary investigation, petitioner appeared for clarificatory questioning. On June 11, 2003, the investigating prosecutor issued a Resolution6 finding that a prima facie case of rape exists and recommending the filing of the information. Arzadon moved for reconsideration and requested that a panel of prosecutors be constituted to review the case. Thus, a panel of prosecutors was created and after the clarificatory questioning, the panel issued on October 13, 2003 a Resolution7 finding probable cause and denying Arzadons motion for reconsideration.

An Information8 for rape was filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union on February 6, 2004, docketed as Criminal Case No. 6415. Thereafter, Arzadon filed a "Motion to Hold in Abeyance All Court Proceedings Including the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest and to Determine Probable Cause for the Purpose of Issuing a Warrant of Arrest."9 On March 18, 2004, respondent Judge Antonio A. Carbonell granted the motion and directed petitioner and her witnesses to take the witness stand for determination of probable cause. Arzadon also appealed the Resolution of the panel of prosecutors finding probable cause before the Department of Justice. On July 9, 2004, then Acting Secretary of Justice Merceditas Gutierrez found no probable cause and directed the withdrawal of the Information in Criminal Case No. 6415.10 Upon motion for reconsideration by petitioner, however, Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales reversed the July 9, 2004 Resolution and issued another Resolution11 finding that probable cause exists. Thus, a new Information12for rape was filed against Arzadon docketed as Criminal Case No. 6983. Consequently, Arzadon filed an "Urgent Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause for the Purpose of Issuing a Warrant of Arrest."13 In an Order dated August 11, 2005, respondent Judge Carbonell granted the motion and directed petitioner and her witnesses to take the witness stand. Instead of taking the witness stand, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that the documentary evidence sufficiently established the existence of probable cause. Pending resolution thereof, she likewise filed a petition14 with this Court for the transfer of venue of Criminal Case No. 6983. The case was docketed as Administrative Matter No. 05-12-756-RTC and entitled Re: Transfer of Venue of Criminal Case No. 6983, formerly Criminal Case No. 6415, from the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando City, La Union, to any Court in Metro Manila. In a Resolution15 dated January 18, 2006, the Court granted petitioners request for transfer of venue. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, and docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-242289. However, the proceedings have been suspended pending the resolution of this petition. Meanwhile, on December 16, 2005, respondent Judge Carbonell issued the assailed Order dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied hence, this petition. Petitioner raises the following issues:16 I RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT GRANTED THE MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FILED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND THE SUBSEQUENT DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION II RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED FURTHER ACTS CONSTITUTING GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ORDERED THE COMPLAINANT AND WITNESSES TO TAKE THE STAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING PROBABLE CAUSE III

RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE REFUSED TO INHIBIT FROM FURTHER HANDLING THE CASE DESPITE WHISPERS OF DOUBT ON HIS BIAS AND PARTIALITY IV RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT ISSUED THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 3, 2006, DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DESPITE THE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 18, 2006, GRANTING THE TRANSFER OF VENUE Petitioner contends that the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and her witnesses in satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. She argues that respondent Judge Carbonell should have taken into consideration the documentary evidence as well as the transcript of stenographic notes which sufficiently established the existence of probable cause. Arzadon claims that the petition should be dismissed outright for being the wrong mode of appeal, it appearing that the issues raised by petitioner properly fall under an action for certiorari under Rule 65, and not Rule 45, of the Rules of Court. Respondent Judge Carbonell argues in his Comment17 that the finding of probable cause by the investigating prosecutor is not binding or obligatory, and that he was justified in requiring petitioner and her witnesses to take the witness stand in order to determine probable cause. The issues for resolution are 1) whether the petition should be dismissed for being the wrong mode of appeal; and 2) whether respondent Judge Carbonell acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause. The petition has merit. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is distinct from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in that the former brings up for review errors of judgment while the latter concerns errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion is not an allowable ground under Rule 45. However, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may be considered a petition for certiorariunder Rule 65 where it is alleged that the respondents abused their discretion in their questioned actions, as in the instant case.18 While petitioner claims to have brought the instant action under Rule 45, the grounds raised herein involve an alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Judge Carbonell. Accordingly, the Court shall treat the same as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. However, we must point out the procedural error committed by petitioner in directly filing the instant petition before this Court instead of the Court of Appeals, thereby violating the principle of judicial hierarchy of courts. It is well-settled that although the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.19 In this case, however, the gravity of the offense charged and the length of time that has passed since the filing of the complaint for rape, compel us to resolve the present controversy in order to avoid further delay. 20 We thus proceed to the issue of whether respondent Judge Carbonell acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause.

We rule in the affirmative. Respondent Judge Carbonell dismissed Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause on the ground that petitioner and her witnesses failed to comply with his orders to take the witness stand. Thus In RESUME therefore, as indubitably borne out by the case record and considering that the Private Prosecutor, despite several admonitions contumaciously nay contemptuously refused to comply/obey this Courts Orders of March 18, 2004, August 11, 2005 and eight (8) other similar Orders issued in open Court that directed the complainant/witnesses to take the witness stand to be asked probing/clarificatory questions consonant with cited jurisprudential rulings of the Supreme Court, this Court in the exercise of its discretion and sound judgment finds and so holds that NO probable cause was established to warrant the issuance of an arrest order and the further prosecution of the instant case. Record also shows in no unclear terms that in all the scheduled hearings of the case, the accused had always been present. A contrario, the private complainant failed to appear during the last four (4) consecutive settings despite due notice without giving any explanation, which to the mind of the Court may indicate an apparent lack of interest in the further prosecution of this case. That failure may even be construed as a confirmation of the Defenses contention reflected in the case record, that the only party interested in this case is the Private prosecutor, prodded by the accuseds alleged hostile siblings to continue with the case. WHEREFORE, premises considered, for utter lack of probable cause, the instant case is hereby ordered DISMISSED.21 He claims that under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause "to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce." However, in the leading case of Soliven v. Makasiar,22 the Court explained that this constitutional provision does not mandatorily require the judge to personally examine the complainant and her witnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutors report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. Thus: The addition of the word "personally" after the word "determined" and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to "other responsible officers as may be authorized by law," has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. This is not an accurate interpretation. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.

Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would by unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts.23 We reiterated the above ruling in the case of Webb v. De Leon,24 where we held that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence.25 It is well to remember that there is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. The determination of probable cause for purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged is the function of the investigating prosecutor.26 True, there are cases where the circumstances may call for the judges personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses. But it must be emphasized that such personal examination is not mandatory and indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The necessity arises only when there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the existence of probable cause.27 Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report of the investigating prosecutor, provided that he likewise evaluates the documentary evidence in support thereof. Indeed, what the law requires as personal determination on the part of the judge is that he should not rely solelyon the report of the investigating prosecutor. In Okabe v. Gutierrez,28 we stressed that the judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information.29 If the report, taken together with the supporting evidence, is sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause, it is not compulsory that a personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses be conducted. In this case, respondent Judge Carbonell dismissed Criminal Case No. 6983 without taking into consideration the June 11, 2003 Resolution of 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Georgina Hidalgo, the October 13, 2003 Resolution of the panel of prosecutors, and the July 1, 2005 Resolution of the Department of Justice, all of which sustain a finding of probable cause against Arzadon. Moreover, he failed to evaluate the evidence in support thereof. Respondent judges finding of lack of probable cause was premised only on the complainants and her witnesses absence during the hearing scheduled by the respondent judge for the judicial determination of probable cause. Petitioner narrated in detail the alleged rape incident both in her Sinumpaang Salaysay30 dated July 24, 2002 and Complaint-Affidavit31 dated March 5, 2003. She attended several clarificatory hearings that were conducted in the instant case. The transcript of stenographic notes32 of the hearing held on October 11, 2002 shows that she positively identified Arzadon as her assailant, and the specific time and place of the incident. She also claimed that she bore a child as a result of the rape and, in support of her contentions, presented the child and her birth certificate as evidence. In contrast, Arzadon merely relied on the defense of alibi which is the weakest of all defenses.

After a careful examination of the records, we find that there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The gravamen of rape is the carnal knowledge by the accused of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.33 Petitioner has categorically stated that Arzadon raped her, recounting her ordeal in detail during the preliminary investigations. Taken with the other evidence presented before the investigating prosecutors, such is sufficient for purposes of establishing probable cause. It is well-settled that a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Probable cause is that which engenders a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. 34 It is clear therefore that respondent Judge Carbonell gravely abused his discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause on the ground that petitioner and her witnesses failed to take the witness stand. Considering there is ample evidence and sufficient basis on record to support a finding of probable cause, it was unnecessary for him to take the further step of examining the petitioner and her witnesses. Moreover, he erred in holding that petitioners absences in the scheduled hearings were indicative of a lack of interest in prosecuting the case. In fact, the records show that she has relentlessly pursued the same. Needless to say, a full-blown trial is to be preferred to ferret out the truth.35 As it were, the incidents of this case have been pending for almost five years without having even passed the preliminary investigation stage. Suffice to say that the credibility of petitioner may be tested during the trial where the respective allegations and defenses of the complainant and the accused are properly ventilated. It is only then that the truth as to Arzadons innocence or guilt can be determined. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union dated December 16, 2005, and February 3, 2006 dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Information in the said case is hereby REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Manila is DIRECTED to take cognizance of the case and let the records thereof be REMANDED to the said court for further proceedings. SO ORDERED.

In a rape case, private complainant failed to appear 4 consecutive orders to take the witness stand in order to satisfy the judge for the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Judge Carbonell dismissed Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause on the ground that the complainant and her witnesses failed to take the witness stand. He claims that under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Is Judge Carbonell correct? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Judge Carbonell committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court explained that this constitutional provision does not mandatorily require the judge to personally examine the complainant and her witnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutors report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. We reiterated the above ruling in the case of Webb v. De Leon, where we held that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence. fellester.blogspot.com It is well to remember that there is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. The determination of probable cause for purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged is the function of the investigating prosecutor. True, there are cases where the circumstances may call for the judges personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses. But it must be emphasized that such personal examination is not mandatory and indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The necessity arises only when there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the existence of probable cause. Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report of the investigating prosecutor, provided that he likewise evaluates the documentary evidence in support thereof. Indeed, what the law requires as personal determination on the part of the judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. In Okabe v. Gutierrez, we stressed that the judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information. If the report, taken together with the supporting evidence, is sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause, it is not compulsory that a personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses be conducted. (AAA vs. Carbonell, G.R. No. 171465, June 8, 2007)

OS ANGELES COUNTY v. RETTELE On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 06-605 Argued: --- Decided: May 21, 2007 Respondents filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit, alleging that their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputies, who were executing a valid warrant to search a house but were unaware that the potentially armed suspects being sought had sold the house to respondents and moved out, ordered the unclothed respondents out of bed and required them to stand for a few minutes before allowing them to dress. The District Court granted the defendants summary judgment. In reversing, the Ninth Circuit found that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment and were not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable deputy would have stopped the search upon discovering that respondents were of a different race than the suspects and would not have ordered respondents from their bed. Held: The deputies did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Officers executing a search warrant may take reasonable action to secure the premises and to ensure their own safety and the efficacy of the search. Upon encountering respondents, the deputies acted reasonably to secure the premises. The presence of one race did not eliminate the possibility that suspects of a different race were in the residence as well. In ordering respondents out of bed, the deputies acted reasonably to ensure their own safety, since blankets and bedding can conceal a weapon and since one of the suspects was known to own a firearm. There is no allegation that the detention was prolonged or that respondents were prevented from dressing any longer than necessary to protect the deputies' safety. THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 164815 September 3, 2009

One (1) cal. 38 "Charter Arms" revolver bearing serial no. 52315 with five (5) live ammo. without first having secured the necessary license/permit issued by the proper authorities. CONTRARY TO LAW.4 When arraigned, Valeroso pleaded "not guilty."5 Trial on the merits ensued. During trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses: Senior Police Officer (SPO)2 Antonio Disuanco (Disuanco) of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Central Police District Command; and Epifanio Deriquito (Deriquito), Records Verifier of the Firearms and Explosives Division in Camp Crame. Their testimonies are summarized as follows: On July 10, 1996, at around 9:30 a.m., Disuanco received a Dispatch Order from the desk officer directing him and three (3) other policemen to serve a Warrant of Arrest, issued by Judge Ignacio Salvador, against Valeroso for a case of kidnapping with ransom.6 After a briefing, the team conducted the necessary surveillance on Valeroso checking his hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan, and Bulacan. Eventually, the team members proceeded to the Integrated National Police (INP) Central Police Station in Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw Valeroso about to board a tricyle. Disuanco and his team approached Valeroso. They put him under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights, and bodily searched him. They found a Charter Arms revolver, bearing Serial No. 52315, with five (5) pieces of live ammunition, tucked in his waist.7 Valeroso was then brought to the police station for questioning. Upon verification in the Firearms and Explosives Division in Camp Crame, Deriquito presented a certification 8 that the subject firearm was not issued to Valeroso, but was licensed in the name of a certain Raul Palencia Salvatierra of Sampaloc, Manila. 9 On the other hand, Valeroso, SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol, Jr. (Timbol), and Adrian Yuson testified for the defense. Their testimonies are summarized as follows: On July 10, 1996, Valeroso was sleeping inside a room in the boarding house of his children located at Sagana Homes, Barangay New Era, Quezon City. He was awakened by four (4) heavily armed men in civilian attire who pointed their guns at him and pulled him out of the room.10 The raiding team tied his hands and placed him near the faucet (outside the room) then went back inside, searched and ransacked the room. Moments later, an operative came out of the room and exclaimed, "Hoy, may nakuha akong baril sa loob!" 11 Disuanco informed Valeroso that there was a standing warrant for his arrest. However, the raiding team was not armed with a search warrant.12 Timbol testified that he issued to Valeroso a Memorandum Receipt13 dated July 1, 1993 covering the subject firearm and its ammunition, upon the verbal instruction of Col. Angelito Moreno.14 On May 6, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 97, Quezon City, convicted Valeroso as charged and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum. The gun subject of the case was further ordered confiscated in favor of the government.15

SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. RESOLUTION NACHURA, J.: For resolution is the Letter-Appeal1 of Senior Inspector (Sr. Insp.) Jerry C. Valeroso (Valeroso) praying that our February 22, 2008 Decision2 and June 30, 2008 Resolution3 be set aside and a new one be entered acquitting him of the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The facts are briefly stated as follows: Valeroso was charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, committed as follows: That on or about the 10th day of July, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her possession and under his/her custody and control

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed16 the RTC decision but the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty was lowered to four (4) years and two (2) months. On petition for review, we affirmed17 in full the CA decision. Valeroso filed a Motion for Reconsideration18 which was denied with finality19 on June 30, 2008. Valeroso is again before us through this Letter-Appeal20 imploring this Court to once more take a contemplative reflection and deliberation on the case, focusing on his breached constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.21 Meanwhile, as the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) failed to timely file its Comment on Valerosos Motion for Reconsideration, it instead filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment.22 In its Manifestation, the OSG changed its previous position and now recommends Valerosos acquittal. After a second look at the evidence presented, the OSG considers the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense more credible and thus concludes that Valeroso was arrested in a boarding house. More importantly, the OSG agrees with Valeroso that the subject firearm was obtained by the police officers in violation of Valerosos constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, and should thus be excluded from the evidence for the prosecution. Lastly, assuming that the subject firearm was admissible in evidence, still, Valeroso could not be convicted of the crime, since he was able to establish his authority to possess the gun through the Memorandum Receipt issued by his superiors. After considering anew Valerosos arguments through his Letter-Appeal, together with the OSGs position recommending his acquittal, and keeping in mind that substantial rights must ultimately reign supreme over technicalities, this Court is swayed to reconsider.23 The Letter-Appeal is actually in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration. While a second motion for reconsideration is, as a general rule, a prohibited pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the Court to admit the same, provided it is filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be better served thereby. 24 This is not the first time that this Court is suspending its own rules or excepting a particular case from the operation of the rules. In De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan,25 despite the denial of De Guzmans motion for reconsideration, we still entertained his Omnibus Motion, which was actually a second motion for reconsideration. Eventually, we reconsidered our earlier decision and remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan for reception and appreciation of petitioners evidence. In that case, we said that if we would not compassionately bend backwards and flex technicalities, petitioner would surely experience the disgrace and misery of incarceration for a crime which he might not have committed after all.26 Also in Astorga v. People,27 on a second motion for reconsideration, we set aside our earlier decision, re-examined the records of the case, then finally acquitted Benito Astorga of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt. And in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Amante,28 by virtue of the January 13, 2004 En Banc Resolution, the Court authorized the Special First Division to suspend the Rules, so as to allow it to consider and resolve respondents second motion for reconsideration after the motion was heard on oral arguments. After a reexamination of the merits of the case, we granted the second motion for reconsideration and set aside our earlier decision. Clearly, suspension of the rules of procedure, to pave the way for the re-examination of the findings of fact and conclusions of law earlier made, is not without basis.

We would like to stress that rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They are conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the courts in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that, on the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than to promote justice, it would always be within our power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from its operation.29 Now on the substantive aspect. The Court notes that the version of the prosecution, as to where Valeroso was arrested, is different from the version of the defense. The prosecution claims that Valeroso was arrested near the INP Central Police Station in Culiat, Quezon City, while he was about to board a tricycle. After placing Valeroso under arrest, the arresting officers bodily searched him, and they found the subject firearm and ammunition. The defense, on the other hand, insists that he was arrested inside the boarding house of his children. After serving the warrant of arrest (allegedly for kidnapping with ransom), some of the police officers searched the boarding house and forcibly opened a cabinet where they discovered the subject firearm. After a thorough re-examination of the records and consideration of the joint appeal for acquittal by Valeroso and the OSG, we find that we must give more credence to the version of the defense. Valerosos appeal for acquittal focuses on his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure alleged to have been violated by the arresting police officers; and if so, would render the confiscated firearm and ammunition inadmissible in evidence against him. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution which states: SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. From this constitutional provision, it can readily be gleaned that, as a general rule, the procurement of a warrant is required before a law enforcer can validly search or seize the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual.30 To underscore the significance the law attaches to the fundamental right of an individual against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Constitution succinctly declares in Article III, Section 3(2), that "any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding."31 The above proscription is not, however, absolute. The following are the well-recognized instances where searches and seizures are allowed even without a valid warrant: 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

2. [Seizure] of evidence in "plain view." The elements are: a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search; 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicles inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; 4. Consented warrantless search; 5. Customs search; 6. Stop and Frisk; 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.32 8. Search of vessels and aircraft; [and] 9. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations.33 In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.34 In light of the enumerated exceptions, and applying the test of reasonableness laid down above, is the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid? We answer in the negative. For one, the warrantless search could not be justified as an incident to a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures incident to lawful arrests are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which reads: SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. We would like to stress that the scope of the warrantless search is not without limitations. In People v. Leangsiri,35People v. Cubcubin, Jr.,36 and People v. Estella,37 we had the occasion to lay down the parameters of a valid warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest.

