1. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS GR 122156 FACTS: Pursuant to the rivati!

ation ro"ra# o$ the "overn#ent% GSIS &eci&e& to sell '()51* o$ the Manila Hotel Cor oration. T+o ,i&&ers artici ate&% MPH an& Mala-sian Fir# Renon" .erha&. MPH/s ,i& +as at P01.512 er share +hile R./s ,i& +as at P00.((2share. R. +as the hi"hest ,i&&er hence it +as lo"icall- consi&ere& as the +innin" ,i&&er ,ut is -et to ,e &eclare& so. Pen&in" &eclaration% MPH #atches R./s ,i& an& invo3e& the Fili ino First olic- enshrine& un&er ar. 2% Sec. 1(% Art. 12 o$ the 1415 Constitution66% ,ut GSIS re$use& to acce t. In turn MPH $ile& a TR7 to avoi& the er$ection2consu##ation o$ the sale to R.. R. then assaile& the TR7 issue& in $avor o$ MPH ar"uin" a#on" others that: 1. Par. 2% Sec. 1(% Art. 12 o$ the 1415 Constitution nee&s an i# le#entin" la+ ,ecause it is #erel- a state#ent o$ rinci le an& olic- 8not sel$)e9ecutin":; 2. <ven i$ sai& assa"e is sel$)e9ecutin"% Manila Hotel &oes not $all un&er national atri#on-. ISS=<: >hether or not R. shoul& ,e a&#itte& as the hi"hest ,i&&er an& hence ,e roclai#e& as the le"it ,u-er o$ shares. H<?@: Ao. MPH shoul& ,e a+ar&e& the sale ursuant to Art 12 o$ the 1415 Const. This is in li"ht o$ the Fili ino First Polic-. Par. 2% Sec. 1(% Art. 12 o$ the 1415 Constitution is sel$ e9ecutin". The Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. Manila Hotel falls under national patrimony. Patrimony in its plain and ordinary meaning pertains to heritage. >hen the Constitution s ea3s o$ national atri#on-% it re$ers not onl- to the natural resources o$ the Phili ines% as the Constitution coul& have ver- +ell use& the ter# natural resources% ,ut also to the cultural heritage o$ the Fili inos. It also re$ers to our intelli"ence in arts% sciences an& letters. There$ore% +e shoul& &evelo not onl- our lan&s% $orests% #ines an& other natural resources ,ut also the #ental a,ilit- or $acult- o$ our eo le. Aote that% $or #ore than 1 &eca&es 84 no+: Manila Hotel has ,ore #ute +itness to the triu# hs an& $ailures% loves an& $rustrations o$ the Fili inos; its e9istence is i# resse& +ith u,lic interest; its o+n historicit- associate& +ith our stru""le $or soverei"nt-% in&e en&ence an& nationhoo&. Herein resolve& as +ell is the ter# Buali$ie& Fili inos +hich not onl- ertains to in&ivi&uals ,ut to cor orations as +ell an& other Curi&ical entities2 ersonalities. The ter# DEuali$ie& Fili inosF si# l- #eans that re$erence shall ,e "iven to those citi!ens +ho can #a3e a via,le contri,ution

to the co##on "oo&% ,ecause o$ cre&i,le co# etence an& e$$icienc-. It certainl- &oes A7T #an&ate the a# erin" an& re$erential treat#ent to Fili ino citi!ens or or"ani!ations that are inco# etent or ine$$icient% since such an in&iscri#inate re$erence +oul& ,e counter ro&uctive an& ini#ical to the co##on "oo&. In the "rantin" o$ econo#ic ri"hts% rivile"es% an& concessions% +hen a choice has to ,e #a&e ,et+een a DEuali$ie& $orei"nerF an& a DEuali$ie& Fili ino%F the latter shall ,e chosen over the $or#er.F 66Section 1(. The Con"ress shall% u on reco##en&ation o$ the econo#ic an& lannin" a"enc-% +hen the national interest &ictates% reserve to citi!ens o$ the Phili ines or to cor orations or associations at least si9t- er centu# o$ +hose ca ital is o+ne& ,- such citi!ens% or such hi"her ercenta"e as Con"ress #a- rescri,e% certain areas o$ invest#ents. The Con"ress shall enact #easures that +ill encoura"e the $or#ation an& o eration o$ enter rises +hose ca ital is +hollo+ne& ,- Fili inos. In the "rant o$ ri"hts% rivile"es% an& concessions coverin" the national econo#- an& atri#on-% the State shall "ive re$erence to Euali$ie& Fili inos. The State shall re"ulate an& e9ercise authorit- over $orei"n invest#ents +ithin its national Curis&iction an& in accor&ance +ith its national "oals an& riorities.

