SALONGA vs PAO

Facts: The petitioner invokes the constitutionally protected right to life and liberty guaranteed by the due process clause, alleging that no prima facie case has been established to warrant the filing of an information for subversion against him. Petitioner asks the Court to prohibit and prevent the respondents from using the iron arm of the law to harass, oppress, and persecute him, a member of the democratic opposition in the Philippines. The case roots backs to the rash of bombings which occurred in the Metro Manila area in the months of August, September and ctober of !"#$. %ictor &urns 'ovely, (r, one of the victims of the bombing, implicated petitioner Salonga as one of those responsible. n )ecember !$, !"#$, the (udge Advocate *eneral sent the petitioner a +,otice of Preliminary -nvestigation. in People v. Benigno Aquino, Jr., et al . /which included petitioner as a co0accused1, stating that +the preliminary investigation of the above0entitled case has been set at 234$ o5clock p.m. on )ecember !2, !"#$6 and that petitioner was given ten /!$1 days from receipt of the charge sheet and the supporting evidence within which to file his counter0evidence. The petitioner states that up to the time martial law was lifted on (anuary !7, !"#!, and despite assurance to the contrary, he has not received any copies of the charges against him nor any copies of the so0called supporting evidence. The counsel for Salonga was furnished a copy of an amended complaint signed by *en. Prospero livas, dated !2 March !"#!, charging Salonga, along with 4" other accused with the violation of 8A !7$$, as amended by P) ##9, &P 4! and P) !74:. n !9 ctober !"#!, the counsel for Salonga filed a motion to dismiss the charges against Salonga for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against him. n 2 )ecember !"#!, (udge ;rnani Cru< Pano /Presiding (udge of the Court of =irst -nstance of 8i<al, &ranch >%---, ?ue<on City1 denied the motion. n @ (anuary !"#2, he /Pano1 issued a resolution ordering the filing of an information for violation of the 8evised Anti0Subversion Act, as amended, against @$ people, including Salonga. The resolutions of the said Audge dated 2 )ecember !"#! and @ (anuary !"#2 are the subAect of the present petition for certiorari. -t is the contention of Salonga that no prima facie case has been established by the prosecution to Austify the filing of an information against him. Be states that to sanction his further prosecution despite the lack of evidence against him would be to admit that no rule of law eCists in the Philippines today.

ISSUE: Dhether the above case dropped by the lower court still deserves a decision from the Supreme Court HELD3 Ees. )espite the SC5s dismissal of the petition due to the case5s moot and academic nature, it has on several occasions rendered elaborate decisions in similar cases where mootness was clearly apparent. The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. -t has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the eCtent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.

Salazar Vs. Achacoso

Facts: 8osalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the P ;A, charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. Public respondent Atty. =erdinand MarFue< sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the P ;A regarding the complaint against him. n the same day, after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Sei<ure rder ,o. !2$9 to petitioner. -t stated that there will a sei<ure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that petitioner hasG /!1 ,o valid license or authority from the )epartment of 'abor and ;mployment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employmentH /21 CommittedIare committing acts prohibited under Article 4@ of the ,ew 'abor Code in relation to Article 4# of the same code. A team was then tasked to implement the said rder. The group, accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong policemen, went to petitioner5s residence. They served the order to a certain Mrs. =or a Sala<ar, who let them in. The team confiscated assorted costumes. Petitioner filed with P ;A a letter reFuesting for the return of the sei<ed properties, because she was not given prior notice and hearing. The said rder violated due process. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the &ill of 8ights, and the properties were confiscated against her will and were done with unreasonable force and intimidation.

Issue: Dhether or ,ot the Philippine verseas ;mployment Administration /or the Secretary of 'abor1 can validly issue warrants of search and sei<ure /or arrest1 under Article 4# of the 'abor Code

Held: Jnder the new Constitution, +. . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue eCcept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Audge after eCamination 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 sei<ed.. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of sei<ure or arrest. The Closure and Sei<ure rder was based on Article 4# of the 'abor Code. The Supreme Court held, +De reiterate that the Secretary of 'abor, not being a Audge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Bence, the authorities must go through the Audicial process. To that eCtent, we declare Article 4#, paragraph /c1, of the 'abor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effectK The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously, eCceptional. -t /the power to order arrests1 cannot be made to eCtend to other cases, like the one at bar. Jnder the Constitution, it is the sole domain of the courts.. =urthermore, the search and sei<ure order was in the nature of a general warrant. The court held that the warrant is null and void, because it must identify specifically the things to be sei<ed.

I!HANG!O v EN"I#UE$ FA! S: Sometime in March !"":, 8enato Tichangco, in behalf of the homeowners5 association of *agalangin and Sunog Apog /Tondo, Manila1, who are occupants of various parcels of land in *agalangin, Tondo, filed a land title verification reFuest with the 'and 8egistration Authority /'8A1. The verification reFuest was prompted by an alleged claim of ownership of a certain Manotok over the land which petitioners occupy, and which allegedly have already been identified as Area for Priority )evelopment under the Jrban Poor 'aw. . n 24 ctober !"":, the '8A0Task =orce issued a report stating, among others, that +/a1s appearing on the survey plan /i.e., plan Psd029!@!1, 'ots :2 and :" were bounded among others by ;ST;8 ); MAEPA( , and that the land does not belong to any private person. Petitioners sought the assistance of the ffice of the Solicitor *eneral / S*1 for legal action, which wrote a letter to public respondent for a review and evaluation of the records

ISSUE: Dhether the CA complied with Section !@ of Article %--- of the !"#7 Constitution.

HELD: E;S. The first paragraph of Section !@ of Article %--- of the Constitution mandates that +LnMo decision shall be rendered by any court without eCpressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.. The )ecision of the CA contains the necessary antecedents to warrant its conclusions, the appellate court cannot be said to have withheld +any specific finding of facts.. Dhat the law insists on is that a decision state the +essential ultimate facts.. -ndeed, the +mere failure to specify the contentions of the petitioner and the reasons for refusing to believe them is not sufficient to hold the same contrary to the reFuirements of the provision of law and the Constitution -n appellate courts, the rule does not reFuire any comprehensive statement of facts or mention of the applicable law, but merely a statement of the +legal basis. for denying due course here %s &o &eed to e'(la%& )ull* the court+s de&%al, s%&ce the )acts a&d the la- have alread* .ee& la%d out %& the assa%led Dec%s%o&.