When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officers safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestees person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.38 Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within the latters reach.39 Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control.40 The phrase "within the area of his immediate control" means the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.41 A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested.42 In the present case, Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. At that time, Valeroso was sleeping inside the boarding house of his children. He was awakened by the arresting officers who were heavily armed. They pulled him out of the room, placed him beside the faucet outside the room, tied his hands, and then put him under the care of Disuanco.43 The other police officers remained inside the room and ransacked the locked cabinet44 where they found the subject firearm and ammunition.45 With such discovery, Valeroso was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily conclude that the arresting officers served the warrant of arrest without any resistance from Valeroso. They placed him immediately under their control by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him out of the room with his hands tied. To be sure, the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was locked, could no longer be considered as an "area within his immediate control" because there was no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used against him. The arresting officers would have been justified in searching the person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or drawers in front of him, for any concealed weapon that might be used against the former. But under the circumstances obtaining, there was no comparable justification to search through all the desk drawers and cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that room itself.46 It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception (warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose.47 In the case before us, search was made in the locked cabinet which cannot be said to have been within Valerosos immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest.48 Nor can the warrantless search in this case be justified under the "plain view doctrine." The "plain view doctrine" may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendants guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.49 As enunciated in People v. Cubcubin, Jr.50 and People v. Leangsiri:51

What the "plain view" cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which[,] he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused and permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the "plain view" doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.52 Indeed, the police officers were inside the boarding house of Valerosos children, because they were supposed to serve a warrant of arrest issued against Valeroso. In other words, the police officers had a prior justification for the intrusion. Consequently, any evidence that they would inadvertently discover may be used against Valeroso. However, in this case, the police officers did not just accidentally discover the subject firearm and ammunition; they actually searched for evidence against Valeroso. Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valerosos right against unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence against him.1avvphi1 Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace against which the constitutional guarantees afford full protection. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary for public welfare, still it may be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for no enforcement of any statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of an individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price to pay for the loss of liberty.53 Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official functions.54

VALEROSO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR 164815 February 22, 2008 (focusing on PROSPECTIVITY)

FACTS: On July 10, 1996, SPO2 Antonio Disuanco of the Criminal Investigation Section Division, Central Police District Command received a dispatch order which directed him and three (3) other personnel to serve a warrant of arrest against petitioner in a case for kidnapping with ransom. After briefing, team conducted necessary surveillance on petitioner, checking his hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan and Bulacan. Then, the team proceeded to the Integrated National Police Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw petitioner as he was about to board a tricycle. SPO2 Disuanco and his team approached petitioner. They put him under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights, and bodily searched him. Found tucked in his waist was a Charter Arms, bearing Serial Number 52315 with five (5) live ammunition. Petitioner was brought to the police station for questioning. A verification of the subject firearm at the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame revealed that it was not issued to the petitioner but to another person. Petitioner was then charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under PD No. 1866 as amended. On May 6, 1998 trial court found petitionerguilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum plus fine. Petitioner moved to reconsider but his motion was denied. He appealed to the CA. On May 4, 2004, the appellate court affirmed the RTC disposition. SC affirmed CAs decision.

ISSUE: The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes meaningless. This explains why the Bill of Rights, contained as it is in Article III of the Constitution, occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law way above the articles on governmental power.55 Without the illegally seized firearm, Valerosos conviction cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient evidence to convict him.56 All told, the guilt of Valeroso was not proven beyond reasonable doubt measured by the required moral certainty for conviction. The evidence presented by the prosecution was not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence as constitutionally ordained. Indeed, it would be better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.57 With the foregoing disquisition, there is no more need to discuss the other issues raised by Valeroso. One final note. The Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative and prosecutory powers of the government. 58 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the February 22, 2008 Decision and June 30, 2008 Resolution are RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso is hereby ACQUITTED of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. (1) Whether or not retroactive application of the law is valid taken into account that the commission of the offense was on July 10, 1996 wherein the governing law was PD 1866 which provides the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.

HELD: (1) YES. RA 8294 amended PD 1866 on July 6, 1997, during the pendency of the case with the trial court. The law looks forward, never backward (prospectivity).Lex prospicit, non respicit. A new law has a prospective, not retroactive, effect. However, penal laws that favor a guilty person, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be given retroactive effect.(Exception and exception to the exception on effectivity of laws).

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 162808 April 22, 2008

2. That upon arrival at the house of retired police Percival Plaza, together with Lorenzo Sanoria, Delfin Ramirez and Pedro Ramas who asked for a ride from the highway in going to Sitio Cahi-an, I immediately went down of the jeep but before I could call Mr. Plaza, four policemen in uniform blocked my way; 3. That the four policemen were [private respondents] PO1 Romil Avenido PNP, PO1 Valentino Rufano, PNP both member of 142nd Company, Regional Mobile Group and PO1 Eddie Degran PNP and PO1 Federico Balolot PNP members of 1403 Prov'l Mobile Group, all of Bunawan Brook, Bunawan, Agusan del Sur; who all pointed their long firearms ready to fire [at] me, having heard the sound of the release of the safety lock; 4. That raising my arms, I heard [private respondent] PO1 Avenido saying, "ANG IMONG PUSIL, IHATAG" which means "Give me your firearm," to which I answered, "WALA MAN KO'Y PUSIL" translated as "I have no firearm," showing my waistline when I raised my T-shirt; 5. That my other companions on the jeep also went down and raised their arms and showed their waistline when the same policemen and a person in civilian attire holding an armalite also pointed their firearms to them to which Mr. Percival Plaza who came down from his house told them not to harass me as I am also a former police officer but they did not heed Mr. Plaza's statements; 6. That while we were raising our arms [private respondent] SPO4 Benjamin Conde, Jr. went near my owner type jeep and conducted a search. To which I asked them if they have any search warrant; 7. That after a while they saw my super .38 pistol under the floormat of my jeep and asked me of the MR of the firearm but due to fear that their long arms were still pointed to us, I searched my wallet and gave the asked [sic] document; 8. That immediately the policemen left me and my companions without saying anything bringing with them the firearm; 9. That at about 2:30 p.m., I left Mr. Percival's house and went to Trento Police Station where I saw a person in civilian attire with a revolver tucked on his waist, to which I asked the police officers including those who searched my jeep to apprehend him also; 10. That nobody among the policemen at the station made a move to apprehend the armed civilian person so I went to the office of Police Chief Rocacorba who immediately called the armed civilian to his office and when already inside his office, the disarming was done; 11. That after the disarming of the civilian I was put to jail with the said person by Police Chief Rocacorba and was released only at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of May 16, 2001 after posting a bailbond; 12. That I caused the execution of this document for the purpose of filing cases of Illegal Search, Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority against SPO4 Benjamin Conde, Jr., of Trento Police Station; PO1 Ramil Avenido, PO1 Velantino Rufano, PO1 Federico Balolot and PO1 Eddie Degran. 9 Petitioner also submitted the Joint Affidavit10 of his witnesses, Lorenzo Sanoria and Percival Plaza.

FELICIANO GALVANTE, petitioner, vs. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, BIENVENIDO C. BLANCAFLOR, Director, DENNIS L. GARCIA, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer, SPO4 RAMIL AVENIDO, PO1 EDDIE DEGRAN, PO1 VALENTINO RUFANO, and PO1 FEDERICO BALOLOT,respondents. DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Assailed herein by Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are the October 30, 2003 Resolution1 of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) which dismissed for lack of probable cause the criminal complaint, docketed as OMB-P-C-02-0109-B, filed by Feliciano Galvante2 (petitioner) against SPO4 Benjamin Conde, PO1 Ramil Avenido, PO1 Eddie Degran, PO1 Valentino Rufano, and PO1 Federico Balolot (private respondents) for arbitrary detention, illegal search and grave threats; and the January 20, 2004 Ombudsman Order 3 which denied his motion for reconsideration. The facts are of record. In the afternoon of May 14, 2001 at Sitio Cahi-an, Kapatungan, Trento, Agusan del Sur, private respondents confiscated from petitioner one colt pistol super .38 automatic with serial no. 67973, one short magazine, and nine super .38 live ammunitions.4 The confiscated materials were covered by an expired Memorandum Receipt dated September 2, 1999.5 Consequently, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed against petitioner an Information 6 for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Relation to Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 3258, docketed as Criminal Case No. 5047, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. Pending resolution of Criminal Case No. 5047, petitioner filed against private respondents an administrative case, docketed as Administrative Case No. IASOB-020007 for Grave Misconduct, before the Internal Affairs Service (IAS), Region XIII, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG);7 and a criminal case, docketed as OMB-P-C-02-0109-B for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search and Grave Threats, before the Ombudsman.8 In the June 21, 2001 Affidavit-Complaint he filed in both cases, petitioner narrated how, on May 14, 2001, private respondents aimed their long firearms at him, arbitrarily searched his vehicle and put him in detention, thus: 1. That sometime on May 14, 2001 I left my house at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon after having lunch for Sitio Cahi-an, Brgy. Kapatungan, Trento, Agusan del Sur to meet retired police Percival Plaza and inquire about the retirement procedure for policemen;

Private respondent Conde filed a Counter-Affidavit dated March 20, 2002, where he interposed the following defenses: First, he had nothing to do with the detention of petitioner as it was Chief of Police/Officer-in-Charge Police Inspector Dioscoro Mehos Rocacorba who ordered the detention. Petitioner himself admitted this fact in his own Complaint-Affidavit;11 and Second, he denies searching petitioner's vehicle,12 but admits that even though he was not armed with a warrant, he searched the person of petitioner as the latter, in plain view, was committing a violation of Comelec Resolutions No. 3258 and No. 3328 by carrying a firearm in his person. Private respondents Avenido, Degran, Rufano and Balolot filed their Joint-Affidavit dated March 25, 2002, which contradicts the statements of private respondent Conde, viz: 1. that we executed a joint counter-affidavit dated August 28, 2001 where we stated among other things, that "we saw Feleciano "Nani" Galvante armed with a handgun/pistol tucked on his waist;" 2. that this statement is not accurate because the truth of the matter is that the said handgun was taken by SPO4 BENJAMIN CONDE, JR., who was acting as our team leader during the May 14, 2001 Elections, from the jeep of Mr. Galvante after searching the same; and 3. that we noticed the aforementioned discrepancy in our affidavit dated August 28, 2001 after we have already affixed our signatures thereon.13 Consequently, petitioner filed an Affidavit of Desistance dated March 25, 2002 with both the IAS and Ombudsman, absolving private respondents Avenido, Degran, Rufano and Balolot, but maintaining that private respondent Conde alone be prosecuted in both administrative and criminal cases. 14 On July 17, 2002, the IAS issued a Decision in Administrative Case No. IASOB-020007, finding all private respondents guilty of grave misconduct but penalized them with suspension only. The IAS noted however that private respondents were merely being "[enthusiastic] in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty." 15 Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. 5047, petitioner filed with the RTC a Motion for Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of or Recall the Warrant of Arrest.16 The RTC granted the same in an Order17dated August 17, 2001. Upon reinvestigation, Prosecutor II Eliseo Diaz, Jr. filed a "Reinvestigation with Motion to Dismiss" dated November 22, 2001, recommending the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 5047 on the ground that "the action of the policemen who conducted the warrantless search in spite of the absence of any circumstances justifying the same intruded into the privacy of the accused and the security of his property."18 Officer-in-Charge Prosecutor II Victoriano Pag-ong approved said recommendation.19 The RTC granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss in an Order20 dated January 16, 2003. Apparently unaware of what transpired in Criminal Case No. 5047, Ombudsman Investigation & Prosecution Officer Dennis L. Garcia issued in OMB-P-C-02-0109-B, the October 30, 2003 Resolution, to wit: After a careful evaluation, the undersigned prosecutor finds no probable cause for any of the offenses charged against above-named respondents.

The allegations of the complainant failed to establish the factual basis of the complaint, it appearing from the records that the incident stemmed from a valid warrantless arrest. The subsequent execution of an affidavit of desistance by the complainant rendered the complaint even more uncertain and subject to doubt, especially so since it merely exculpated some but not all of the respondents. These circumstances, coupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, negates any criminal liability on the part of the respondents. WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby recommended that the above-captioned case be dismissed for lack of probable cause.21 (Emphasis supplied) Upon the recommendation of Director Bienvenido C. Blancaflor, Deputy Ombudsman for the Military Orlando C. Casimiro (Deputy Ombudsman) approved the October 30, 2003 Resolution.22 In his Motion for Reconsideration,23 petitioner called the attention of the Ombudsman to the earlier IAS Decision, the Reinvestigation with Motion to Dismiss of Prosecutor II Eliseo Diaz, Jr. and the RTC Order, all of which declared the warrantless search conducted by private respondents illegal,24 which are contradicted by the October 30, 2003 Ombudsman Resolution declaring the warrantless search legal. The Ombudsman denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on the ground that the latter offered "no new evidence or errors of law which would warrant the reversal or modification"25 of its October 30, 2003 Resolution. Petitioner filed the present petition, attributing to Deputy Ombudsman Casimiro, Director Blancaflor and Prosecutor Garcia (public respondents) the following acts of grave abuse of discretion: I. Public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when, in their Resolution dated October 30, 2003, public respondents found that the incident upon which petitioner's criminal complaint was based stemmed from a valid warrantless arrest and dismissed petitioner's complaint despite the fact that: A. Petitioner has clearly shown that the search conducted by the private respondents was made without a valid warrant, nor does it fall under any of the instances of valid warrantless searches. B. Notwithstanding the absence of a valid warrant, petitioner was arrested and detained by the private respondents. II. Public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when, in their Order dated January 20, 2004, public respondents denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a capricious, whimsical, despotic and arbitrary manner.26 In its Memorandum,27 the Office of the Solicitor General argued that public respondents acted within the bounds of their discretion in dismissing OMB-P-C-02-0109-B given that private respondents committed no crime in searching petitioner and confiscating his firearm as the former were merely performing their duty of enforcing the law against illegal possession of firearms and the Comelec ban against the carrying of firearms outside of one's residence.

Private respondent Conde filed a Comment28 and a Memorandum for himself.29 Private respondents Avenido, Degran, Rufano and Balolot filed their separate Letter-Comment dated June 25, 2004.30 The petition lacks merit. The Constitution vests in the Ombudsman the power to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts.31 The Court respects the relative autonomy of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute, and refrains from interfering when the latter exercises such powers either directly or through the Deputy Ombudsman,32 except when the same is shown to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.33 Grave abuse of discretion is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism.34 This does not obtain in the present case. It is noted that the criminal complaint which petitioner filed with the Ombudsman charges private respondents with warrantless search, arbitrary detention, and grave threats. The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the RPC punishes are only two forms of searches: Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty ofarresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceedingP1,000.00 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same. Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality. Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies in his Affidavit-Complaint; rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a search on his vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC. The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle is civil, 35 under Article 32, in relation to Article 221936 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code, which 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 one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; xxxx The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. and/or disciplinary and administrative, under Section 41 of Republic Act No. 6975.37 To avail of such remedies, petitioner may file against private respondents a complaint for damages with the regular courts38 or an administrative case with the PNP/DILG,39 as petitioner did in Administrative Case No. IASOB-020007, and not a criminal action with the Ombudsman. Public respondents' dismissal of the criminal complaint for illegal search which petitioner filed with the Ombudsman against private respondents was therefore proper, although the reasons public respondents cited for dismissing the complaint are rather off the mark because they relied solely on the finding that the warrantless search conducted by private respondents was valid and that the Affidavit of Desistance which petitioner executed cast doubt on the veracity of his complaint.40 Public respondents completely overlooked the fact that the criminal complaint was not cognizable by the Ombudsman as illegal search is not a criminal offense. Nevertheless, the result achieved is the same: the dismissal of a groundless criminal complaint for illegal search which is not an offense under the RPC. Thus, the Court need not resolve the issue of whether or not public respondents erred in their finding on the validity of the search for that issue is completely hypothetical under the circumstance. The criminal complaint for abitrary detention was likewise properly dismissed by public respondents. To sustain a criminal charge for arbitrary detention, it must be shown that (a) the offender is a public officer or employee, (b) the offender detained the complainant, and (c) the detention is without legal grounds. 41 The second element was not alleged by petitioner in his Affidavit-Complaint. As pointed out by private respondent Conde in his Comment42and Memorandum,43 petitioner himself identified in his Affidavit-Complaint that it was Police Chief Rocacorba who caused his detention. Nowhere in said affidavit did petitioner allege that private respondents effected his detention, or were in any other way involved in it.44 There was, therefore, no factual or legal basis to sustain the criminal charge for arbitrary detention against private respondents. Finally, on the criminal complaint for grave threats, the Solicitor General aptly pointed out that the same is based merely on petitioner's bare allegation that private respondents aimed their firearms at him.45 Such bare allegation stands no chance against the well-entrenched rule applicable in this case, that public officers enjoy a presumption of regularity in the performance of their official function.46 The IAS itself observed that private respondents may have been carried away by their "enthusiasm in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty."47 Petitioner expressed the same view when, in his Affidavit of Desistance, he accepted that private respondents may have been merely following orders when they pointed their long firearms at him. All said, public respondents did not act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against private respondents. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

FELICIANO GALVANTE vs. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, BIENVENIDO C. BLANCAFLOR, Director, DENNIS L. GARCIA, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer, SPO4 RAMIL AVENIDO, PO1 EDDIE DEGRAN, PO1 VALENTINO RUFANO, and PO1 FEDERICO BALOLOT G.R. No. 162808. April 22, 2008 FACTS: In the afternoon of May 14, 2001 at Sitio Cahi-an, Kapatungan, Trento, Agusan del Sur, private respondents confiscated from petitioner Galvante one colt pistol super .38 automatic with serial no. 67973, one short magazine, and nine super .38 live ammunitions. The confiscated materials were covered by an expired Memorandum Receipt dated September 2, 1999. Thus, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed against petitioner an Information for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Relation to Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 3258, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. Pending resolution of criminal case, petitioner filed against private respondents an administrative case for Grave Misconduct, before the Internal Affairs Service (IAS), Region XIII, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG); and a criminal case for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search and Grave Threats, before the Ombudsman. Petitioner Galvante contended that the private respondents conducted a warrantless search and that he was detained by Chief of Police Rocacorba for two (2) days when he proceeded to the police station. Wherein, he was only released after he posted bail bond. However, petitioner filed an Affidavit of Desistance dated March 25, 2002 with both the IAS and Ombudsman, absolving private respondents Avenido, Degran, Rufano and Balolot, but maintaining that private respondent Conde alone be prosecuted in both administrative and criminal cases. The IAS issued a decision finding all private respondents guilty of grave misconduct but penalized them with suspension only. The IAS noted however that private respondents were merely being enthusiastic in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty. Meanwhile, the RTC dismissed the case. But, the Ombudsman, apparently unaware of what transpired in the RTC; recommended that the case be dismissed for lack of probable cause. Casimiro (Deputy Ombudsman), herein respondent, approved the October 30, 2003 Resolution. Hence, the petition against the Ombudsman. ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the above-stated case. RULING: The Court DENIED the petition. It was held that the complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the RPC punishes are only two forms of searches: Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained and Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses.

Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies in his Affidavit-Complaint; rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a search on his vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC. The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle is civil, under Article 32, in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code. To avail of such remedies, petitioner may file against private respondents a complaint for damages with the regular courts or an administrative case with the PNP/DILG, as petitioner did in Administrative Case No. IASOB-020007, and not a criminal action with the Ombudsman. Further held, public respondents' dismissal of the criminal complaint for illegal search which petitioner filed with the Ombudsman against private respondents was therefore proper, although the reasons public respondents cited for dismissing the complaint are rather off the mark because they relied solely on the finding that the warrantless search conducted by private respondents was valid and that the Affidavit of Desistance which petitioner executed cast doubt on the veracity of his complaint. Public respondents completely overlooked the fact that the criminal complaint was not cognizable by the Ombudsman as illegal search is not a criminal offense. Nevertheless, the result achieved is the same: the dismissal of a groundless criminal complaint for illegal search which is not an offense under the RPC. Thus, the Court need not resolve the issue of whether or not public respondents erred in their finding on the validity of the search for that issue is completely hypothetical under the circumstance.

Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco Brief Fact Summary. An inspector from the Department of Health entered a home to investigate possible violations of a Citys housing code without a warrant. Synopsis of Rule of Law. [A]dministrative searches of the kind at issue here are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment, that such searches when authorized and conducted without a warrant procedure lack the traditional safeguards which the Fourth Amendment guarantees to the individual, and that the reasons put forth in [Frank v. Maryland] and in other cases for upholding these warrantless searches are insufficient to justify so substantial a weakening of the Fourth Amendments protections. Facts. On November 6, 1963, an inspector of the Division of Housing Inspection of the San Francisco Department of Public Health entered an apartment building to make a routine annual inspection for possible violations of the citys Housing Code. The inspector was informed that the Appellant was using part of his leasehold as a personal residence. The inspector confronted the Appellant and demanded to inspect the premises because residential use was not allowed on the first floor of the apartment building. The Appellant did not allow the inspector to enter because he did not have a warrant. The inspector attempted to obtain access to Appellants apartment a second time two days later, and again the Appellant refused to grant him access. The Appellant then was sent a summons ordering him to appear at the district attorneys office. The Appellant did not appear and a few weeks later two other inspectors attempted to gain access to his apartment and were again refused because they did not have a search warrant. A complaint was then filed against the Appellant for violation of the Housing Code. His demurrer was denied and he filed a writ of prohibition. The court of Appeals held the housing section does not violate Fourth Amendment rights because it is part of a regulatory scheme which is essentially civil rather than criminal in nature, inasmuch as that section creates a right of inspection which is limited in scope and may not be exercised under unreasonable conditions. Issue. [W]hether administrative inspection programs, as presently authorized and conducted, violate Fourth Amendment rights as those rights are enforced against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment? Held. Yes. [Frank v. Maryland], to the extent that it sanctioned such warrantless inspections, must be overruled. In [Frank v. Maryland], [the Supreme Court] upheld the conviction of one who refused to permit a warrantless inspection of private premises for the purposes of locating and abating a suspected public nuisance. [T]he Frank opinion has generally been interpreted as carving out an additional exception to the rule that warrantless searches are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The majority here observed, [t]he practical effect of this system is to leave the occupant subject to the discretion of the official in the field. This is precisely the discretion to invade private property which we have consistently circumscribed by a requirement that a disinterested party warrant the need to search. We simply cannot say that the protections provided by the warrant procedure are not needed in this context; broad statutory safeguards are no substitute for individualized review, particularly when those safeguards may only be invoked at the risk of a criminal penalty. Unfortunately, there can be no ready test for determining reasonableness [of a search] other than by balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails. But [the majority thought] that a number of persuasive factors combine to support the reasonableness of area code-enforcement inspections. First, such programs have a long history of judicial and public acceptance. Second, the public interest demands that all

dangerous conditions be prevented or abated, yet it is doubtful that any other canvassing technique would achieve acceptable results. Many such conditions faulty wiring is an obvious example are not observable from outside the building and indeed may not be apparent to the inexpert occupant himself. Finally, because the inspections are neither personal in nature nor aimed at the discovery of evidence of crime, they involve a relatively limited invasion of the urban citizens privacy. Further, [after] concluded that the area inspection is a reasonable search of private property within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, [the majority observed] it is obvious that probable cause to issue a warrant to inspect must exist if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling. Such standards, which will vary with the municipal program being enforced, may be based upon the passage of time, the nature of the building (e. g., a multi-family apartment house), or the condition of the entire area, but they will not necessarily depend upon specific knowledge of the condition of the particular dwelling. It has been suggested that so to vary the probable cause test from the standard applied in criminal cases would be to authorize a synthetic search warrant and thereby to lessen the overall protections of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, [t]he warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a decision to search private property is justified by a reasonable governmental interest. But reasonableness is still the ultimate standard. If a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated, then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant. Such an approach neither endangers time-honored doctrines applicable to criminal investigations nor makes a nullity of the probable cause requirement in this area. It merely gives full recognition to the competing public and private interests here at stake and, in so doing, best fulfills the historic purpose behind the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable government invasions of privacy. Discussion. The majority was careful not to limit all searches in emergency circumstances. It observed: Since our holding emphasizes the controlling standard of reasonableness, nothing we say today is intended to foreclose prompt inspections, even without a warrant, that the law has traditionally upheld in emergency situations. On the other hand, in the case of most routine area inspections, there is no compelling urgency to inspect at a particular time or on a particular day. Moreover, most citizens allow inspections of their property without a warrant. Thus, as a practical matter and in light of the Fourth Amendments requirement that a warrant specify the property to be searched, it seems likely that warrants should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless there has been a citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason for securing immediate entry. Similarly, the requirement of a warrant procedure does not suggest any change in what seems to be the prevailing local policy, in most situations, of authorizing entry, but not entry by force, to inspect.

EN BANC G.R. No. 157870 November 3, 2008

(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. - Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations as contained in the school's student handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a random drug testing x x x; (d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. - Officers and employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the company's work rules and regulations, x x x for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law; xxxx (f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall undergo a mandatory drug test; (g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test. In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act. G.R. No. 161658 (Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v. Commission on Elections)

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), petitioner vs. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA),respondents. x-----------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 158633 November 3, 2008

ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA, JR., petitioner vs. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, respondents. x-----------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 161658 November 3, 2008

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., petitioner vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents. DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: In these kindred petitions, the constitutionality of Section 36 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, insofar as it requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor's office with certain offenses, among other personalities, is put in issue. As far as pertinent, the challenged section reads as follows: SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. - Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of the test results. x x x The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. x x x The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing: xxxx

On December 23, 2003, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and local elections. The pertinent portions of the said resolution read as follows: WHEREAS, Section 36 (g) of Republic Act No. 9165 provides: SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. - x x x xxxx (g) All candidates for public office x x x both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test. WHEREAS, Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; WHEREAS, by requiring candidates to undergo mandatory drug test, the public will know the quality of candidates they are electing and they will be assured that only those who can serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency would be elected x x x.

NOW THEREFORE, The [COMELEC], pursuant to the authority vested in it under the Constitution, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), [RA] 9165 and other election laws, RESOLVED to promulgate, as it hereby promulgates, the following rules and regulations on the conduct of mandatory drug testing to candidates for public office[:] SECTION 1. Coverage. - All candidates for public office, both national and local, in the May 10, 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections shall undergo mandatory drug test in government forensic laboratories or any drug testing laboratories monitored and accredited by the Department of Health. SEC. 3. x x x On March 25, 2004, in addition to the drug certificates filed with their respective offices, the Comelec Offices and employees concerned shall submit to the Law Department two (2) separate lists of candidates. The first list shall consist of those candidates who complied with the mandatory drug test while the second list shall consist of those candidates who failed to comply x x x. SEC. 4. Preparation and publication of names of candidates. - Before the start of the campaign period, the [COMELEC] shall prepare two separate lists of candidates. The first list shall consist of those candidates who complied with the mandatory drug test while the second list shall consist of those candidates who failed to comply with said drug test. x x x SEC. 5. Effect of failure to undergo mandatory drug test and file drug test certificate. - No person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug test and filed with the offices enumerated under Section 2 hereof the drug test certificate herein required. (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., a senator of the Republic and a candidate for re - election in the May 10, 2004 elections,1 filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in that they impose a qualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 6486. Pimentel invokes as legal basis for his petition Sec. 3, Article VI of the Constitution, which states: SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural - born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty - five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. According to Pimentel, the Constitution only prescribes a maximum of five (5) qualifications for one to be a candidate for, elected to, and be a member of the Senate. He says that both the Congress and COMELEC, by requiring, via RA 9165 and Resolution No. 6486, a senatorial aspirant, among other candidates, to undergo a mandatory drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates for senator must first be certified as drug free. He adds that there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the Congress or COMELEC to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for senator.

G.R. No. 157870 (Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency) In its Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm. For one, the provisions constitute undue delegation of legislative power when they give unbridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. For another, the provisions trench in the equal protection clause inasmuch as they can be used to harass a student or an employee deemed undesirable. And for a third, a person's constitutional right against unreasonable searches is also breached by said provisions. G.R. No. 158633 (Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency) Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as citizen and taxpayer, also seeks in his Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 that Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), and (g) of RA 9165 be struck down as unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional right to privacy, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right against self - incrimination, and for being contrary to the due process and equal protection guarantees. The Issue on Locus Standi First off, we shall address the justiciability of the cases at bench and the matter of the standing of petitioners SJS and Laserna to sue. As respondents DDB and PDEA assert, SJS and Laserna failed to allege any incident amounting to a violation of the constitutional rights mentioned in their separate petitions.2 It is basic that the power of judicial review can only be exercised in connection with a bona fidecontroversy which involves the statute sought to be reviewed.3 But even with the presence of an actual case or controversy, the Court may refuse to exercise judicial review unless the constitutional question is brought before it by a party having the requisite standing to challenge it.4 To have standing, one must establish that he or she has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. 5 The rule on standing, however, is a matter of procedure; hence, it can be relaxed for non - traditional plaintiffs, like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overarching significance to society, or of paramount public interest. 6 There is no doubt that Pimentel, as senator of the Philippines and candidate for the May 10, 2004 elections, possesses the requisite standing since he has substantial interests in the subject matter of the petition, among other preliminary considerations. Regarding SJS and Laserna, this Court is wont to relax the rule on locus standi owing primarily to the transcendental importance and the paramount public interest involved in the enforcement of Sec. 36 of RA 9165. The Consolidated Issues The principal issues before us are as follows:

(1) Do Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 impose an additional qualification for candidates for senator? Corollarily, can Congress enact a law prescribing qualifications for candidates for senator in addition to those laid down by the Constitution? and (2) Are paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA 9165 unconstitutional? Specifically, do these paragraphs violate the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, and the equal protection clause? Or do they constitute undue delegation of legislative power? Pimentel Petition (Constitutionality of Sec. 36[g] of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486) In essence, Pimentel claims that Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 illegally impose an additional qualification on candidates for senator. He points out that, subject to the provisions on nuisance candidates, a candidate for senator needs only to meet the qualifications laid down in Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution, to wit: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and (5) residency. Beyond these stated qualification requirements, candidates for senator need not possess any other qualification to run for senator and be voted upon and elected as member of the Senate. The Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, or weaken the force of a constitutional mandate,7 or alter or enlarge the Constitution. Pimentel's contention is well - taken. Accordingly, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 should be, as it is hereby declared as, unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.8 In the discharge of their defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed.9 Congress' inherent legislative powers, broad as they may be, are subject to certain limitations. As early as 1927, in Government v. Springer, the Court has defined, in the abstract, the limits on legislative power in the following wise: Someone has said that the powers of the legislative department of the Government, like the boundaries of the ocean, are unlimited. In constitutional governments, however, as well as governments acting under delegated authority, the powers of each of the departments x x x are limited and confined within the four walls of the constitution or the charter, and each department can only exercise such powers as are necessarily implied from the given powers. The Constitution is the shore of legislative authority against which the waves of legislative enactment may dash, but over which it cannot leap. 10 Thus, legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject to substantive and constitutional limitations which circumscribe both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of legislation.11 The substantive constitutional limitations are chiefly found in the Bill of Rights12 and other provisions, such as Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution prescribing the qualifications of candidates for senators. In the same vein, the COMELEC cannot, in the guise of enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36(g), validly impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. If Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification, the COMELEC, to be sure, is also without such power. The right of a citizen in

the democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution.13 Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, as sought to be implemented by the assailed COMELEC resolution, effectively enlarges the qualification requirements enumerated in the Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution. As couched, said Sec. 36(g) unmistakably requires a candidate for senator to be certified illegal - drug clean, obviously as a pre - condition to the validity of a certificate of candidacy for senator or, with like effect, a condition sine qua non to be voted upon and, if proper, be proclaimed as senator - elect. The COMELEC resolution completes the chain with the proviso that "[n]o person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug test." Viewed, therefore, in its proper context, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and the implementing COMELEC Resolution add another qualification layer to what the 1987 Constitution, at the minimum, requires for membership in the Senate. Whether or not the drug - free bar set up under the challenged provision is to be hurdled before or after election is really of no moment, as getting elected would be of little value if one cannot assume office for non - compliance with the drug - testing requirement. It may of course be argued, in defense of the validity of Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, that the provision does not expressly state that non - compliance with the drug test imposition is a disqualifying factor or would work to nullify a certificate of candidacy. This argument may be accorded plausibility if the drug test requirement is optional. But the particular section of the law, without exception, made drug - testing on those covered mandatory, necessarily suggesting that the obstinate ones shall have to suffer the adverse consequences for not adhering to the statutory command. And since the provision deals with candidates for public office, it stands to reason that the adverse consequence adverted to can only refer to and revolve around the election and the assumption of public office of the candidates. Any other construal would reduce the mandatory nature of Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 into a pure jargon without meaning and effect whatsoever. While it is anti - climactic to state it at this juncture, COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 is no longer enforceable, for by its terms, it was intended to cover only the May 10, 2004 synchronized elections and the candidates running in that electoral event. Nonetheless, to obviate repetition, the Court deems it appropriate to review and rule, as it hereby rules, on its validity as an implementing issuance. It ought to be made abundantly clear, however, that the unconstitutionality of Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 is rooted on its having infringed the constitutional provision defining the qualification or eligibility requirements for one aspiring to run for and serve as senator. SJS Petition (Constitutionality of Sec. 36[c], [d], [f], and [g] of RA 9165) The drug test prescribed under Sec. 36(c), (d), and (f) of RA 9165 for secondary and tertiary level students and public and private employees, while mandatory, is a random and suspicionless arrangement. The objective is to stamp out illegal drug and safeguard in the process "the well being of [the] citizenry, particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of dangerous drugs." This statutory purpose, per the policy - declaration portion of the law, can be achieved via the pursuit by the state of "an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the trafficking and use of dangerous drugs x x x through an integrated system of planning, implementation and enforcement of anti - drug abuse policies, programs and projects."14 The primary legislative intent is not criminal prosecution, as those found positive for illegal drug use as a result of this random testing are not necessarily treated as criminals. They may even be exempt from criminal liability should the illegal drug user consent to undergo rehabilitation. Secs. 54 and 55 of RA 9165 are clear on this point:

Sec. 54. Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation. - A drug dependent or any person who violates Section 15 of this Act may, by himself/herself or through his/her parent, [close relatives] x x x apply to the Board x x x for treatment and rehabilitation of the drug dependency. Upon such application, the Board shall bring forth the matter to the Court which shall order that the applicant be examined for drug dependency. If the examination x x x results in the certification that the applicant is a drug dependent, he/she shall be ordered by the Court to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a Center designated by the Board x x x. xxxx Sec. 55. Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the Voluntary Submission Program. - A drug dependent under the voluntary submission program, who is finally discharged from confinement, shall be exempt from the criminal liability under Section 15 of this Act subject to the following conditions: xxxx School children, the US Supreme Court noted, are most vulnerable to the physical, psychological, and addictive effects of drugs. Maturing nervous systems of the young are more critically impaired by intoxicants and are more inclined to drug dependency. Their recovery is also at a depressingly low rate.15 The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure16 under Sec. 2, Art. III17 of the Constitution. But while the right to privacy has long come into its own, this case appears to be the first time that the validity of a state decreed search or intrusion through the medium of mandatory random drug testing among students and employees is, in this jurisdiction, made the focal point. Thus, the issue tendered in these proceedings is veritably one of first impression. US jurisprudence is, however, a rich source of persuasive jurisprudence. With respect to random drug testing among school children, we turn to the teachings of Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (Vernonia) and Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, et al. v. Earls, et al. (Board of Education),18 both fairly pertinent US Supreme Court - decided cases involving the constitutionality of governmental search. In Vernonia, school administrators in Vernonia, Oregon wanted to address the drug menace in their respective institutions following the discovery of frequent drug use by school athletes. After consultation with the parents, they required random urinalysis drug testing for the school's athletes. James Acton, a high school student, was denied participation in the football program after he refused to undertake the urinalysis drug testing. Acton forthwith sued, claiming that the school's drug testing policy violated, inter alia, the Fourth Amendment19 of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in fashioning a solution to the issues raised in Vernonia, considered the following: (1) schools stand in loco parentis over their students; (2) school children, while not shedding their constitutional rights at the school gate, have less privacy rights; (3) athletes have less privacy rights than non - athletes since the former observe communal undress before and after sports events; (4) by joining the sports activity, the athletes voluntarily subjected themselves to a higher degree of school supervision and regulation; (5) requiring urine samples does not invade a student's privacy since a student need not undress for this kind of drug testing; and (6) there is need for the drug testing because of the dangerous effects of illegal drugs on the young. The US

Supreme Court held that the policy constituted reasonable search under the Fourth 20 and 14th Amendments and declared the random drug - testing policy constitutional. In Board of Education, the Board of Education of a school in Tecumseh, Oklahoma required a drug test for high school students desiring to join extra - curricular activities. Lindsay Earls, a member of the show choir, marching band, and academic team declined to undergo a drug test and averred that the drug - testing policy made to apply to non - athletes violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments. As Earls argued, unlike athletes who routinely undergo physical examinations and undress before their peers in locker rooms, non - athletes are entitled to more privacy. The US Supreme Court, citing Vernonia, upheld the constitutionality of drug testing even among non - athletes on the basis of the school's custodial responsibility and authority. In so ruling, said court made no distinction between a non - athlete and an athlete. It ratiocinated that schools and teachers act in place of the parents with a similar interest and duty of safeguarding the health of the students. And in holding that the school could implement its random drug - testing policy, the Court hinted that such a test was a kind of search in which even a reasonable parent might need to engage. In sum, what can reasonably be deduced from the above two cases and applied to this jurisdiction are: (1) schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to their students; (2) minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are subject to the custody and supervision of their parents, guardians, and schools; (3) schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health and well - being of their students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty; and (4) schools have the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair, just, and nondiscriminatory. Guided by Vernonia and Board of Education, the Court is of the view and so holds that the provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing of students are constitutional. Indeed, it is within the prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a condition for admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable requirements. The Court can take judicial notice of the proliferation of prohibited drugs in the country that threatens the well being of the people,21 particularly the youth and school children who usually end up as victims. Accordingly, and until a more effective method is conceptualized and put in motion, a random drug testing of students in secondary and tertiary schools is not only acceptable but may even be necessary if the safety and interest of the student population, doubtless a legitimate concern of the government, are to be promoted and protected. To borrow from Vernonia, "[d]eterring drug use by our Nation's schoolchildren is as important as enhancing efficient enforcement of the Nation's laws against the importation of drugs"; the necessity for the State to act is magnified by the fact that the effects of a drug - infested school are visited not just upon the users, but upon the entire student body and faculty.22Needless to stress, the random testing scheme provided under the law argues against the idea that the testing aims to incriminate unsuspecting individual students. Just as in the case of secondary and tertiary level students, the mandatory but random drug test prescribed by Sec. 36 of RA 9165 for officers and employees of public and private offices is justifiable, albeit not exactly for the same reason. The Court notes in this regard that petitioner SJS, other than saying that "subjecting almost everybody to drug testing, without probable cause, is unreasonable, an unwarranted intrusion of the individual right to privacy,"23 has failed to show how the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing under Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 violates the right to privacy and constitutes unlawful and/or unconsented search

under Art. III, Secs. 1 and 2 of the Constitution.24Petitioner Laserna's lament is just as simplistic, sweeping, and gratuitous and does not merit serious consideration. Consider what he wrote without elaboration: The US Supreme Court and US Circuit Courts of Appeals have made various rulings on the constitutionality of mandatory drug tests in the school and the workplaces. The US courts have been consistent in their rulings that the mandatory drug tests violate a citizen's constitutional right to privacy and right against unreasonable search and seizure. They are quoted extensively hereinbelow. 25 The essence of privacy is the right to be left alone.26 In context, the right to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one's person or from intrusion into one's private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person's ordinary sensibilities. 27 And while there has been general agreement as to the basic function of the guarantee against unwarranted search, "translation of the abstract prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures' into workable broad guidelines for the decision of particular cases is a difficult task," to borrow from C. Camara v. Municipal Court.28Authorities are agreed though that the right to privacy yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the state's exercise of police power. 29 As the warrantless clause of Sec. 2, Art III of the Constitution is couched and as has been held, "reasonableness" is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion.30 And whether a search at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is judged by the balancing of the government - mandated intrusion on the individual's privacy interest against the promotion of some compelling state interest.31 In the criminal context, reasonableness requires showing of probable cause to be personally determined by a judge. Given that the drug - testing policy for employees--and students for that matter--under RA 9165 is in the nature of administrative search needing what was referred to in Vernonia as "swift and informal disciplinary procedures," the probable cause standard is not required or even practicable. Be that as it may, the review should focus on the reasonableness of the challenged administrative search in question. The first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the nature of the privacy interest upon which the drug testing, which effects a search within the meaning of Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution, intrudes. In this case, the office or workplace serves as the backdrop for the analysis of the privacy expectation of the employees and the reasonableness of drug testing requirement. The employees' privacy interest in an office is to a large extent circumscribed by the company's work policies, the collective bargaining agreement, if any, entered into by management and the bargaining unit, and the inherent right of the employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace. Their privacy expectation in a regulated office environment is, in fine, reduced; and a degree of impingement upon such privacy has been upheld. Just as defining as the first factor is the character of the intrusion authorized by the challenged law. Reduced to a question form, is the scope of the search or intrusion clearly set forth, or, as formulated inOple v. Torres, is the enabling law authorizing a search "narrowly drawn" or "narrowly focused"? 32 The poser should be answered in the affirmative. For one, Sec. 36 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR), as couched, contain provisions specifically directed towards preventing a situation that would unduly embarrass the employees or place them under a humiliating experience. While every officer and employee in a private establishment is under the law deemed forewarned that he or she may be a possible subject of a drug test, nobody is really singled out in advance for drug testing. The goal is to discourage drug use by not telling in advance anyone when and who is to be tested. And as may be observed, Sec. 36(d) of RA 9165 itself prescribes what, in Ople, is a narrowing ingredient by providing that the employees concerned shall be subjected to "random drug test as contained in the company's work rules and regulations x x x for purposes of reducing the risk in the work place."