2. Francisco vs. House o$ Re resentatives GR 16(261 FACTS: The HR on its 12th Con"ress a&o te& a &i$$erent rule on i# each#ent $ro# that o$ the 11th Con"ress. 7n Gune 22% 2((2% the HR a&o te& a resolution to investi"ate the &is,urse#ent o$ $un&s o$ the G@F un&er Hilario @avi&e. In Gune 2% 2(('% $or#er Presi&ent <stra&a $ile& an i# each#ent co# laint a"ainst Chie$ Gustice @avi&e $or cul a,le violation o$ the Constitution% ,etra-al o$ the u,lic trust an& other hi"h cri#es. The House Co##ittee on Gustice rule& that the i# each#ent co# laint +as Hsu$$icient in $or#%H,ut vote& to &is#iss the sa#e on 7cto,er 22% 2((' $or ,ein" insu$$icient in su,stance. A &a- a$ter &is#issin" the $irst i# each#ent co# laint% a 2n& co# laint +as $ile& a"ainst @avi&e ,ase& on the investi"ation o$ $un& &is,urse#ent o$ G@F un&er @avi&e. Petitions +ere $ile& to &eclare the 2n& i# each#ent unconstitutional $or it violates the rovision that no i# each#ent rocee&in"s shall ,e initiate& t+ice a"ainst the sa#e o$$icial. Petitions also clai# that the le"islative inEuir- into the a&#inistration ,- the Chie$ Gustice o$ the G@F in$rin"es on the constitutional &octrine o$ se aration o$ o+ers an& is a &irect violation o$ the constitutional rinci le o$ $iscal autono#- o$ the Cu&iciar-. Senator AEuilino B. Pi#entel% Gr.% in his o+n ,ehal$% $ile& a Motion to Intervene an& Co##ent% ra-in" that Hthe consoli&ate& etitions ,e &is#isse& $or lac3 o$ Curis&iction o$ the Court over the issues a$$ectin" the i# each#ent rocee&in"s an& that the sole o+er% authorit- an& Curis&iction o$ the Senate as the

i# each#ent court to tr- an& &eci&e i# each#ent cases% inclu&in" the one +here the Chie$ Gustice is the res on&ent% ,e reco"ni!e& an& u hel& ursuant to the rovisions o$ Article II o$ the Constitution.H In su##ar-% etitioners lea $or the SC to e9ercise the o+er o$ Cu&icial revie+ to &eter#ine the vali&it- o$ the secon& i# each#ent co# laint.

ISS=<: >7A Cu&icial revie+ o+er e9ten&s to those arisin" $ro# i# each#ent rocee&in"s H<?@: Po+er o$ Cu&icial revie+ is the o+er o$ the court to settle actual controversies involvin" ri"hts +hich are le"all- &e#an&a,le an& en$orcea,le. Gu&icial revie+ is in&ee& an inte"ral co# onent o$ the &elicate s-ste# o$ chec3s an& ,alances +hich% to"ether +ith the corollar- rinci le o$ se aration o$ o+ers% $or#s the ,e&roc3 o$ re u,lican $or# o$ "overn#ent an& insures that its vast o+ers are utili!e& onl- $or the ,ene$it o$ the eo le $or +hich it serves. Se aration o$ o+ers is not a,solute. The SC is the $inal ar,iter to &eter#ine i$ acts ,- the le"islature an& the e9ecutive is in violation o$ the Constitution. Moreover% the o+er o$ Cu&icial revie+ is e9 resslstate& in the Constitution. 62n& I# each#ent co# laint a"ainst Chie$ Gustice @avi&e is unconstitutional.