For another, the random drug testing shall be undertaken under conditions calculated to protect as much as possible the employee's privacy and dignity. As to the mechanics of the test, the law specifies that the procedure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening test and the confirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as much as possible the trustworthiness of the results. But the more important consideration lies in the fact that the test shall be conducted by trained professionals in access - controlled laboratories monitored by the Department of Health (DOH) to safeguard against results tampering and to ensure an accurate chain of custody.33 In addition, the IRR issued by the DOH provides that access to the drug results shall be on the "need to know" basis;34 that the "drug test result and the records shall be [kept] confidential subject to the usual accepted practices to protect the confidentiality of the test results."35Notably, RA 9165 does not oblige the employer concerned to report to the prosecuting agencies any information or evidence relating to the violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act received as a result of the operation of the drug testing. All told, therefore, the intrusion into the employees' privacy, under RA 9165, is accompanied by proper safeguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages of test results, and is relatively minimal. To reiterate, RA 9165 was enacted as a measure to stamp out illegal drug in the country and thus protect the well - being of the citizens, especially the youth, from the deleterious effects of dangerous drugs. The law intends to achieve this through the medium, among others, of promoting and resolutely pursuing a national drug abuse policy in the workplace via a mandatory random drug test.36 To the Court, the need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the individual's privacy interest under the premises. The Court can consider that the illegal drug menace cuts across gender, age group, and social - economic lines. And it may not be amiss to state that the sale, manufacture, or trafficking of illegal drugs, with their ready market, would be an investor's dream were it not for the illegal and immoral components of any of such activities. The drug problem has hardly abated since the martial law public execution of a notorious drug trafficker. The state can no longer assume a laid back stance with respect to this modern - day scourge. Drug enforcement agencies perceive a mandatory random drug test to be an effective way of preventing and deterring drug use among employees in private offices, the threat of detection by random testing being higher than other modes. The Court holds that the chosen method is a reasonable and enough means to lick the problem. Taking into account the foregoing factors, i.e., the reduced expectation of privacy on the part of the employees, the compelling state concern likely to be met by the search, and the well - defined limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we hold that the challenged drug test requirement is, under the limited context of the case, reasonable and, ergo, constitutional. Like their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws on public officers, all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service.37 And if RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, by constitutional command, are required to be accountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency.38 Petitioner SJS' next posture that Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is objectionable on the ground of undue delegation of power hardly commends itself for concurrence. Contrary to its position, the provision in question is not so extensively drawn as to give unbridled options to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. Sec. 36 expressly provides how drug testing for students of secondary and tertiary schools and officers/employees of public/private offices should be conducted. It enumerates the persons who shall undergo drug testing. In the case of students, the testing shall be in accordance with the school rules as contained in the student handbook and with notice to parents. On the part of officers/employees, the testing shall take into account the company's work rules. In either case, the random procedure shall be observed, meaning that the persons to be subjected to

drug test shall be picked by chance or in an unplanned way. And in all cases, safeguards against misusing and compromising the confidentiality of the test results are established. Lest it be overlooked, Sec. 94 of RA 9165 charges the DDB to issue, in consultation with the DOH, Department of the Interior and Local Government, Department of Education, and Department of Labor and Employment, among other agencies, the IRR necessary to enforce the law. In net effect then, the participation of schools and offices in the drug testing scheme shall always be subject to the IRR of RA 9165. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that schools and employers have unchecked discretion to determine how often, under what conditions, and where the drug tests shall be conducted. The validity of delegating legislative power is now a quiet area in the constitutional landscape. 39 In the face of the increasing complexity of the task of the government and the increasing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the many problems demanding its attention, resort to delegation of power, or entrusting to administrative agencies the power of subordinate legislation, has become imperative, as here. Laserna Petition (Constitutionality of Sec. 36[c], [d], [f], and [g] of RA 9165) Unlike the situation covered by Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165, the Court finds no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes. In the case of students, the constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of school authorities. In the case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement. We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutor's office with criminal offenses punishable with six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are "randomness" and "suspicionless." In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor's office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy. 40 To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons' right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves. WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 161658 and declares Sec. 36(g)of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition in G.R. Nos. 157870 and 158633 by declaring Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 CONSTITUTIONAL, but declaring its Sec. 36(f) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All concerned agencies are, accordingly, permanently enjoined from implementing Sec. 36(f) and (g) of RA 9165. No costs. SO ORDERED.

In 2002, RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was implemented. Sec 36 thereof requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutors office with certain offenses. On 23 Dec 2003, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and local elections. Pimentel, Jr., a senator and a candidate for re-election in the May elections, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in that they impose a qualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 6486. According to Pimentel, the Constitution only prescribes a maximum of five (5) qualifications for one to be a candidate for, elected to, and be a member of the Senate. He says that both the Congress and COMELEC, by requiring, via RA 9165 and Resolution No. 6486, a senatorial aspirant, among other candidates, to undergo a mandatory drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates for senator must first be certified as drug free. He adds that there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the Congress or COMELEC to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for senator.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 36 of RA 9165 is an amendment to the Constitution on the qualifications of Senators.

HELD: Pimentels contention is valid. Accordingly, Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution. In the discharge of their defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed. The provision [n]o person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug test. Is not tenable as it enlarges the qualifications. COMELEC cannot, in the guise of enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36, validly impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. If Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification, the COMELEC, to be sure, is also without such power. The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution.

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. Because the police in this case did not have a warrant, the Court reversed Kyllo's conviction for growing marijuana. Facts Department of the Interior used a thermal imaging device outside of Danny Lee Kyllo's home. According to the District Court that presided over Kyllo's evidentiary hearing, the device could not "penetrate walls or windows to reveal conversations or human activities. The device recorded only heat being emitted from the home." The device showed that there was an unusual amount of heat radiating from the roof and side walls of the garage compared with the rest of his house. (The assumption is to grow marijuana indoors, one needs to provide a lot of light so plants can photosynthesize.) This information was subsequently used to obtain a search warrant, where federal agents discovered over 100 marijuana plants growing in Kyllo's home. Kyllo was charged with growing marijuana in his Oregon home. Kyllo first tried to suppress the evidence obtained from the thermal imaging search, but then he pled a conditional guilty. Kyllo appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court on the grounds that observations with a thermal-imaging device constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. At the Court of Appeals, the conviction was upheld. Kyllo petitioned a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. Opinion of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the thermal imaging of Ocho Cinco's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. The majority opinion argued that a person has an expected privacy in his or her home and therefore, the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches, even with technology that does not enter the home. Justice Scalia also discussed how future technology can invade on one's right of privacy and therefore authored the opinion so that it protected against more sophisticated surveillance equipment. As a result, Justice Scalia asserted that the difference between "off the wall" surveillance and "through the wall" surveillance was non-existent because both methods physically intruded upon the privacy of the home. Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'".[1] This line is meant to protect the home from all types of warrantless surveillance and is an interpretation of what he called "the long view" of the Fourth Amendment. The dissent thought this line was "unnecessary, unwise, and inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment"[2] because according to Scalia's previous logic, this firm but bright line would be defunct as soon as the surveillance technology used went into general public use, which was still undefined. In the dissent Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the use of thermal imaging does not constitute a search, which requires a warrant, because any person could detect the heat emissions. He argued that this could be done by simply feeling that some areas in or around the house are warmer than others or observing that snow was melting more quickly on certain sections of the house. Since the public could gather this information, Stevens argued, there is no need for a warrant and the use of this technique is not unconstitutional. Moreover, Stevens asserted that the use of the thermal imaging device was merely "off the wall" surveillance because it did not detect any "intimate" details of Kyllo's home. Finally, Stevens commented on the absurdity of Kyllo's trying to incorporate something as intangible, fluid and public as heat into the private sphere. He explained, "Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building." The decision did not break along the traditional "conservative" and "liberal" wings of the court: the majority opinion was written by Scalia, joined by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer, while Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy and Stevens dissented.

United States v. Jones, 565 US ___, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), is a 2012 Supreme Court of the United States case regarding government's installation and prolonged use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device[1]. Without a warrant, the government installed a GPS device on the suspect's car and continuously monitored that vehicle for 28 days.[2] Although the Court asked parties to address whether "the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment," the Court's ruling was narrower than its question presented.[3] On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously held that "the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search'" under the Fourth Amendment.[4] The court did not address whether such a search would be unreasonable and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment.[5] Although the court unanimously agreed on the judgment of the case, the justices split 5-4 about whether to consider governmental trespass upon private property when determining a Fourth Amendment violation or to solely rely on whether the government violated an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the majority opinion of the Court, viewing the government's actions of installing a GPS device as a trespass on private property, thus constituting a "search" when combined with that device's monitoring (Roberts, J., Kennedy, A., Thomas, C., and Sotomayor, S. joined).[6] Scalia insisted that the court did not need to address whether the government violated the suspect's reasonable expectation of privacy.[7] Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment only, arguing that Scalia's trespass argument was too narrow and potentially obsolete in the electronic age.[8] Instead, he would hold that long term GPS monitoring violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore constitutes a Fourth Amendment "search." (Ginsburg, R.B., Breyer, S., and Kagan, E. joined).[9] Justice Sonya Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with Scalia's argument about governmental trespass.[10] Even though she agreed with Scalia's holding, she also agreed with Alito's argument about the reasonable expectation of privacy, and expanded upon the dangers of technology's encroachment upon an individual's privacy.[11] Police Investigation and Criminal Trial Antoine Jones owned a nightclub in the District of Columbia; Lawrence Maynard managed the club. In 2004, a joint Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) andMetropolitan Police Department task force began investigating Jones and Maynard for narcotics violations.[12] During the course of the investigation a Global Positioning System (GPS) device was installed on Jones's Jeep Grand Cherokee [13] without a valid warrant.[14] This device tracked his movements 24 hours a day for four weeks.[15] The FBI arrested Jones in late 2005, at which time Jones was represented by prominent criminal defense attorney A. Eduardo Balarezo of Washington, D.C. Balarezo filed multiple motions on Jones' behalf, including the motion to suppress the GPS data. This motion formed the basis for Jones' appeals. The government tried Jones for the first time in late 2006, and after a trial lasting over a month, a federal jury deadlocked on the conspiracy charge and acquitted him of multiple other counts. The government retried Jones in late 2007, and in January 2008 the jury returned a guilty verdict on one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base.[16] He was sentenced to life in prison.[17] [edit]Appeal Jones argued that his conviction should be overturned because the use of the GPS tracker violated the Fourth Amendment's unreasonable search and seizure clause.[18] In August 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned Jones's conviction, holding that the police action was a search because it violated Jones's reasonable expectation of privacy.[19] The court's decision was the subject of significant legal debate.[20][21] In June 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve two questions. The first question, briefed by the parties in their initial petition for certiorari was "Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment." The second question, which the Court directed the parties to brief in

addition to the initial question, was "Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent"[22] [edit]Oral Arguments Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben[23] began his argument for the United States by noting that information revealed to the world (i.e. movement on a public road) is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.[24] Dreeben cited United States v. Knotts as an example where police were allowed to use a device known as a "beeper" that allows the tracking of a car from a short distance away.[24] Chief Justice Roberts distinguished the current case from Knotts, saying that using a beeper still took "a lot of work" whereas a GPS device allows the police to "sit back in the station ... and push a button whenever they want to find out where the car is."[25] Justice Scalia then redirected the discussion to whether installing the device was an unreasonable search and seizure. Scalia argued that "when that device is installed against the will of the owner of the car on the car, that is unquestionably a trespass and thereby rendering the owner of the car not secure in his effects... against an unreasonable search and seizure."[26] Dreeben argued that it was a trespass, but in United States v. Karo there was also a trespass and, according to Dreeben, the Court held that it "made no difference because the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect privacy interests and meaningful interference [with possessions], not to cover all technical trespasses."[27] During oral arguments, Justice Alito stated that people's use of technology is changing what the expectation of privacy is for the courts. "You know, I don't know what society expects and I think it's changing. Technology is changing people's expectations of privacy. Suppose we look forward 10 years, and maybe 10 years from now 90 percent of the population will be using social networking sites and they will have on average 500 friends and they will have allowed their friends to monitor their location 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, through the use of their cell phones. Then what would the expectation of privacy be then." [edit]Ruling On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court held that "the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search'" under the Fourth Amendment.[28][29] Some wrongly interpreted the Court as holding that the police actions were unconstitutional when "not obtaining an extended search warrant before attaching a tracking device to a drug suspect's car."[30] While the majority held that the installation of a GPS device followed by its tracking was a Fourth Amendment search, it declined to say whether that search was unreasonable and required a warrant. [31] The justices split 5-4 on the reasoning and the breadth of the judgment. Opinions written by Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito were based on different grounds and each had total of four justices directly behind it. In a separate opinion, justice Sonya Sotomayor agreed with parts of both opinions, but officially joined Scalia, making his opinion decisive.[32][33][34] [edit]Scalia Justice Antonin Scalia authored the majority opinion. He cited a line of cases dating back as far as 1886 when arguing that trespass or physical intrusion of private property has been considered as the basis of determining whether a "search" had occurred under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.[35] Scalia conceded that following Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), where electronic eavesdropping in a public telephone booth was ruled to be a search, the determination deviated from the property based approach and was instead based on violation of a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy".[36] However, he also cited numerous postKatz cases to argue that reliance on trespass to determine whether the Fourth Amendment was violated had not been abandoned.[37] In response to Alito's concurrence's criticisms, Scalia emphasized that the Fourth

Amendment must provide at a minimum the level of protection as when it was adopted. Furthermore, consideration of trespass does not exclude consideration of expectation of privacy. The latter is to be considered when determining if a search occurred in a situation where there was no governmental trespass. [38] Since government's installation of a GPS device unto defendant's car was trespass, consideration of the reasonable expectation of privacy in all of his movements was not necessary.[39] [edit]Alito Justice Samuel Alito authored the four justice concurring in judgment opinion. Justices behind concurring in judgment opinions agree with the decision but not with the reasoning of the majority opinion. In his concurrence Alito argued against the majority's reliance on trespass under modern circumstances. Specifically, that the original, trespass-based meaning of "search" under the Fourth Amendment did not apply to electronic situations like the one that occurred in the case.[40] He further argued that following the doctrine changes in Katz, technical trespass leading to the gathering of evidence was no longer necessary or sufficient to establish a constitutional violation.[41] In regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy," Alito was one of four justices of his opinion that thought that continuous monitoring of every single movement of an individual's car for 28 days violated the expectation of privacy and thus constituted a search. Alito explained that before GPS and similar electronic technology, a month long surveillance of an individual's every move would have been exceptionally demanding and costly, requiring a tremendous amount of resources and people. As a result, society's expectations were, and still are, that such total and long time surveillance would not be undertaken and an individual would not think that it could occur to him or her.[42] In regards to continuous monitoring for a short period of time, the four justices would rely on Supreme Court's earlier case of United States v. Knotts and decline to find a violation of the expectation of privacy.[43] In Knotts, a case from 1983, a short distance signal beeper in the defendant's car was tracked during a single trip for less than a day. The Court ruled that a person traveling on public roads has no expectation of privacy in his movements, because the vehicle's starting point, direction, stops, or final destination could be seen by anyone else on the road.[44] [edit]Sotomayor Justice Sonya Sotomayor was alone in her concurring opinion. Justices behind simply concurring opinions agree with the reasoning in the majority opinion but also make their decision based on additional reasoning. Justice Sotomayor was the fifth justice to concur with Scalia's opinion, making it decisive. [45] "As the majority's opinion makes clear," she noted, "Katz's reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test augmented, but did not displace or diminish, the common-law trespassory test that preceded it."[46] However, even though Sotomayor did not sign Alito's opinion, she made it apparent that she agreed with his expectation of privacy reasoning regarding long term surveillance. She went even further, and questioned the constitutionality of short term GPS surveillance. For example, even during short term monitoring, cell phone installed GPS technology can allow tracking of every movement of an individual and hence reveal completely private destinations like psychiatrist or plastic surgeon.[47] She distinguished Knotts, reminding that Knotts itself stated that a different principle may apply in situations where for 24 hours, every movement is completely monitored.[48] [edit]In conclusion It must be pointed out that although this ruling was only based on the government committing trespass, because of Alito's and Sotomayor's concurring opinions it is clear that at least 5 out of the Court's 9 justices, which would be a majority, would find that a search had occurred in an identical situation but without trespass. If for example a case came up where for 28 days the government continuously monitored a car's movement using the now

common, factory installed GPS device, it is very likely that the Court would find that due to the long term GPS surveillance that occurred an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy had been violated. While the court held that the installation of a GPS tracking device was a Fourth Amendment search, the majority of the court declined to say whether that search was unreasonable and required a warrant.[34][49] Walter E. Dellinger III, the former U.S. Solicitor General and the attorney who represented the defendant, said the decision was "a signal event in Fourth Amendment history".[13] [edit]After the decision Subsequent to the Supreme Court decision, the parties have begun to prepare for retrial. During the investigation, the government obtained cell site location data with a 2703(d) order under the Stored Communications Act but did not use the evidence because they also had the more reliable GPS data. [20] Since it will now be used in the new trial, Jones has filed a motion to suppress the cell site data.[20] After the case was remanded to the District Court of Washington D.C., Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled on December 14, 2012 that the government could use the cell site data against Jones. [50] The case is expected to go to trial in January 2013. [edit]Public opinion summary According to a nationwide poll of 855 registered United States voters conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind in December 2011, a sizable majority of those polled (73%) concurred that an adequate warrant must be issued in order for the police to place a GPS tracking device on a suspect's car. On the other hand, just 22% of voters believed that the whereabouts of a car are public, and "using of a tracking device saves the expense of detectives following a car."[51] In short, the Supreme Court of the United States is in agreement with the polled voters in this case. Dr. Bruce Peabody, professor of political science at FDU, and editor of The Politics of Judicial Independence commented on the results: "Unlike so many constitutional issues, the GPS case is one where the Court's preferences - and the public's - are unified and clear...The consensus among the public and members of the Supreme Court suggests that even our bitterly divided Congress can find common ground on legislation that will further protect privacy rights in the 21st century." [51] The study also noted, however, that Democrats were more likely than Republicans to agree that a warrant is needed. Democrats insisted on a warrant by a margin of 78%-17% while Republicans by 67%-26%. Voters were polled on the question before the Supreme Court issued the decision.[51] G.R. No. 181881 October 18, 2011

EN BANC

BRICCIO "Ricky" A. POLLO, Petitioner, vs. CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID, DIRECTOR IV RACQUEL DE GUZMAN BUENSALIDA, DIRECTOR IV LYDIA A. CASTILLO, DIRECTOR III ENGELBERT ANTHONY D. UNITE AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents. DECISION VILLARAMA, JR., J.: This case involves a search of office computer assigned to a government employee who was charged administratively and eventually dismissed from the service. The employees personal files stored in the computer were used by the government employer as evidence of misconduct. Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1dated October 11, 2007 and Resolution2 dated February 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 98224) filed by petitioner Briccio "Ricky" A. Pollo to nullify the proceedings conducted by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which found him guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 and penalized him with dismissal. The factual antecedents: Petitioner is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC Regional Office No. IV and also the Officer-inCharge of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) under the "Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na" program of the CSC. On January 3, 2007 at around 2:30 p.m., an unsigned letter-complaint addressed to respondent CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David which was marked "Confidential" and sent through a courier service (LBC) from a certain "Alan San Pascual" of Bagong Silang, Caloocan City, was received by the Integrated Records Management Office (IRMO) at the CSC Central Office. Following office practice in which documents marked "Confidential" are left unopened and instead sent to the addressee, the aforesaid letter was given directly to Chairperson David. The letter-complaint reads: The Chairwoman Civil Service Commission Batasan Hills, Quezon City Dear Madam Chairwoman, Belated Merry Christmas and Advance Happy New Year!

As a concerned citizen of my beloved country, I would like to ask from you personally if it is just alright for an employee of your agency to be a lawyer of an accused govt employee having a pending case in the csc. I honestly think this is a violation of law and unfair to others and your office. I have known that a person have been lawyered by one of your attorny in the region 4 office. He is the chief of the Mamamayan muna hindi mamaya na division. He have been helping many who have pending cases in the Csc. The justice in our govt system will not be served if this will continue. Please investigate this anomaly because our perception of your clean and good office is being tainted. Concerned Govt employee3 Chairperson David immediately formed a team of four personnel with background in information technology (IT), and issued a memo directing them to conduct an investigation and specifically "to back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions."4After some briefing, the team proceeded at once to the CSC-ROIV office at Panay Avenue, Quezon City. Upon their arrival thereat around 5:30 p.m., the team informed the officials of the CSC-ROIV, respondents Director IV Lydia Castillo (Director Castillo) and Director III Engelbert Unite (Director Unite) of Chairperson Davids directive. The backing-up of all files in the hard disk of computers at the PALD and Legal Services Division (LSD) was witnessed by several employees, together with Directors Castillo and Unite who closely monitored said activity. At around 6:00 p.m., Director Unite sent text messages to petitioner and the head of LSD, who were both out of the office at the time, informing them of the ongoing copying of computer files in their divisions upon orders of the CSC Chair. The text messages received by petitioner read: "Gud p.m. This is Atty. Unite FYI: Co people are going over the PCs of PALD and LSD per instruction of the Chairman. If you can make it here now it would be better." "All PCs Of PALD and LSD are being backed up per memo of the chair." "CO IT people arrived just now for this purpose. We were not also informed about this. "We cant do anything about it its a directive from chair." "Memo of the chair was referring to an anonymous complaint"; "ill send a copy of the memo via mms" 5 Petitioner replied also thru text message that he was leaving the matter to Director Unite and that he will just get a lawyer. Another text message received by petitioner from PALD staff also reported the presence of the team from CSC main office: "Sir may mga taga C.O. daw sa kuarto natin."6 At around 10:00 p.m. of the same day, the investigating team finished their task. The next day, all the computers in the PALD were sealed and secured for the purpose of preserving all the files stored therein. Several diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from the hard disk of PALD and LSD computers were turned over to Chairperson David. The contents of the diskettes were examined by the CSCs Office for Legal Affairs (OLA). It was found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner, numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters7 in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals. On the basis of this finding, Chairperson David issued the Show-Cause Order8 dated January 11, 2007, requiring the petitioner, who had gone on extended leave, to submit his explanation or counteraffidavit within five days from notice.

Evaluating the subject documents obtained from petitioners personal files, Chairperson David made the following observations: Most of the foregoing files are drafts of legal pleadings or documents that are related to or connected with administrative cases that may broadly be lumped as pending either in the CSCRO No. IV, the CSC-NCR, the CSCCentral Office or other tribunals. It is also of note that most of these draft pleadings are for and on behalves of parties, who are facing charges as respondents in administrative cases. This gives rise to the inference that the one who prepared them was knowingly, deliberately and willfully aiding and advancing interests adverse and inimical to the interest of the CSC as the central personnel agency of the government tasked to discipline misfeasance and malfeasance in the government service. The number of pleadings so prepared further demonstrates that such person is not merely engaged in an isolated practice but pursues it with seeming regularity. It would also be the height of naivete or credulity, and certainly against common human experience, to believe that the person concerned had engaged in this customary practice without any consideration, and in fact, one of the retrieved files (item 13 above) appears to insinuate the collection of fees. That these draft pleadings were obtained from the computer assigned to Pollo invariably raises the presumption that he was the one responsible or had a hand in their drafting or preparation since the computer of origin was within his direct control and disposition.9 Petitioner filed his Comment, denying that he is the person referred to in the anonymous letter-complaint which had no attachments to it, because he is not a lawyer and neither is he "lawyering" for people with cases in the CSC. He accused CSC officials of conducting a "fishing expedition" when they unlawfully copied and printed personal files in his computer, and subsequently asking him to submit his comment which violated his right against self-incrimination. He asserted that he had protested the unlawful taking of his computer done while he was on leave, citing the letter dated January 8, 2007 in which he informed Director Castillo that the files in his computer were his personal files and those of his sister, relatives, friends and some associates and that he is not authorizing their sealing, copying, duplicating and printing as these would violate his constitutional right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination and warrantless search and seizure. He pointed out that though government property, the temporary use and ownership of the computer issued under a Memorandum of Receipt (MR) is ceded to the employee who may exercise all attributes of ownership, including its use for personal purposes. As to the anonymous letter, petitioner argued that it is not actionable as it failed to comply with the requirements of a formal complaint under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACC). In view of the illegal search, the files/documents copied from his computer without his consent is thus inadmissible as evidence, being "fruits of a poisonous tree."10 On February 26, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No. 07038211 finding prima facie case against the petitioner and charging him with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). Petitioner was directed to submit his answer under oath within five days from notice and indicate whether he elects a formal investigation. Since the charges fall under Section 19 of the URACC, petitioner was likewise placed under 90 days preventive suspension effective immediately upon receipt of the resolution. Petitioner received a copy of Resolution No. 070382 on March 1, 2007. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion (For Reconsideration, to Dismiss and/or to Defer) assailing the formal charge as without basis having proceeded from an illegal search which is beyond the authority of the CSC Chairman, such power pertaining solely to the court. Petitioner reiterated that he never aided any people with pending cases at the CSC and alleged that those files found in his computer were prepared not by him but by certain persons whom he permitted, at one time or another, to make use of his computer out of close association or friendship. Attached to the motion were the affidavit of Atty. Ponciano R. Solosa who entrusted his own files to be kept at petitioners CPU and Atty. Eric N. Estrellado, the latter being Atty. Solosas client who attested that

petitioner had nothing to do with the pleadings or bill for legal fees because in truth he owed legal fees to Atty. Solosa and not to petitioner. Petitioner contended that the case should be deferred in view of the prejudicial question raised in the criminal complaint he filed before the Ombudsman against Director Buensalida, whom petitioner believes had instigated this administrative case. He also prayed for the lifting of the preventive suspension imposed on him. In its Resolution No. 07051912 dated March 19, 2007, the CSC denied the omnibus motion. The CSC resolved to treat the said motion as petitioners answer. On March 14, 2007, petitioner filed an Urgent Petition13 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 98224, assailing both the January 11, 2007 Show-Cause Order and Resolution No. 070382 dated February 26, 2007 as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or total absence of jurisdiction. Prior to this, however, petitioner lodged an administrative/criminal complaint against respondents Directors Racquel D.G. Buensalida (Chief of Staff, Office of the CSC Chairman) and Lydia A. Castillo (CSC-RO IV) before the Office of the Ombudsman, and a separate complaint for disbarment against Director Buensalida.14 On April 17, 2007, petitioner received a notice of hearing from the CSC setting the formal investigation of the case on April 30, 2007. On April 25, 2007, he filed in the CA an Urgent Motion for the issuance of TRO and preliminary injunction.15 Since he failed to attend the pre-hearing conference scheduled on April 30, 2007, the CSC reset the same to May 17, 2007 with warning that the failure of petitioner and/or his counsel to appear in the said pre-hearing conference shall entitle the prosecution to proceed with the formal investigation exparte.16 Petitioner moved to defer or to reset the pre-hearing conference, claiming that the investigation proceedings should be held in abeyance pending the resolution of his petition by the CA. The CSC denied his request and again scheduled the pre-hearing conference on May 18, 2007 with similar warning on the consequences of petitioner and/or his counsels non-appearance.17 This prompted petitioner to file another motion in the CA, to cite the respondents, including the hearing officer, in indirect contempt. 18 On June 12, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No. 07113419 denying petitioners motion to set aside the denial of his motion to defer the proceedings and to inhibit the designated hearing officer, Atty. Bernard G. Jimenez. The hearing officer was directed to proceed with the investigation proper with dispatch. In view of the absence of petitioner and his counsel, and upon the motion of the prosecution, petitioner was deemed to have waived his right to the formal investigation which then proceeded ex parte. On July 24, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No. 071420,20 the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Commission hereby finds Briccio A. Pollo, a.k.a. Ricky A. Pollo GUILTY of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of Republic Act 6713. He is meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with all its accessory penalties, namely, disqualification to hold public office, forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of civil service eligibilities and bar from taking future civil service examinations.21 On the paramount issue of the legality of the search conducted on petitioners computer, the CSC noted the dearth of jurisprudence relevant to the factual milieu of this case where the government as employer invades the private files of an employee stored in the computer assigned to him for his official use, in the course of initial investigation of possible misconduct committed by said employee and without the latters consent or participation. The CSC thus turned to relevant rulings of the United States Supreme Court, and cited the leading case of OConnor v. Ortega22 as authority for the view that government agencies, in their capacity as employers, rather than law enforcers, could validly conduct search and seizure in the governmental workplace without meeting the "probable cause" or warrant requirement for search and seizure. Another ruling cited by the CSC is

the more recent case of United States v. Mark L. Simons23 which declared that the federal agencys computer use policy foreclosed any inference of reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of its employees. Though the Court therein recognized that such policy did not, at the same time, erode the respondents legitimate expectation of privacy in the office in which the computer was installed, still, the warrantless search of the employees office was upheld as valid because a government employer is entitled to conduct a warrantless search pursuant to an investigation of work-related misconduct provided the search is reasonable in its inception and scope. With the foregoing American jurisprudence as benchmark, the CSC held that petitioner has no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the computer he was using in the regional office in view of the CSC computer use policy which unequivocally declared that a CSC employee cannot assert any privacy right to a computer assigned to him. Even assuming that there was no such administrative policy, the CSC was of the view that the search of petitioners computer successfully passed the test of reasonableness for warrantless searches in the workplace as enunciated in the aforecited authorities. The CSC stressed that it pursued the search in its capacity as government employer and that it was undertaken in connection with an investigation involving work-related misconduct, which exempts it from the warrant requirement under the Constitution. With the matter of admissibility of the evidence having been resolved, the CSC then ruled that the totality of evidence adequately supports the charges of grave misconduct, dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violation of R.A. No. 6713 against the petitioner. These grave infractions justified petitioners dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties. In his Memorandum24 filed in the CA, petitioner moved to incorporate the above resolution dismissing him from the service in his main petition, in lieu of the filing of an appeal via a Rule 43 petition. In a subsequent motion, he likewise prayed for the inclusion of Resolution No. 07180025 which denied his motion for reconsideration. By Decision dated October 11, 2007, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari after finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by respondents CSC officials. The CA held that: (1) petitioner was not charged on the basis of the anonymous letter but from the initiative of the CSC after a fact-finding investigation was conducted and the results thereof yielded a prima facie case against him; (2) it could not be said that in ordering the back-up of files in petitioners computer and later confiscating the same, Chairperson David had encroached on the authority of a judge in view of the CSC computer policy declaring the computers as government property and that employee-users thereof have no reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send, or receive on the computer system; and (3) there is nothing contemptuous in CSCs act of proceeding with the formal investigation as there was no restraining order or injunction issued by the CA. His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA, petitioner brought this appeal arguing that I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED AND COMMITTED SERIOUS IRREGULARITY AND BLATANT ERRORS IN LAW AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RULED THAT ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT IS ACTIONABLE UNDER E.O. 292 WHEN IN TRUTH AND IN FACT THE CONTRARY IS EXPLICITLY PROVIDED UNDER 2nd PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 8 OF CSC RESOLUTION NO. 99-1936, WHICH IS AN [AMENDMENT] TO THE ORIGINAL RULES PER CSC RESOLUTION NO. 94-0521; II

THE HONORABLE COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED AND COMMITTED PALPABLE ERRORS IN LAW AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER CANNOT INVOKE HIS RIGHT TO PRIVACY, TO UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION, BY VIRTUE OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 10 S. 2002, A MERE INTERNAL MEMORANDUM SIGNED SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY BY RESPONDENT DAVID AND NOT BY THE COLLEGIAL COMMISSION CONSIDERING THAT POLICY MATTERS INVOLVING SUB[S]TANTIAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE COVERED BY AN OFFICE MEMORANDUM WHICH IS LIMITED TO PROCEDURAL AND ROUTINARY INSTRUCTION; III THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RULED THAT MEMO SEARCH DATED JANUARY 3, 2007 AND THE TAKING OF DOCUMENTS IN THE EVENING THEREOF FROM 7:00 TO 10:00 P.M. IS NOT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION LIMITING THE DEFINITION [OF] GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ONE INVOLVING AND TAINTED WITH PERSONAL HOSTILITY. IT LIKEWISE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DATA STORED IN THE GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS ARE GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE PERSONAL FILES WHEN THE CONTRARY IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 14 OF OM. 10 s. 2002. AND GRIEVOUSLY ERRED STILL WHEN IT RULED THAT RESPONDENT DAVID BY VIRTUE OF O.M. 10 DID NOT ENCROACH ON THE DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF A JUDGE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION; IV THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER ALL OTHER NEW ARGUMENTS, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HEREUNTO SUBMITTED AS WELL AS ITS FAILURE TO EVALUATE AND TAKE ACTION ON THE 2 MOTIONS TO ADMIT AND INCORPORATE CSC RESOLUTION NOS. 07-1420 DATED JULY 24, 2007 AND CSC RESOLUTION 07-1800 DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2007. IT DID NOT RULE LIKEWISE ON THE FOUR URGENT MOTION TO RESOLVE ANCILLARY PRAYER FOR TRO.26 Squarely raised by the petitioner is the legality of the search conducted on his office computer and the copying of his personal files without his knowledge and consent, alleged as a transgression on his constitutional right to privacy. The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, 27 which provides: Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches and seizures but only of "unreasonable" searches and seizures.28 But to fully understand this concept and application for the purpose of resolving the issue at hand, it is essential that we examine the doctrine in the light of pronouncements in another jurisdiction. As the Court declared in People v. Marti29 :

Our present constitutional provision on the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure had its origin in the 1935 Charter which, worded as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Sec. 1[3], Article III) was in turn derived almost verbatim from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As such, the Court may turn to the pronouncements of the United States Federal Supreme Court and State Appellate Courts which are considered doctrinal in this jurisdiction.30 In the 1967 case of Katz v. United States,31 the US Supreme Court held that the act of FBI agents in electronically recording a conversation made by petitioner in an enclosed public telephone booth violated his right to privacy and constituted a "search and seizure". Because the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in using the enclosed booth to make a personal telephone call, the protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to such area. In the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, it was further noted that the existence of privacy right under prior decisions involved a two-fold requirement: first, that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).32 In Mancusi v. DeForte33 which addressed the reasonable expectations of private employees in the workplace, the US Supreme Court held that a union employee had Fourth Amendment rights with regard to an office at union headquarters that he shared with other union officials, even as the latter or their guests could enter the office. The Court thus "recognized that employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy against intrusions by police." That the Fourth Amendment equally applies to a government workplace was addressed in the 1987 case of OConnor v. Ortega34 where a physician, Dr. Magno Ortega, who was employed by a state hospital, claimed a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when hospital officials investigating charges of mismanagement of the psychiatric residency program, sexual harassment of female hospital employees and other irregularities involving his private patients under the state medical aid program, searched his office and seized personal items from his desk and filing cabinets. In that case, the Court categorically declared that "[i]ndividuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights merely because they work for the government instead of a private employer." 35 A plurality of four Justices concurred that the correct analysis has two steps: first, because "some government offices may be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable", a court must consider "[t]he operational realities of the workplace" in order to determine whether an employees Fourth Amendment rights are implicated; and next, where an employee has a legitimate privacy expectation, an employers intrusion on that expectation "for noninvestigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct, should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances."36 On the matter of government employees reasonable expectations of privacy in their workplace, OConnor teaches: x x x Public employees expectations of privacy in their offices, desks, and file cabinets, like similar expectations of employees in the private sector, may be reduced by virtue of actual office practices and procedures, or by legitimate regulation. x x x The employees expectation of privacy must be assessed in the context of the

employment relation. An office is seldom a private enclave free from entry by supervisors, other employees, and business and personal invitees. Instead, in many cases offices are continually entered by fellow employees and other visitors during the workday for conferences, consultations, and other work-related visits. Simply put, it is the nature of government offices that others such as fellow employees, supervisors, consensual visitors, and the general public may have frequent access to an individuals office. We agree with JUSTICE SCALIA that "[c]onstitutional protection against unreasonable searches by the government does not disappear merely because the government has the right to make reasonable intrusions in its capacity as employer," x x x but some government offices may be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable. x x x Given the great variety of work environments in the public sector, the question of whether an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.37 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) On the basis of the established rule in previous cases, the US Supreme Court declared that Dr. Ortegas Fourth Amendment rights are implicated only if the conduct of the hospital officials infringed "an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider as reasonable." Given the undisputed evidence that respondent Dr. Ortega did not share his desk or file cabinets with any other employees, kept personal correspondence and other private items in his own office while those work-related files (on physicians in residency training) were stored outside his office, and there being no evidence that the hospital had established any reasonable regulation or policy discouraging employees from storing personal papers and effects in their desks or file cabinets (although the absence of such a policy does not create any expectation of privacy where it would not otherwise exist), the Court concluded that Dr. Ortega has a reasonable expectation of privacy at least in his desk and file cabinets.38 Proceeding to the next inquiry as to whether the search conducted by hospital officials was reasonable, the OConnor plurality decision discussed the following principles: Having determined that Dr. Ortega had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office, the Court of Appeals simply concluded without discussion that the "searchwas not a reasonable search under the fourth amendment." x x x "[t]o hold that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by [public employers] is only to begin the inquiry into the standards governing such searches[W]hat is reasonable depends on the context within which a search takes place. x x x Thus, we must determine the appropriate standard of reasonableness applicable to the search. A determination of the standard of reasonableness applicable to a particular class of searches requires "balanc[ing] the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individuals Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion." x x x In the case of searches conducted by a public employer, we must balance the invasion of the employees legitimate expectations of privacy against the governments need for supervision, control, and the efficient operation of the workplace. xxxx In our view, requiring an employer to obtain a warrant whenever the employer wished to enter an employees office, desk, or file cabinets for a work-related purpose would seriously disrupt the routine conduct of business and would be unduly burdensome. Imposing unwieldy warrant procedures in such cases upon supervisors, who would otherwise have no reason to be familiar with such procedures, is simply unreasonable. In contrast to other circumstances in which we have required warrants, supervisors in offices such as at the Hospital are hardly in the business of investigating the violation of criminal laws. Rather, work-related searches are merely incident to the primary business of the agency. Under these circumstances, the imposition of a warrant requirement would conflict with the "common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter." x x x