'. Re u,lic vs. ?i# GR 161656 Facts: )Chule J. ?i# $ile& a etition $or correction o$ entries un&er Rule 1(1 o$ the Rules o$ Court +ith the Re"ional Trial Court o$ ?anao &el Aorte. )She clai#e& that she +as ,orn on 24 7cto,er 1450 in .uru)an% Ili"an Cit-. Her ,irth +as re"istere& in Kaus+a"an% ?anao &el Aorte ,ut the Munici al Civil Re"istrar o$ Kaus+a"an trans$erre& her recor& o$ ,irth to Ili"an Cit-. )the Court $in&in" the etition su$$icient in $or# an& su,stance or&ere& the u,lication o$ the hearin" o$ the etition. )&urin" the hearin"% ?i# testi$ies that: )her surna#e HJuH +as #iss elle& as HJoH. She has ,een usin" HJuH in all her school recor&s an& in her #arria"e certi$icate.2 She resente& a clearance $ro# the Aational .ureau o$ Investi"ation 8A.I: to $urther sho+ the consistenc- in her use o$ the surna#e HJuH.

)she clai#s that her $ather/s na#e in her ,irth recor& +as +ritten as HJo @iu To 8Co Tian:H +hen it shoul& have ,een HJu @io To 8Co Tian:. )her nationalit- +as entere& as Chinese +hen it shoul& have ,een Fili ino consi&erin" that her $ather an& #other never "ot #arrie&. 7nl- her &ecease& $ather +as Chinese% +hile her #other is Fili ina. She clai#s that her ,ein" a re"istere& voter attests to the $act that she is a Fili ino citi!en. )it +as erroneousl- in&icate& in her ,irth certi$icate that she +as a le"iti#ate chil& +hen she shoul& have ,een &escri,e& as ille"iti#ate consi&erin" that her arents +ere never #arrie&. She also resente& a certi$ication atteste& ,- o$$icials o$ the local civil re"istries o$ Ili"an Cit- an& Kaus+a"an% ?anao &el Aorte that there is no recor& o$ #arria"e ,et+een Placi&a Anto an& Ju @io To $ro# 1401 to the resent. )the Court then "rante& the etition ,ut the Re u,lic a eale& to the CA. )the Re u,lic clai#s that ?i# never co# lie& +ith the le"al reEuire#ent in electin" her citi!enshi )the Re u,lic assails the Court o$ A eals/ &ecision in allo+in" res on&ent to use her $ather/s surna#e &es ite its $in&in" that she is ille"iti#ate )the Euestione& corrections +ere: 1. Her $a#il- na#e $ro# HJ7H to HJ=H; 2. Her $ather/s na#e $ro# HJ7 @I= T7 8C7 TIAA:H to HJ= @I7T7 8C7 TIAA:H; '. Her status $ro# Hle"iti#ateH to Hille"iti#ateH ,- chan"in" HJ<SH to HA7H in ans+er to the Euestion H?<GITIMAT<LH; an&% 0. Her citi!enshi $ro# HChineseH to HFili inoH. Issue: >7A CA erre& in "rantin" ?i#/s etition to correct her civil re"istr- recor&s% es eciallciti!enshi . Hel&: Petition to revie+ @<AI<@ The Re u,lic avers that res on&ent &i& not co# l- +ith the constitutional reEuire#ent o$ electin" Fili ino citi!enshi +hen she reache& the a"e o$ #aCorit-. It cites Article IM% Section 18': o$ the 14'5 Constitution% +hich rovi&es that the citi!enshi o$ a le"iti#ate chil& ,orn o$ a