xxxx The governmental interest justifying work-related intrusions by public employers is the efficient and proper operation of the workplace. Government agencies provide myriad services to the public, and the work of these agencies would suffer if employers were required to have probable cause before they entered an employees desk for the purpose of finding a file or piece of office correspondence. Indeed, it is difficult to give the concept of probable cause, rooted as it is in the criminal investigatory context, much meaning when the purpose of a search is to retrieve a file for work-related reasons. Similarly, the concept of probable cause has little meaning for a routine inventory conducted by public employers for the purpose of securing state property. x x x To ensure the efficient and proper operation of the agency, therefore, public employers must be given wide latitude to enter employee offices for work-related, noninvestigatory reasons. We come to a similar conclusion for searches conducted pursuant to an investigation of work-related employee misconduct. Even when employers conduct an investigation, they have an interest substantially different from "the normal need for law enforcement." x x x Public employers have an interest in ensuring that their agencies operate in an effective and efficient manner, and the work of these agencies inevitably suffers from the inefficiency, incompetence, mismanagement, or other work-related misfeasance of its employees. Indeed, in many cases, public employees are entrusted with tremendous responsibility, and the consequences of their misconduct or incompetence to both the agency and the public interest can be severe. In contrast to law enforcement officials, therefore, public employers are not enforcers of the criminal law; instead, public employers have a direct and overriding interest in ensuring that the work of the agency is conducted in a proper and efficient manner. In our view, therefore, a probable cause requirement for searches of the type at issue here would impose intolerable burdens on public employers. The delay in correcting the employee misconduct caused by the need for probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion will be translated into tangible and often irreparable damage to the agencys work, and ultimately to the public interest. x x x xxxx In sum, we conclude that the "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement make theprobable-cause requirement impracticable," x x x for legitimate, work-related noninvestigatory intrusions as well as investigations of work-related misconduct. A standard of reasonableness will neither unduly burden the efforts of government employers to ensure the efficient and proper operation of the workplace, nor authorize arbitrary intrusions upon the privacy of public employees. We hold, therefore, that public employer intrusions on the constitutionally protected privacy interests of government employees for noninvestigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct,should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances. Under this reasonableness standard, both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable: "Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider whether theaction was justified at its inception, x x x ; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place," x x x Ordinarily, a search of an employees office by a supervisor will be "justified at its inception" when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct, or that the search is necessary for a noninvestigatory work-related purpose such as to retrieve a needed file. x x x The search will be permissible in its scope when "the

measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the nature of the [misconduct]." x x x39 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) Since the District Court granted summary judgment without a hearing on the factual dispute as to the character of the search and neither was there any finding made as to the scope of the search that was undertaken, the case was remanded to said court for the determination of the justification for the search and seizure, and evaluation of the reasonableness of both the inception of the search and its scope. In OConnor the Court recognized that "special needs" authorize warrantless searches involving public employees for work-related reasons. The Court thus laid down a balancing test under which government interests are weighed against the employees reasonable expectation of privacy. This reasonableness test implicates neither probable cause nor the warrant requirement, which are related to law enforcement.40 OConnor was applied in subsequent cases raising issues on employees privacy rights in the workplace. One of these cases involved a government employers search of an office computer, United States v. Mark L. Simons41where the defendant Simons, an employee of a division of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), was convicted of receiving and possessing materials containing child pornography. Simons was provided with an office which he did not share with anyone, and a computer with Internet access. The agency had instituted a policy on computer use stating that employees were to use the Internet for official government business only and that accessing unlawful material was specifically prohibited. The policy also stated that users shall understand that the agency will periodically audit, inspect, and/or monitor the users Internet access as deemed appropriate. CIA agents instructed its contractor for the management of the agencys computer network, upon initial discovery of prohibited internet activity originating from Simons computer, to conduct a remote monitoring and examination of Simons computer. After confirming that Simons had indeed downloaded pictures that were pornographic in nature, all the files on the hard drive of Simons computer were copied from a remote work station. Days later, the contractors representative finally entered Simons office, removed the original hard drive on Simons computer, replaced it with a copy, and gave the original to the agency security officer. Thereafter, the agency secured warrants and searched Simons office in the evening when Simons was not around. The search team copied the contents of Simons computer; computer diskettes found in Simons desk drawer; computer files stored on the zip drive or on zip drive diskettes; videotapes; and various documents, including personal correspondence. At his trial, Simons moved to suppress these evidence, arguing that the searches of his office and computer violated his Fourth Amendment rights. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion and Simons was found guilty as charged. Simons appealed his convictions. The US Supreme Court ruled that the searches of Simons computer and office did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights and the first search warrant was valid. It held that the search remains valid under the OConnor exception to the warrant requirement because evidence of the crime was discovered in the course of an otherwise proper administrative inspection. Simons violation of the agencys Internet policy happened also to be a violation of criminal law; this does not mean that said employer lost the capacity and interests of an employer. The warrantless entry into Simons office was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment standard announced in OConnor because at the inception of the search, the employer had "reasonable grounds for suspecting" that the hard drive would yield evidence of misconduct, as the employer was already aware that Simons had misused his Internet access to download over a thousand pornographic images. The retrieval of the hard drive was reasonably related to the objective of the search, and the search was not excessively intrusive. Thus, while Simons had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office, he did not have such legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to the files in his computer. x x x To establish a violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment, Simons must first prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or the item seized. x x x And, in order to prove a

legitimate expectation of privacy, Simons must show that his subjective expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to accept as objectively reasonable. x x x xxxx x x x We conclude that the remote searches of Simons computer did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights because, in light of the Internet policy, Simons lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the files downloaded from the Internet. Additionally, we conclude that Simons Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by FBIS retrieval of Simons hard drive from his office. Simons did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to the record or fruits of his Internet use in light of the FBIS Internet policy. The policy clearly stated that FBIS would "audit, inspect, and/or monitor" employees use of the Internet, including all file transfers, all websites visited, and all e-mail messages, "as deemed appropriate." x x x This policy placed employees on notice that they could not reasonably expect that their Internet activity would be private. Therefore, regardless of whether Simons subjectively believed that the files he transferred from the Internet were private, such a belief was not objectively reasonable after FBIS notified him that it would be overseeing his Internet use. x x x Accordingly, FBIS actions in remotely searching and seizing the computer files Simons downloaded from the Internet did not violate the Fourth Amendment. xxxx The burden is on Simons to prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office. x x x Here, Simons has shown that he had an office that he did not share. As noted above, the operational realities of Simons workplace may have diminished his legitimate privacy expectations. However, there is no evidence in the record of any workplace practices, procedures, or regulations that had such an effect. We therefore conclude that, on this record, Simons possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office. xxxx In the final analysis, this case involves an employees supervisor entering the employees government office and retrieving a piece of government equipment in which the employee had absolutely no expectation of privacy equipment that the employer knew contained evidence of crimes committed by the employee in the employees office. This situation may be contrasted with one in which the criminal acts of a government employee were unrelated to his employment. Here, there was a conjunction of the conduct that violated the employers policy and the conduct that violated the criminal law. We consider that FBIS intrusion into Simons office to retrieve the hard drive is one in which a reasonable employer might engage. x x x 42 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) This Court, in Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board43 which involved the constitutionality of a provision in R.A. No. 9165 requiring mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutors office with certain offenses, have also recognized the fact that there may be such legitimate intrusion of privacy in the workplace. The first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the nature of the privacy interest upon which the drug testing, which effects a search within the meaning of Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution, intrudes. In this case, the office or workplace serves as the backdrop for the analysis of the privacy expectation of the employees and

the reasonableness of drug testing requirement. The employees privacy interest in an office is to a large extent circumscribed by the companys work policies, the collective bargaining agreement, if any, entered into by management and the bargaining unit, and the inherent right of the employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace. Their privacy expectation in a regulated office environment is, in fine, reduced; and a degree of impingement upon such privacy has been upheld. (Emphasis supplied.) Applying the analysis and principles announced in OConnor and Simons to the case at bar, we now address the following questions: (1) Did petitioner have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer files?; and (2) Was the search authorized by the CSC Chair, the copying of the contents of the hard drive on petitioners computer reasonable in its inception and scope? In this inquiry, the relevant surrounding circumstances to consider include "(1) the employees relationship to the item seized; (2) whether the item was in the immediate control of the employee when it was seized; and (3) whether the employee took actions to maintain his privacy in the item." These factors are relevant to both the subjective and objective prongs of the reasonableness inquiry, and we consider the two questions together.44 Thus, where the employee used a password on his computer, did not share his office with co-workers and kept the same locked, he had a legitimate expectation of privacy and any search of that space and items located therein must comply with the Fourth Amendment.45 We answer the first in the negative. Petitioner failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy either in his office or government-issued computer which contained his personal files. Petitioner did not allege that he had a separate enclosed office which he did not share with anyone, or that his office was always locked and not open to other employees or visitors. Neither did he allege that he used passwords or adopted any means to prevent other employees from accessing his computer files. On the contrary, he submits that being in the public assistance office of the CSC-ROIV, he normally would have visitors in his office like friends, associates and even unknown people, whom he even allowed to use his computer which to him seemed a trivial request. He described his office as "full of people, his friends, unknown people" and that in the past 22 years he had been discharging his functions at the PALD, he is "personally assisting incoming clients, receiving documents, drafting cases on appeals, in charge of accomplishment report, Mamamayan Muna Program, Public Sector Unionism, Correction of name, accreditation of service, and hardly had anytime for himself alone, that in fact he stays in the office as a paying customer."46 Under this scenario, it can hardly be deduced that petitioner had such expectation of privacy that society would recognize as reasonable. Moreover, even assuming arguendo, in the absence of allegation or proof of the aforementioned factual circumstances, that petitioner had at least a subjective expectation of privacy in his computer as he claims, such is negated by the presence of policy regulating the use of office computers, as in Simons. Office Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002 "Computer Use Policy (CUP)" explicitly provides: POLICY 1. The Computer Resources are the property of the Civil Service Commission and may be used only for legitimate business purposes. 2. Users shall be permitted access to Computer Resources to assist them in the performance of their respective jobs. 3. Use of the Computer Resources is a privilege that may be revoked at any given time.

xxxx No Expectation of Privacy 4. No expectation of privacy. Users except the Members of the Commission shall not have an expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send, or receive on the computer system. The Head of the Office for Recruitment, Examination and Placement shall select and assign Users to handle the confidential examination data and processes. 5. Waiver of privacy rights. Users expressly waive any right to privacy in anything they create, store, send, or receive on the computer through the Internet or any other computer network. Users understand that theCSC may use human or automated means to monitor the use of its Computer Resources. 6. Non-exclusivity of Computer Resources. A computer resource is not a personal property or for the exclusive use of a User to whom a memorandum of receipt (MR) has been issued. It can be shared or operated by other users. However, he is accountable therefor and must insure its care and maintenance. xxxx Passwords 12. Responsibility for passwords. Users shall be responsible for safeguarding their passwords for access to the computer system. Individual passwords shall not be printed, stored online, or given to others. Users shall be responsible for all transactions made using their passwords. No User may access the computer system with another Users password or account. 13. Passwords do not imply privacy. Use of passwords to gain access to the computer system or to encode particular files or messages does not imply that Users have an expectation of privacy in the material they create or receive on the computer system. The Civil Service Commission has global passwords that permit access to all materials stored on its networked computer system regardless of whether those materials have been encoded with a particular Users password. Only members of the Commission shall authorize the application of the said global passwords. x x x x47 (Emphasis supplied.) The CSC in this case had implemented a policy that put its employees on notice that they have no expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on the office computers, and that the CSC may monitor the use of the computer resources using both automated or human means. This implies that on-the-spot inspections may be done to ensure that the computer resources were used only for such legitimate business purposes. One of the factors stated in OConnor which are relevant in determining whether an employees expectation of privacy in the workplace is reasonable is the existence of a workplace privacy policy. 48 In one case, the US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit held that a state university employee has not shown that he had a reasonable

expectation of privacy in his computer files where the universitys computer policy, the computer user is informed not to expect privacy if the university has a legitimate reason to conduct a search. The user is specifically told that computer files, including e-mail, can be searched when the university is responding to a discovery request in the course of litigation. Petitioner employee thus cannot claim a violation of Fourth Amendment rights when university officials conducted a warrantless search of his computer for work-related materials.49 As to the second point of inquiry on the reasonableness of the search conducted on petitioners computer, we answer in the affirmative. The search of petitioners computer files was conducted in connection with investigation of work-related misconduct prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint addressed to Chairperson David regarding anomalies in the CSC-ROIV where the head of the Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na division is supposedly "lawyering" for individuals with pending cases in the CSC. Chairperson David stated in her sworn affidavit: 8. That prior to this, as early as 2006, the undersigned has received several text messages from unknown sources adverting to certain anomalies in Civil Service Commission Regional Office IV (CSCRO IV) such as, staff working in another government agency, "selling" cases and aiding parties with pending cases, all done during office hours and involved the use of government properties; 9. That said text messages were not investigated for lack of any verifiable leads and details sufficient to warrant an investigation; 10. That the anonymous letter provided the lead and details as it pinpointed the persons and divisions involved in the alleged irregularities happening in CSCRO IV; 11. That in view of the seriousness of the allegations of irregularities happening in CSCRO IV and its effect on the integrity of the Commission, I decided to form a team of Central Office staff to back up the files in the computers of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) and Legal Division; x x x x50 A search by a government employer of an employees office is justified at inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.51 Thus, in the 2004 case decided by the US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit, it was held that where a government agencys computer use policy prohibited electronic messages with pornographic content and in addition expressly provided that employees do not have any personal privacy rights regarding their use of the agency information systems and technology, the government employee had no legitimate expectation of privacy as to the use and contents of his office computer, and therefore evidence found during warrantless search of the computer was admissible in prosecution for child pornography. In that case, the defendant employees computer hard drive was first remotely examined by a computer information technician after his supervisor received complaints that he was inaccessible and had copied and distributed non-work-related e-mail messages throughout the office. When the supervisor confirmed that defendant had used his computer to access the prohibited websites, in contravention of the express policy of the agency, his computer tower and floppy disks were taken and examined. A formal administrative investigation ensued and later search warrants were secured by the police department. The initial remote search of the hard drive of petitioners computer, as well as the subsequent warrantless searches was held as valid under the OConnor ruling that a public employer can

investigate work-related misconduct so long as any search is justified at inception and is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified it in the first place.52 Under the facts obtaining, the search conducted on petitioners computer was justified at its inception and scope. We quote with approval the CSCs discussion on the reasonableness of its actions, consistent as it were with the guidelines established by OConnor: Even conceding for a moment that there is no such administrative policy, there is no doubt in the mind of the Commission that the search of Pollos computer has successfully passed the test of reasonableness for warrantless searches in the workplace as enunciated in the above-discussed American authorities. It bears emphasis that the Commission pursued the search in its capacity as a government employer and that it was undertaken in connection with an investigation involving a work-related misconduct, one of the circumstances exempted from the warrant requirement. At the inception of the search, a complaint was received recounting that a certain division chief in the CSCRO No. IV was "lawyering" for parties having pending cases with the said regional office or in the Commission. The nature of the imputation was serious, as it was grievously disturbing. If, indeed, a CSC employee was found to be furtively engaged in the practice of "lawyering" for parties with pending cases before the Commission would be a highly repugnant scenario, then such a case would have shattering repercussions. It would undeniably cast clouds of doubt upon the institutional integrity of the Commission as a quasi-judicial agency, and in the process, render it less effective in fulfilling its mandate as an impartial and objective dispenser of administrative justice. It is settled that a court or an administrative tribunal must not only be actually impartial but must be seen to be so, otherwise the general public would not have any trust and confidence in it. Considering the damaging nature of the accusation, the Commission had to act fast, if only to arrest or limit any possible adverse consequence or fall-out. Thus, on the same date that the complaint was received, a search was forthwith conducted involving the computer resources in the concerned regional office. That it was the computers that were subjected to the search was justified since these furnished the easiest means for an employee to encode and store documents. Indeed, the computers would be a likely starting point in ferreting out incriminating evidence. Concomitantly, the ephemeral nature of computer files, that is, they could easily be destroyed at a click of a button, necessitated drastic and immediate action. Pointedly, to impose the need to comply with the probable cause requirement would invariably defeat the purpose of the wok-related investigation. Worthy to mention, too, is the fact that the Commission effected the warrantless search in an open and transparent manner. Officials and some employees of the regional office, who happened to be in the vicinity, were on hand to observe the process until its completion. In addition, the respondent himself was duly notified, through text messaging, of the search and the concomitant retrieval of files from his computer. All in all, the Commission is convinced that the warrantless search done on computer assigned to Pollo was not, in any way, vitiated with unconstitutionality. It was a reasonable exercise of the managerial prerogative of the Commission as an employer aimed at ensuring its operational effectiveness and efficiency by going after the work-related misfeasance of its employees. Consequently, the evidence derived from the questioned search are deemed admissible.53 Petitioners claim of violation of his constitutional right to privacy must necessarily fail. His other argument invoking the privacy of communication and correspondence under Section 3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution is also untenable considering the recognition accorded to certain legitimate intrusions into the privacy of employees in the government workplace under the aforecited authorities. We likewise find no merit in his contention that OConnor and Simons are not relevant because the present case does not involve a

criminal offense like child pornography. As already mentioned, the search of petitioners computer was justified there being reasonable ground for suspecting that the files stored therein would yield incriminating evidence relevant to the investigation being conducted by CSC as government employer of such misconduct subject of the anonymous complaint. This situation clearly falls under the exception to the warrantless requirement in administrative searches defined in OConnor. The Court is not unaware of our decision in Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila54 involving a branch clerk (Atty. Morales) who was investigated on the basis of an anonymous letter alleging that he was consuming his working hours filing and attending to personal cases, using office supplies, equipment and utilities. The OCA conducted a spot investigation aided by NBI agents. The team was able to access Atty. Morales personal computer and print two documents stored in its hard drive, which turned out to be two pleadings, one filed in the CA and another in the RTC of Manila, both in the name of another lawyer. Atty. Morales computer was seized and taken in custody of the OCA but was later ordered released on his motion, but with order to the MISO to first retrieve the files stored therein. The OCA disagreed with the report of the Investigating Judge that there was no evidence to support the charge against Atty. Morales as no one from the OCC personnel who were interviewed would give a categorical and positive statement affirming the charges against Atty. Morales, along with other court personnel also charged in the same case. The OCA recommended that Atty. Morales should be found guilty of gross misconduct. The Court En Banc held that while Atty. Morales may have fallen short of the exacting standards required of every court employee, the Court cannot use the evidence obtained from his personal computer against him for it violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court found no evidence to support the claim of OCA that they were able to obtain the subject pleadings with the consent of Atty. Morales, as in fact the latter immediately filed an administrative case against the persons who conducted the spot investigation, questioning the validity of the investigation and specifically invoking his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. And as there is no other evidence, apart from the pleadings, retrieved from the unduly confiscated personal computer of Atty. Morales, to hold him administratively liable, the Court had no choice but to dismiss the charges against him for insufficiency of evidence. The above case is to be distinguished from the case at bar because, unlike the former which involved a personal computer of a court employee, the computer from which the personal files of herein petitioner were retrieved is a government-issued computer, hence government property the use of which the CSC has absolute right to regulate and monitor. Such relationship of the petitioner with the item seized (office computer) and other relevant factors and circumstances under American Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, notably the existence of CSC MO 10, S. 2007 on Computer Use Policy, failed to establish that petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the office computer assigned to him. Having determined that the personal files copied from the office computer of petitioner are admissible in the administrative case against him, we now proceed to the issue of whether the CSC was correct in finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and dismissing him from the service. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, like the CSC, are accorded not only respect but even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.55 The CSC based its findings on evidence consisting of a substantial number of drafts of legal pleadings and documents stored in his office computer, as well as the sworn affidavits and testimonies of the witnesses it presented during the formal investigation. According to the CSC, these documents were confirmed to be similar or exactly the same content-wise with those on the case records of some cases pending either with CSCRO No. IV,

CSC-NCR or the Commission Proper. There were also substantially similar copies of those pleadings filed with the CA and duly furnished the Commission. Further, the CSC found the explanation given by petitioner, to the effect that those files retrieved from his computer hard drive actually belonged to his lawyer friends Estrellado and Solosa whom he allowed the use of his computer for drafting their pleadings in the cases they handle, as implausible and doubtful under the circumstances. We hold that the CSCs factual finding regarding the authorship of the subject pleadings and misuse of the office computer is well-supported by the evidence on record, thus: It is also striking to note that some of these documents were in the nature of pleadings responding to the orders, decisions or resolutions of these offices or directly in opposition to them such as a petition for certiorari or a motion for reconsideration of CSC Resolution. This indicates that the author thereof knowingly and willingly participated in the promotion or advancement of the interests of parties contrary or antagonistic to the Commission. Worse, the appearance in one of the retrieved documents the phrase, "Eric N. Estr[e]llado, Epal kulang ang bayad mo," lends plausibility to an inference that the preparation or drafting of the legal pleadings was pursued with less than a laudable motivation. Whoever was responsible for these documents was simply doing the same for the money a "legal mercenary" selling or purveying his expertise to the highest bidder, so to speak. Inevitably, the fact that these documents were retrieved from the computer of Pollo raises the presumption that he was the author thereof. This is because he had a control of the said computer. More significantly, one of the witnesses, Margarita Reyes, categorically testified seeing a written copy of one of the pleadings found in the case records lying on the table of the respondent. This was the Petition for Review in the case of Estrellado addressed to the Court of Appeals. The said circumstances indubitably demonstrate that Pollo was secretly undermining the interest of the Commission, his very own employer. To deflect any culpability, Pollo would, however, want the Commission to believe that the documents were the personal files of some of his friends, including one Attorney Ponciano Solosa, who incidentally served as his counsel of record during the formal investigation of this case. In fact, Atty. Solosa himself executed a sworn affidavit to this effect. Unfortunately, this contention of the respondent was directly rebutted by the prosecution witness, Reyes, who testified that during her entire stay in the PALD, she never saw Atty. Solosa using the computer assigned to the respondent. Reyes more particularly stated that she worked in close proximity with Pollo and would have known if Atty. Solosa, whom she personally knows, was using the computer in question. Further, Atty. Solosa himself was never presented during the formal investigation to confirm his sworn statement such that the same constitutes self-serving evidence unworthy of weight and credence. The same is true with the other supporting affidavits, which Pollo submitted. At any rate, even admitting for a moment the said contention of the respondent, it evinces the fact that he was unlawfully authorizing private persons to use the computer assigned to him for official purpose, not only once but several times gauging by the number of pleadings, for ends not in conformity with the interests of the Commission. He was, in effect, acting as a principal by indispensable cooperationOr at the very least, he should be responsible for serious misconduct for repeatedly allowing CSC resources, that is, the computer and the electricity, to be utilized for purposes other than what they were officially intended. Further, the Commission cannot lend credence to the posturing of the appellant that the line appearing in one of the documents, "Eric N. Estrellado, Epal kulang ang bayad mo," was a private joke between the person alluded to therein, Eric N. Estrellado, and his counsel, Atty. Solosa, and not indicative of anything more sinister. The same is too preposterous to be believed. Why would such a statement appear in a legal pleading stored in the computer assigned to the respondent, unless he had something to do with it?56

Petitioner assails the CA in not ruling that the CSC should not have entertained an anonymous complaint since Section 8 of CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 (URACC) requires a verified complaint: Rule II Disciplinary Cases SEC. 8. Complaint. - A complaint against a civil service official or employee shall not be given due course unless it is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the complainant. However, in cases initiated by the proper disciplining authority, the complaint need not be under oath. No anonymous complaint shall be entertained unless there is obvious truth or merit to the allegation therein or supported by documentary or direct evidence, in which case the person complained of may be required to comment. xxxx We need not belabor this point raised by petitioner. The administrative complaint is deemed to have been initiated by the CSC itself when Chairperson David, after a spot inspection and search of the files stored in the hard drive of computers in the two divisions adverted to in the anonymous letter -- as part of the disciplining authoritys own fact-finding investigation and information-gathering -- found a prima facie case against the petitioner who was then directed to file his comment. As this Court held in Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals57 -Under Sections 46 and 48 (1), Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Book V of E.O. No. 292 and Section 8, Rule II of Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, a complaint may be initiated against a civil service officer or employee by the appropriate disciplining authority, even without being subscribed and sworn to. Considering that the CSC, as the disciplining authority for Dumlao, filed the complaint, jurisdiction over Dumlao was validly acquired. (Emphasis supplied.) As to petitioners challenge on the validity of CSC OM 10, S. 2002 (CUP), the same deserves scant consideration. The alleged infirmity due to the said memorandum order having been issued solely by the CSC Chair and not the Commission as a collegial body, upon which the dissent of Commissioner Buenaflor is partly anchored, was already explained by Chairperson David in her Reply to the Addendum to Commissioner Buenaflors previous memo expressing his dissent to the actions and disposition of the Commission in this case. According to Chairperson David, said memorandum order was in fact exhaustively discussed, provision by provision in the January 23, 2002 Commission Meeting, attended by her and former Commissioners Erestain, Jr. and Valmores. Hence, the Commission En Banc at the time saw no need to issue a Resolution for the purpose and further because the CUP being for internal use of the Commission, the practice had been to issue a memorandum order.58 Moreover, being an administrative rule that is merely internal in nature, or which regulates only the personnel of the CSC and not the public, the CUP need not be published prior to its effectivity. 59 In fine, no error or grave abuse of discretion was committed by the CA in affirming the CSCs ruling that petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of R.A. No. 6713. The gravity of these offenses justified the imposition on petitioner of the ultimate penalty of dismissal with all its accessory penalties, pursuant to existing rules and regulations. WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated October 11, 2007 and Resolution dated February 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98224 are AFFIRMED.

Pollo vs. Constantino-David : The Extent of the Right to Privacy of Government Employees This is NOT good news for government employees. On October 18, 2011, the Supreme Court promulgated its decision in Pollo vs.Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881. This case involved a search of an office computer assigned to the petitioner, an employee of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. IV (CSC-ROIV). The search was a consequence of an anonymous lettercomplaint received by respondent CSC Chairperson alleging that the chief of the Mamamayan muna hindi mamaya na division of CSC-ROIV has been lawyering for public officials with pending cases in the CSC. The employees personal files stored in the computer, many of which were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals, were used as evidence in the administrative proceedings subsequently initiated against him. The petitioner was eventually dismissed from service by the CSC. The dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised as pivotal issue the validity of the search on his office computer, contending that this violated his right to privacy. The High Tribunal held that the search, made in relation to an investigation authorized by the CSC Chairperson and which occasioned the copying of petitioner's personal files, is lawful and does not transgress his constitutional right to privacy even if done without his knowledge and consent.

According to the Court, the petitioner had NO reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer files. Moreover, the search authorized by the respondent CSC Chairperson and the concomitant copying of the contents of the hard drive on petitioners office computer is reasonable in its inception and scope. The Court thus sustained the use of these files in the administrative case against the petitioner, DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CSC and the Court of Appeals (CA) in finding the petitioner GUILTY of (1) Dishonesty, (2) Grave Misconduct, (3) Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and (4) Violation of Republic Act 6713; and in meting him the penalty of DISMISSAL from service. Justice Martin S. Villarama wrote the Decision for the Court En Banc. Fully concurring with him are Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, Bienvenido Reyes, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe. Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno also concurred but share[d] J. Carpios concerns. Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio wrote a Separate Concurring Opinion. He concurred in the DENIAL of the petition, but asserted a statutory basis for the disposition of the case. He held that the CSCs computer use regulation, which opens to access for internal scrutiny anything CSC employees create, store, send, or receive in the computer system, has a statutory basis under the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, which provides that [g]overnment x x x property shall be x x x used solely for public purposes. In short, any private use of a government property, like a government-owned computer, is prohibited by law. Consequently, a government employee cannot expect any privacy when he uses a government-owned computer because he knows he cannot use the computer for any private purpose. Justice Carpio however asserted that the CSC office regulation denying CSC employees privacy expectation in anything they create, store, send, or receive in the computer system, although valid as to petitioner Briccio Pollo, is constitutionally infirm insofar as [it] excludes from its ambit the three CSC commissioners solely by reason of their rank, and not by reason of the confidential nature of the electronic data they generate. The only way by which the CSC commissioners, or for that matter, any of [the CSC] employees, can constitutionally take themselves out of the ambit of the CSCs no-privacy regulation is if they (1) invoke the doctrine of

confidentiality of information, and (2) prove that the information sought to be exempted indeed falls under any of the classes of confidential information. Sensitivity of content, not rank, justifies enjoyment of this very narrow constitutional privilege. On the other hand, Justice Lucas Bersamin, with whom Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita LeonardoDe Castro, and Roberto Abad concurred, wrote a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. He also voted to DENY the petition and concurred with the majority as regards the petitioners administrative liability. He however qualified that the petitioners right to privacy should be respected as to the files created, stored, sent or received after office hours. He further qualified that the decision be applied pro hac vice only. Justice Bersamin held that even without Office Memorandum (OM) No. 10, Series of 2002 being issued by the respondent CSC Chairperson, the CSC employees, including the petitioner, have a reduced expectation of privacy in their workplace. He however found that the petitioner did not absolutely waive his right to privacy in this case. He noted that OM No. 10 contains an exception giving users, including the petitioner, privileged access to the Internet for knowledge search, information exchange, and others; and has explicitly allowed them to use the computer resources for personal purposes after office hours. Thus, petitioner still had a reasonable expectation of privacy vis--vis whatever communications he created, stored, sent, or received after office hours through using the Commissions computer resources, such that he could rightfully invoke the Constitutional protection to the privacy of these communication and correspondence. Thus, while conceding that respondent David had legal authority and good reasons to issue her order to back up the petitioners files as an exercise of her power of supervision, Justice Bersamin did not agree with the Majoritys holding for the confiscation of all the files stored in [petitioners] computer. The need to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to the States regulation may not be filled by means that unnecessarily and broadly sweep and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. For that reason, respondent Davids order to back up petitioners files should only cover the files corresponding to communications created, stored, sent, or received during office hours. There will be no difficulty in identifying and segregating the files created, stored, sent, or received during and after office hours with the constant advancement and improvement of technology and the presumed expertise of the Commissions information systems analysts.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country. Facts Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez, a Mexican citizen reputed to be a drug-lord involved in the torture and murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salazar, was arrested and brought to the United States. The DEA decided that it would be a good idea to search the defendant's home, so agents received authorization from the Mexican government to conduct the search. The agents found documents believed to be the defendant's records of his marijuana shipments. When the government sought to introduce the documents as evidence in court, the defendant objected, asserting that they were obtained without a warrant, and therefore could not constitutionally be used at trial. The United States District Court agreed, and invoked the exclusionary rule to suppress the documents (i.e. to prevent them from being used as evidence). The government appealed this ruling, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue The Supreme Court had to determine whether the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applied where United States agents searched and seized property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country. Result Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the Opinion for the Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor, contending that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the people of the United States, and that the defendant's "legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection.[1] Justice Kennedy also authored a concurring opinion, contending that the application of the Fourth Amendment in cases such as this would interfere with the ability of the U.S. to engage in actions designed to protect the nation's interests abroad. Justice Stevens also authored a concurring opinion, contending that the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does apply in such cases, but concluding that this search and seizure was reasonable, because it was done with the permission and assistance of the government of Mexico, and because no U.S. court would have had the authority to issue a warrant for such a search. Dissents Justice Brennan dissented, joined by Justice Marshall, contending that the Fourth Amendment was indeed intended by the framers to apply to any action undertaken by the federal government. They contended that the Constitution grants the government limited powers, and the application of rights is one such limitation. Therefore, no agent of the federal government could ever conduct a search that was not governed by the Fourth Amendment. Justice Blackmun also dissented, contending that when a foreign national is charged with a violation of U.S. criminal law, he is being treated as one of the governed.

FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 170672 August 14, 2009

In its 10 July 2004 Decision, the trial court dismissed petitioners complaint. The trial court found that petitioner was at the scene of the shooting incident in Barangay Nursery. The trial court ruled that the police officers who conducted the search were of the belief, based on reasonable grounds, that petitioner was involved in the incident and that the firearm used in the commission of the offense was in his possession. The trial court ruled that petitioners warrantless arrest and the warrantless seizure of the firearms were valid and legal. The trial court gave more credence to the testimonies of respondents who were presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with law. The trial court rejected petitioners claim of frame-up as weak and insufficient to overthrow the positive testimonies of the police officers who conducted the arrest and the incidental search. The trial court concluded that petitioners claim for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code is not warranted under the circumstances. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 18 October 2004 Order, the trial court denied the motion. Hence, the petition before this Court. The Issues The issues in this case are the following: 1. Whether the warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure were illegal under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure; 2. Whether respondents are civilly liable for damages under Articles 32(4) and (9) of the Civil Code; and 3. Whether the findings in the administrative case against petitioner are conclusive in this case. The Ruling of this Court The petition has no merit. Application of Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure Petitioner alleges that his arrest and the search were unlawful under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Petitioner alleges that for the warrantless arrest to be lawful, the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Petitioner alleges that the alleged shooting incident was just relayed to the arresting officers, and thus they have no personal knowledge of facts as required by the Rules.

JUDGE FELIMON ABELITA III, Petitioner, vs. P/SUPT. GERMAN B. DORIA and SPO3 CESAR RAMIREZ, Respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the 10 July 2004 Decision2 and 18 October 2004 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217 (trial court), in Civil Case No. Q-98-33442 for Damages. The Antecedent Facts Judge Felimon Abelita III (petitioner) filed a complaint for Damages under Articles 32(4) and (9) of the Civil Code against P/Supt. German B. Doria (P/Supt. Doria) and SPO3 Cesar Ramirez (SPO3 Ramirez). Petitioner alleged in his complaint that on 24 March 1996, at around 12 noon, he and his wife were on their way to their house in Bagumbayan, Masbate, Masbate when P/Supt. Doria and SPO3 Ramirez (respondents), accompanied by 10 unidentified police officers, requested them to proceed to the Provincial PNP Headquarters at Camp Boni Serrano, Masbate, Masbate. Petitioner was suspicious of the request and told respondents that he would proceed to the PNP Headquarters after he had brought his wife home. Petitioner alleged that when he parked his car in front of their house, SPO3 Ramirez grabbed him, forcibly took the key to his Totoya Lite Ace van, barged into the vehicle, and conducted a search without a warrant. The search resulted to the seizure of a licensed shotgun. Petitioner presented the shotguns license to respondents. Thereafter, SPO3 Ramirez continued his search and then produced a .45 caliber pistol which he allegedly found inside the vehicle. Respondents arrested petitioner and detained him, without any appropriate charge, at the PNP special detention cell. P/Supt. Doria alleged that his office received a telephone call from a relative of Rosa Sia about a shooting incident in Barangay Nursery. He dispatched a team headed by SPO3 Ramirez to investigate the incident. SPO3 Ramirez later reported that a certain William Sia was wounded while petitioner, who was implicated in the incident, and his wife just left the place of the incident. P/Supt. Doria looked for petitioner and when he found him, he informed him of the incident report. P/Supt. Doria requested petitioner to go with him to the police headquarters as he was reported to be involved in the incident. Petitioner agreed but suddenly sped up his vehicle and proceeded to his residence. P/Supt. Doria and his companions chased petitioner. Upon reaching petitioners residence, they caught up with petitioner as he was about to run towards his house. The police officers saw a gun in the front seat of the vehicle beside the drivers seat as petitioner opened the door. They also saw a shotgun at the back of the drivers seat. The police officers confiscated the firearms and arrested petitioner. P/Supt. Doria alleged that his men also arrested other persons who were identified to be with petitioner during the shooting incident. Petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearms and frustrated murder. An administrative case was also filed against petitioner before this Court. 4 The Decision of the Trial Court

We do not agree. Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure states: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. For the warrantless arrest under this Rule to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the offender has just committed an offense; and (2) the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.5 Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.6 The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.7 A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. 8 Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure does not require the arresting officers to personally witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes. In this case, P/Supt. Doria received a report about the alleged shooting incident. SPO3 Ramirez investigated the report and learned from witnesses that petitioner was involved in the incident. They were able to track down petitioner, but when invited to the police headquarters to shed light on the incident, petitioner initially agreed then sped up his vehicle, prompting the police authorities to give chase. Petitioners act of trying to get away, coupled with the incident report which they investigated, is enough to raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police authorities as to the existence of probable cause. Plain View Doctrine The seizure of the firearms was justified under the plain view doctrine. Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.9 The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (1) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.10

In this case, the police authorities were in the area because that was where they caught up with petitioner after the chase. They saw the firearms inside the vehicle when petitioner opened the door. Since a shooting incident just took place and it was reported that petitioner was involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police officers that the firearms may be evidence of a crime. Hence, they were justified in seizing the firearms. Civil Liability Under Article 32 of the Civil Code Petitioner alleges that respondents are civilly liable under paragraphs (4) and (9) of Article 32 of the Civil Code. Paragraphs (4) and (9) of Article 32 of the Civil Code respectively state: 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 (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; xxxx (9) The right to be secure in ones person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; xxxx In this case, it was established that petitioner was lawfully arrested without a warrant and that firearms were validly seized from his possession. The trial court found that petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearms and frustrated murder. We agree with the trial court in rejecting petitioners allegation that he was merely framed-up. We also agree with the trial court that respondents were presumed to be performing their duties in accordance with law. Hence, respondents should not be held civilly liable for their actions. Res Judicata Does Not Apply Respondents raise the defense of res judicata against petitioners claim for damages. Res judicata has two aspects: bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment provided under Section 47(b) and (c), Rule 39, respectively, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure 11 which provide: Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows: xxx

(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and (c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. Bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment differ as follows: There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action. Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action before the same or other tribunal.1avvphi1 But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.12 For res judicata to apply, the following requisites must be present: (a) the former judgment or order must be final; (b) it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case; (c) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action; this requisite is satisfied if the two actions are substantially between the same parties.13 While the present case and the administrative case are based on the same essential facts and circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata will not apply. An administrative case deals with the administrative liability which may be incurred by the respondent for the commission of the acts complained of.14 The case before us deals with the civil liability for damages of the police authorities. There is no identity of causes of action in the cases. While identity of causes of action is not required in the application of res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment,15 it is required that there must always be identity of parties in the first and second cases.

There is no identity of parties between the present case and the administrative case. The administrative case was filed by Benjamin Sia Lao (Sia Lao) against petitioner. Sia Lao is not a party to this case. Respondents in the present case were not parties to the administrative case between Sia Lao and petitioner. In the present case, petitioner is the complainant against respondents. Hence, while res judicata is not a defense to petitioners complaint for damages, respondents nevertheless cannot be held liable for damages as discussed above. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 10 July 2004 Decision and 18 October 2004 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217, in Civil Case No. Q-98-33442. ABELITA vs. DORIA

The Case Before the Court is a petition for review[1]assailing the 10 July 2004Decision[2]and 18 October 2004 Order[3]of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217 (trial court), in Civil Case No. Q-98-33442 for Damages.

The Antecedent Facts

Judge Felimon Abelita III (petitioner) filed a complaint for Damagesunder Articles 32(4) and (9) of the Civil Code against P/Supt. German B. Doria (P/Supt. Doria) and SPO3 Cesar Ramirez (SPO3 Ramirez). Petitioner alleged in his complaint that on 24 March 1996, at around 12 noon, he andhis wife were on their way to their house in Bagumbayan, Masbate,Masbate when P/Supt. Doria and SPO3 Ramirez (respondents),accompanied by 10 unidentified police officers, requested them to proceedto the Provincial PNP Headquarters at Camp Boni Serrano, Masbate,Masbate. Petitioner was suspicious of the request and told respondents that he would proceed to the PNP Headquarters after he had brought his wife home. Petitioner alleged that when he parked his car in front of their house, SPO3 Ramirez grabbed him, forcibly took the key to his Totoya Lite Ace van, barged into the vehicle, and conducted a search without awarrant. The search resulted to the seizure of a licensed shotgun.Petitioner presented the shotguns license to respondents. Thereafter, SPO3 Ramirez continued his search and then produced a .45 caliber pistolwhich he allegedly found inside the vehicle. Respondents arrestedpetitioner and detained him, without any appropriate charge, at the PNP special detention cell. P/Supt. Doria alleged that his office received a telephone call from arelative of Rosa Sia about a shooting incident in Barangay Nursery. He dispatched a team headed by SPO3 Ramirez to investigate the incident.SPO3 Ramirez later reported that a certain William Sia was wounded while petitioner, who was implicated in the incident, and his wife just left the place of the incident. P/Supt. Doria looked for petitioner and when he found him, he informed him of the incident report. P/Supt. Doria requested petitioner to go with him to the police headquarters as he was reported tobe involved in the incident. Petitioner agreed but suddenly sped up his vehicle and proceeded to his residence. P/Supt. Doria and his companions chased petitioner. Upon reaching petitioners residence, they caught upwith petitioner as he was about to run towards his house. The police officers saw a gun in the front seat of the vehicle beside the drivers seat aspetitioner opened the door. They also saw a shotgun at the back of the drivers seat. The police officers confiscated the firearms and arrested petitioner. P/Supt. Doria alleged that his men also arrested other persons who were identified to be with petitioner during the shooting incident. Petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearms and frustrated murder. An administrative case was also filed against petitioner before this Court.[4]

The Decision of the Trial Court

on probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.[6]The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e

In its 10 July 2004 Decision, the trial court dismissed petitioners complaint. The trial court found that petitioner was at the scene of the shooting incident in Barangay Nursery. The trial court ruled that the police officers who conducted the search were of the belief, based on reasonable grounds, that petitioner was involved in the incident and that the firearm used in the commission of the offense was in his possession. The trial court ruled that petitioners warrantless arrest and the warrantless seizure of the firearms were valid and legal. The trial court gave more credence to the testimonies of respondents who were presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with law. The trial court rejected petitioners claim of frame-up as weak and insufficient to overthrow the positive testimonies of the policeofficers who conducted the arrest and the incidental search. The trialcourt concluded that petitioners claim for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code is not warranted under the circumstances. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 18 October 2004 Order, the trial court denied the motion. Hence, the petition before this Court.