Fili ino #other an& an alien $ather $ollo+e& the citi!enshi o$ the $ather% unless% u on reachin" the a"e o$ #aCorit-% the chil& electe& Phili ine citi!enshi . Plainl-% the a,ove constitutional an& statutor- reEuire#ents o$ electin" Fili ino citi!enshi a lonl- to le"iti#ate chil&ren. These &o not a l- in the case o$ res on&ent +ho +as conce&e&l- an ille"iti#ate chil&% consi&erin" that her Chinese $ather an& Fili ino #other +ere never #arrie&. As such% she +as not reEuire& to co# l- +ith sai& constitutional an& statutor- reEuire#ents to ,eco#e a Fili ino citi!en. .- ,ein" an ille"iti#ate chil& o$ a Fili ino #other% res on&ent auto#aticall- ,eca#e a Fili ino u on ,irth. State& &i$$erentl-% she is a Fili ino since ,irth +ithout havin" to elect Fili ino citi!enshi +hen she reache& the a"e o$ #aCorit-. The Re u,lic/s su,#ission is #islea&in". The Court o$ A eals &i& not allo+ res on&ent to use her $ather/s surna#e. >hat it &i& allo+ +as the correction o$ her $ather/s #iss elle& surna#e +hich she has ,een usin" ever since she can re#e#,er. In this re"ar&% res on&ent &oes not nee& a court ronounce#ent $or her to use her $ather/s surna#e. >hile Cu&icial authorit- is reEuire& $or a chan"e o$ na#e or surna#e% there is no such reEuire#ent $or the continue& use o$ a surna#e +hich a erson has alrea&- ,een usin" since chil&hoo&. The &octrine that &isallo+s such chan"e o$ na#e as +oul& "ive the $alse i# ression o$ $a#ilrelationshi re#ains vali& ,ut onl- to the e9tent that the ro ose& chan"e o$ na#e +oul& in "reat ro,a,ilit- cause reCu&ice or $uture #ischie$ to the $a#il- +hose surna#e it is that is involve& or to the co##unit- in "eneral. In this case% the Re u,lic has not sho+n that the Ju $a#il- in China +oul& ro,a,l- ,e reCu&ice& or ,e the o,Cect o$ $uture #ischie$. In res on&ent/s case% the chan"e in the surna#e that she has ,een usin" $or 0( -ears +oul& even avoi& con$usion to her co##unit- in "eneral. 0. Sison vs. Ancheta GR ?)540'1 Facts: .atas Pa#,ansa 1'5 +as enacte&. Sison% as ta9 a-er% alle"e& that its rovision 8Section 1: un&ul- &iscri#inate& a"ainst hi# ,- the i# osition o$ hi"her rates u on his inco#e as a ro$essional% that it a#ounts to class le"islation% an& that it trans"resses a"ainst the eEual rotection an& &ue rocess clauses o$ the Constitution as +ell as the rule reEuirin" uni$or#it- in ta9ation. Issue: >hether .P 1'5 violates the &ue rocess an& eEual rotection clauses% an& the rule on uni$or#itin ta9ation.

Hel&: There is a nee& $or roo$ o$ such ersuasive character as +oul& lea& to a conclusion that there +as a violation o$ the &ue rocess an& eEual rotection clauses. A,sent such sho+in"% the resu# tion o$ vali&it- #ust revail. <Eualit- an& uni$or#it- in ta9ation #eans that all ta9a,le articles or 3in&s o$ ro ert- o$ the sa#e class shall ,e ta9e& at the sa#e rate. The ta9in" o+er has the authorit- to #a3e reasona,le an& natural classi$ications $or ur oses o$ ta9ation. >here the &i$$erentiation con$or#s to the ractical &ictates o$ Custice an& eEuit-% si#ilar to the stan&ar&s o$ eEual rotection% it is not &iscri#inator- +ithin the #eanin" o$ the clause an& is there$ore uni$or#. Ta9 a-ers #a- ,e classi$ie& into &i$$erent cate"ories% such as reci ients o$ co# ensation inco#e as a"ainst ro$essionals. Reci ients o$ co# ensation inco#e are not entitle& to #a3e &e&uctions $or inco#e ta9 ur oses as there is no racticall- no overhea& e9 ense% +hile ro$essionals an& ,usiness#en have no uni$or# costs or e9 enses necessar- to ro&uce their inco#e. There is a# le Custi$ication to a&o t the "ross s-ste# o$ inco#e ta9ation to co# ensation inco#e% +hile continuin" the s-ste# o$ net inco#e ta9ation as re"ar&s ro$essional an& ,usiness inco#e