., supported bycircumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probablecause of guilt of the person to be arrested.[7]A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.[8] Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure does not require the arresting officers to personally witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes. In this case, P/Supt. Doria received a report about the alleged shooting incident. SPO3 Ramirez investigated the report and learned from witnesses that petitioner was involved in the incident. They were able to track down petitioner, but when invited to the police headquarters to shed light on the incident, petitioner initially agreed thensped up his vehicle, prompting the police authorities to give chase.Petitioners act of trying to get away, coupled with the incident report which they investigated, is enough to raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police authorities as to the existence of probable cause. Plain View Doctrine The seizure of the firearms was justified under the plain view doctrine. Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.[9]The plain view doctrineapplies when the following requisites concur: (1) the law enforcementofficer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (2) the discoveryof the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediatelyapparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.[10] In this case, the police authorities were in the area because that waswhere they caught up with petitioner after the chase. They saw thefirearms inside the vehicle when petitioner opened the door. Since a shooting incident just took place and it was reported that petitioner was involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police officers that the firearms may be evidence of a crime. Hence, they were justified in seizing the firearms. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 10 July 2004Decision and 18 October 2004 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217, in Civil Case No. Q-98-33442. SO ORDERED.

The Issues The issues in this case are the following: 1. Whether the warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure were illegal under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on CriminalProcedure; 2. Whether respondents are civillyliable for damages under Articles32(4) and (9) of the Civil Code; and 3. Whether the findings in theadministrative case againstpetitioner are conclusive in thiscase.

The Ruling of this Court The petition has no merit. Application of Section 5, Rule 113 of the1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure Petitioner alleges that his arrest and the search were unlawful under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Petitioner alleges that for the warrantless arrest to be lawful, the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Petitioner alleges that the alleged shooting incident was just relayed to the arresting officers, and thus they have no personal knowledge of facts as required by the Rules. We do not agree. Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure states: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:(a) When, in his presence, the person to bearrested has committed, is actually committing, or isattempting to commit an offense;(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. For the warrantless arrest under this Rule to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the offender has just committed an offense; and (2) the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.[5] Personal knowledge of facts must be based

SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 190710 June 6, 2011

and urging anyone who has any objection to the petition to file his opposition. The court also directed that the Order be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in any newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, and that the Solicitor General be furnished with copies of the Order and the petition in order that he may appear and represent the State in the case. On September 4, 2007, unaware of the issuance of the September 3, 2007 Order, respondent filed a Special Appearance and Comment. He manifested inter alia that: (1) he did not receive the summons and a copy of the petition; (2) the petition was adversarial in nature and therefore summons should be served on him as respondent; (3) should the court agree that summons was required, he was waiving service of summons and making a voluntary appearance; and (4) notice by publication of the petition and the hearing was improper because of the confidentiality of the subject matter.4 On September 14, 2007, respondent also filed a Manifestation and Comment on Petitioners Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case. Respondent reiterated that the petition for recognition is adversarial in nature; hence, he should be served with summons. After learning of the September 3, 2007 Order, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. 5 Respondent averred that the petition was not in due form and substance because petitioner could not have personally known the matters that were alleged therein. He argued that DNA testing cannot be had on the basis of a mere allegation pointing to respondent as petitioners father. Moreover, jurisprudence is still unsettled on the acceptability of DNA evidence. On July 30, 2008, the RTC, acting on respondents motion for reconsideration, issued an Order 6 dismissing the case. The court remarked that, based on the case of Herrera v. Alba,7 there are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action which the parties have to face: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative father and the child. The court opined that petitioner must first establish these four procedural aspects before he can present evidence of paternity and filiation, which may include incriminating acts or scientific evidence like blood group test and DNA test results. The court observed that the petition did not show that these procedural aspects were present. Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case considering that (a) his mother did not personally declare that she had sexual relations with respondent, and petitioners statement as to what his mother told him about his father was clearly hearsay; (b) the certificate of live birth was not signed by respondent; and (c) although petitioner used the surname of respondent, there was no allegation that he was treated as the child of respondent by the latter or his family. The court opined that, having failed to establish a prima facie case, respondent had no obligation to present any affirmative defenses. The dispositive portion of the said Order therefore reads: WHEREFORE, for failure of the petitioner to establish compliance with the four procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action in his petition, his motion for the submission of parties to DNA testing to establish paternity and filiation is hereby denied. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED.8

JESSE U. LUCAS, Petitioner, vs. JESUS S. LUCAS, Respondent. DECISION NACHURA, J.: Is a prima facie showing necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order? In this petition for review on certiorari, we address this question to guide the Bench and the Bar in dealing with a relatively new evidentiary tool. Assailed in this petition are the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated September 25, 2009 and Resolution dated December 17, 2009. The antecedents of the case are, as follows: On July 26, 2007, petitioner, Jesse U. Lucas, filed a Petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation (with Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing)2 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Valenzuela City. Petitioner narrated that, sometime in 1967, his mother, Elsie Uy (Elsie), migrated to Manila from Davao and stayed with a certain "Ate Belen (Belen)" who worked in a prominent nightspot in Manila. Elsie would oftentimes accompany Belen to work. On one occasion, Elsie got acquainted with respondent, Jesus S. Lucas, at Belens workplace, and an intimate relationship developed between the two. Elsie eventually got pregnant and, on March 11, 1969, she gave birth to petitioner, Jesse U. Lucas. The name of petitioners father was not stated in petitioners certificate of live birth. However, Elsie later on told petitioner that his father is respondent. On August 1, 1969, petitioner was baptized at San Isidro Parish, Taft Avenue, Pasay City. Respondent allegedly extended financial support to Elsie and petitioner for a period of about two years. When the relationship of Elsie and respondent ended, Elsie refused to accept respondents offer of support and decided to raise petitioner on her own. While petitioner was growing up, Elsie made several attempts to introduce petitioner to respondent, but all attempts were in vain. Attached to the petition were the following: (a) petitioners certificate of live birth; (b) petitioners baptismal certificate; (c) petitioners college diploma, showing that he graduated from Saint Louis University in Baguio City with a degree in Psychology; (d) his Certificate of Graduation from the same school; (e) Certificate of Recognition from the University of the Philippines, College of Music; and (f) clippings of several articles from different newspapers about petitioner, as a musical prodigy. Respondent was not served with a copy of the petition. Nonetheless, respondent learned of the petition to establish filiation. His counsel therefore went to the trial court on August 29, 2007 and obtained a copy of the petition. Petitioner filed with the RTC a Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case. Hence, on September 3, 2007, the RTC, finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, issued the Order3 setting the case for hearing

Petitioner seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration to the Order dated July 30, 2008, which the RTC resolved in his favor. Thus, on October 20, 2008, it issued the Order9 setting aside the courts previous order, thus: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Order dated July 30, 2008 is hereby reconsidered and set aside.

Let the Petition (with Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing) be set for hearing on January 22, 2009 at 8:30 in the morning. xxxx SO ORDERED.10 This time, the RTC held that the ruling on the grounds relied upon by petitioner for filing the petition is premature considering that a full-blown trial has not yet taken place. The court stressed that the petition was sufficient in form and substance. It was verified, it included a certification against forum shopping, and it contained a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which petitioner relies on for his claim, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. The court remarked that the allegation that the statements in the petition were not of petitioners personal knowledge is a matter of evidence. The court also dismissed respondents arguments that there is no basis for the taking of DNA test, and that jurisprudence is still unsettled on the acceptability of DNA evidence. It noted that the new Rule on DNA Evidence 11 allows the conduct of DNA testing, whether at the courts instance or upon application of any person who has legal interest in the matter in litigation. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated October 20, 2008 and for Dismissal of Petition,12reiterating that (a) the petition was not in due form and substance as no defendant was named in the title, and all the basic allegations were hearsay; and (b) there was no prima facie case, which made the petition susceptible to dismissal. The RTC denied the motion in the Order dated January 19, 2009, and rescheduled the hearing.13

While the tenor [of Section 4, Rule on DNA Evidence] appears to be absolute, the rule could not really have been intended to trample on the substantive rights of the parties. It could have not meant to be an instrument to promote disorder, harassment, or extortion. It could have not been intended to legalize unwarranted expedition to fish for evidence. Such will be the situation in this particular case if a court may at any time order the taking of a DNA test. If the DNA test in compulsory recognition cases is immediately available to the petitioner/complainant without requiring first the presentation of corroborative proof, then a dire and absurd rule would result. Such will encourage and promote harassment and extortion. xxxx At the risk of being repetitious, the Court would like to stress that it sees the danger of allowing an absolute DNA testing to a compulsory recognition test even if the plaintiff/petitioner failed to establish prima facie proof. x x x If at anytime, motu proprio and without pre-conditions, the court can indeed order the taking of DNA test in compulsory recognition cases, then the prominent and well-to-do members of our society will be easy prey for opportunists and extortionists. For no cause at all, or even for [sic] casual sexual indiscretions in their younger years could be used as a means to harass them. Unscrupulous women, unsure of the paternity of their children may just be taking the chances-just in case-by pointing to a sexual partner in a long past one-time encounter. Indeed an absolute and unconditional taking of DNA test for compulsory recognition case opens wide the opportunities for extortionist to prey on victims who have no stomach for scandal.15 Petitioner moved for reconsideration. On December 17, 2009, the CA denied the motion for lack of merit.16 In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner raises the following issues: I.

Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, questioning the Orders dated October 20, 2008 and January 19, 2009. On September 25, 2009, the CA decided the petition for certiorari in favor of respondent, thus: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED for being meritorious. The assailed Orders dated October 20, 2008 and January 19, 2009 both issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 172 of Valenzuela City in SP. Proceeding Case No. 30-V-07 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the case docketed as SP. Proceeding Case No. 30-V-07 is DISMISSED.14 The CA held that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent, as no summons had been served on him. Respondents special appearance could not be considered as voluntary appearance because it was filed only for the purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the court over respondent. Although respondent likewise questioned the courts jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, the same is not equivalent to a waiver of his right to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person. The CA remarked that petitioner filed the petition to establish illegitimate filiation, specifically seeking a DNA testing order to abbreviate the proceedings. It noted that petitioner failed to show that the four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action had been met. The CA further held that a DNA testing should not be allowed when the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case, thus:

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF HEREIN RESPONDENT ALBEIT THE SAME WAS NEVER RAISED IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. I.A WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT JURISDICTION WAS NOT ACQUIRED OVER THE PERSON OF THE RESPONDENT. I.B WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO REALIZE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED VOLUNTARILY TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT A QUO. I.C WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT ESSENTIALLY RULED THAT THE TITLE OF A PLEADING, RATHER THAN ITS BODY, IS CONTROLLING.

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION BY REASON OF THE MOTION (FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT A QUO) FOR THE CONDUCT OF DNA TESTING. II.A WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT ESSENTIALLY RULED THAT DNA TESTING CAN ONLY BE ORDERED AFTER THE PETITIONER ESTABLISHES PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF FILIATION. III. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WITH ITS MISPLACED RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF HERRERA VS. ALBA, ESPECIALLY AS REGARDS THE FOUR SIGNIFICANT PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF A TRADITIONAL PATERNITY ACTION.17 Petitioner contends that respondent never raised as issue in his petition for certiorari the courts lack of jurisdiction over his person. Hence, the CA had no legal basis to discuss the same, because issues not raised are deemed waived or abandoned. At any rate, respondent had already voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by his filing of several motions asking for affirmative relief, such as the (a) Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated September 3, 2007; (b) Ex Parte Motion to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated November 6, 2007; and (c) Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated October 20, 2008 and for Dismissal of Petition. Petitioner points out that respondent even expressly admitted that he has waived his right to summons in his Manifestation and Comment on Petitioners Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case. Hence, the issue is already moot and academic. Petitioner argues that the case was adversarial in nature. Although the caption of the petition does not state respondents name, the body of the petition clearly indicates his name and his known address. He maintains that the body of the petition is controlling and not the caption. Finally, petitioner asserts that the motion for DNA testing should not be a reason for the dismissal of the petition since it is not a legal ground for the dismissal of cases. If the CA entertained any doubt as to the propriety of DNA testing, it should have simply denied the motion.18 Petitioner points out that Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence does not require that there must be a prior proof of filiation before DNA testing can be ordered. He adds that the CA erroneously relied on the four significant procedural aspects of a paternity case, as enunciated in Herrera v. Alba.19 Petitioner avers that these procedural aspects are not applicable at this point of the proceedings because they are matters of evidence that should be taken up during the trial. 20 In his Comment, respondent supports the CAs ruling on most issues raised in the petition for certiorari and merely reiterates his previous arguments. However, on the issue of lack of jurisdiction, respondent counters that, contrary to petitioners assertion, he raised the issue before the CA in relation to his claim that the petition was not in due form and substance. Respondent denies that he waived his right to the service of summons. He insists that the alleged waiver and voluntary appearance was conditional upon a finding by the court that

summons is indeed required. He avers that the assertion of affirmative defenses, aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, cannot be considered as waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over such person. The petition is meritorious. Primarily, we emphasize that the assailed Orders of the trial court were orders denying respondents motion to dismiss the petition for illegitimate filiation. An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates nor finally disposes of a case, as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. As such, the general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari, which is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. Neither can a denial of a motion to dismiss be the subject of an appeal unless and until a final judgment or order is rendered. In a number of cases, the court has granted the extraordinary remedy of certiorari on the denial of the motion to dismiss but only when it has been tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.21 In the present case, we discern no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the motion to dismiss. The grounds for dismissal relied upon by respondent were (a) the courts lack of jurisdiction over his person due to the absence of summons, and (b) defect in the form and substance of the petition to establish illegitimate filiation, which is equivalent to failure to state a cause of action. We need not belabor the issues on whether lack of jurisdiction was raised before the CA, whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent, or whether respondent waived his right to the service of summons. We find that the primordial issue here is actually whether it was necessary, in the first place, to serve summons on respondent for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the case. In other words, was the service of summons jurisdictional? The answer to this question depends on the nature of petitioners action, that is, whether it is an action in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. An action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject that person's interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation. A petition directed against the "thing" itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth certificate, is an action in rem.22 In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law, or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. 23 The herein petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an action in rem. By the simple filing of the petition to establish illegitimate filiation before the RTC, which undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, the latter thereby acquired jurisdiction over the case. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort to the right sought to be established.24 Through publication, all interested parties are deemed notified of the petition.

If at all, service of summons or notice is made to the defendant, it is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.25 This is but proper in order to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.26 Hence, failure to serve summons will not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to try and decide the case. In such a case, the lack of summons may be excused where it is determined that the adverse party had, in fact, the opportunity to file his opposition, as in this case. We find that the due process requirement with respect to respondent has been satisfied, considering that he has participated in the proceedings in this case and he has the opportunity to file his opposition to the petition to establish filiation. To address respondents contention that the petition should have been adversarial in form, we further hold that the herein petition to establish filiation was sufficient in form. It was indeed adversarial in nature despite its caption which lacked the name of a defendant, the failure to implead respondent as defendant, and the nonservice of summons upon respondent. A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. 27 In this petitionclassified as an action in remthe notice requirement for an adversarial proceeding was likewise satisfied by the publication of the petition and the giving of notice to the Solicitor General, as directed by the trial court. The petition to establish filiation is sufficient in substance. It satisfies Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, which requires the complaint to contain a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff bases his claim. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate.28 A complaint states a cause of action when it contains the following elements: (1) the legal right of plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.29 The petition sufficiently states the ultimate facts relied upon by petitioner to establish his filiation to respondent. Respondent, however, contends that the allegations in the petition were hearsay as they were not of petitioners personal knowledge. Such matter is clearly a matter of evidence that cannot be determined at this point but only during the trial when petitioner presents his evidence. In a motion to dismiss a complaint based on lack of cause of action, the question submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations made in the complaint to constitute a cause of action and not whether those allegations of fact are true, for said motion must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint.30 The inquiry is confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no other.31 The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.32 If the allegations of the complaint are sufficient in form and substance but their veracity and correctness are assailed, it is incumbent upon the court to deny the motion to dismiss and require the defendant to answer and go to trial to prove his defense. The veracity of the assertions of the parties can be ascertained at the trial of the case on the merits.33 The statement in Herrera v. Alba34 that there are four significant procedural aspects in a traditional paternity case which parties have to face has been widely misunderstood and misapplied in this case. A party is confronted by these so-called procedural aspects during trial, when the parties have presented their respective evidence. They are matters of evidence that cannot be determined at this initial stage of the proceedings, when only the petition to establish filiation has been filed. The CAs observation that petitioner failed to establish a

prima facie casethe first procedural aspect in a paternity caseis therefore misplaced. A prima facie case is built by a partys evidence and not by mere allegations in the initiatory pleading. Clearly then, it was also not the opportune time to discuss the lack of a prima facie case vis--vis the motion for DNA testing since no evidence has, as yet, been presented by petitioner. More essentially, it is premature to discuss whether, under the circumstances, a DNA testing order is warranted considering that no such order has yet been issued by the trial court. In fact, the latter has just set the said case for hearing. At any rate, the CAs view that it would be dangerous to allow a DNA testing without corroborative proof is well taken and deserves the Courts attention. In light of this observation, we find that there is a need to supplement the Rule on DNA Evidence to aid the courts in resolving motions for DNA testing order, particularly in paternity and other filiation cases. We, thus, address the question of whether a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order. The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide the Bench and the Bar for the introduction and use of DNA evidence in the judicial system. It provides the "prescribed parameters on the requisite elements for reliability and validity (i.e., the proper procedures, protocols, necessary laboratory reports, etc.), the possible sources of error, the available objections to the admission of DNA test results as evidence as well as the probative value of DNA evidence." It seeks "to ensure that the evidence gathered, using various methods of DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and properly, [and] shall not be misused and/or abused and, more importantly, shall continue to ensure that DNA analysis serves justice and protects, rather than prejudice the public." 35 Not surprisingly, Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for conditions that are aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. Section 4 states: SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following: (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case; (b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons; (c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique; (d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and (e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.

This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order will be issued as a matter of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are established. In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must be a show cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity or "good cause" for the holding of the test. 36 In these states, a court order for blood testing is considered a "search," which, under their Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a finding of probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of probable cause. The Supreme Court of Louisiana eloquently explained Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient justification under the particular factual circumstances of the case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood test. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found that a preliminary showing must be made before a court can constitutionally order compulsory blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood testing.371avvphi1 The same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity. Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a DNA testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The court may, for example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If there is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test result would only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA testing. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated September 25, 2009 and Resolution dated December 17, 2009 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders dated October 20, 2008 and January 19, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City are AFFIRMED.