5. Ichon" vs. Hernan&es GR ?)5445 8&ue rocess: FACTS: The ?e"islature asse& R.A. 111( 8An Act to Re"ulate the Retail .usiness:. Its ur ose +as to revent ersons +ho are not citi!ens o$ the Phil. $ro# havin" a stran"lehol& u on the eo le/s econo#ic li$e. a rohi,ition a"ainst aliens an& a"ainst associations% artnershi s% or cor orations the ca ital o$ +hich are not +holl- o+ne& ,- Fili inos% $ro# en"a"in" &irectl- or in&irectlin the retail tra&e aliens actuall- en"a"e& in the retail ,usiness on Ma- 15% 1450 are allo+e& to continue their ,usiness% unless their licenses are $or$eite& in accor&ance +ith la+% until their &eath or voluntar- retire#ent. In case o$ Curi&ical ersons% ten -ears a$ter the a roval o$ the Act or until the e9 iration o$ ter#. Citi!ens an& Curi&ical entities o$ the =nite& States +ere e9e# te& $ro# this Act. rovision $or the $or$eiture o$ licenses to en"a"e in the retail ,usiness $or violation o$ the la+s on nationali!ation% econo#ic control +ei"hts an& #easures an& la,or an& other la+s relatin" to tra&e% co##erce an& in&ustr-. rovision a"ainst the esta,lish#ent or o enin" ,- aliens actuall- en"a"e& in the retail ,usiness o$ a&&itional stores or ,ranches o$ retail ,usiness ?ao Ichon"% in his o+n ,ehal$ an& ,ehal$ o$ other alien resi&ents% cor orations an& artnershi s a$$ecte& ,- the Act% $ile& an action to &eclare it unconstitutional $or the $$: reasons: 1. it &enies to alien resi&ents the eEual rotection o$ the la+s an& &e rives the# o$ their li,ert- an& ro ert- +ithout &ue rocess

2. the su,Cect o$ the Act is not e9 resse& in the title '. the Act violates international an& treat- o,li"ations 0. the rovisions o$ the Act a"ainst the trans#ission ,- aliens o$ their retail ,usiness thru here&itar- succession ISS=<: >7A the Act &e rives the aliens o$ the eEual rotection o$ the la+s an& &ue rocess o$ la+. H<?@: The la+ is a vali& e9ercise o$ olice o+er an& it &oes not &en- the aliens the eEual rotection o$ the la+s. There are real an& actual% ositive an& $un&a#ental &i$$erences ,et+een an alien an& a citi!en% +hich $ull- Custi$- the le"islative classi$ication a&o te&. The eEual rotection clause &oes not &e#an& a,solute eEualit- a#on" resi&ents. It #erelreEuires that all ersons shall ,e treate& ali3e% un&er li3e circu#stances an& con&itions ,oth as to rivile"es con$erre& an& lia,ilities en$orce&. The classi$ication is actual% real an& reasona,le% an& all ersons o$ one class are treate& ali3e. The &i$$erence in status ,et+een citi!ens an& aliens constitutes a ,asis $or reasona,le classi$ication in the e9ercise o$ olice o+er. 7$$icial statistics oint out to the ever)increasin" &o#inance an& control ,- alien o$ the retail tra&e. It is this &o#ination an& control that is the le"islature/s tar"et in the enact#ent o$ the Act. The #ere $act o$ aliena"e is the root cause o$ the &istinction ,et+een the alien an& the national as a tra&er. The alien is naturall- lac3in" in that s irit o$ lo-alt- an& enthusias# $or the Phil. +here he te# oraril- sta-s an& #a3es his livin". The alien o+es no alle"iance or lo-alt- to the State% an& the State cannot rel- on hi#2her in ti#es o$ crisis or e#er"enc-. >hile the citi!en hol&s his li$e% his erson an& his ro ert- su,Cect to the nee&s o$ the countr-% the alien #a- ,eco#e the otential ene#- o$ the State. The alien retailer has sho+n such utter &isre"ar& $or his custo#ers an& the eo le on +ho# he #a3es his ro$it. Throu"h the ille"iti#ate use o$ ernicious &esi"ns an& ractices% the alien no+ enCo-s a #ono olistic control on the nation/s econo#- en&an"erin" the national securit- in ti#es o$ crisis an& e#er"enc-. 6. Jnot vs. Inter#e&iate a ellate court GR 50055

FACTS: There ha& ,een an e9istin" la+ +hich rohi,ite& the slau"hterin" o$ cara,aos 8<7 626:. To stren"then the la+% Marcos issue& <7 626)A +hich not onl- ,anne& the #ove#ent o$ cara,aos $ro# inter rovinces ,ut as +ell as the #ove#ent o$ cara,ee$. 7n 1' Gan 1410% Jnot +as cau"ht trans ortin" 6 cara,aos $ro# Mas,ate to Iloilo. He +as then char"e& in violation o$ <7 626)A. Jnot averre& <7 626)A as unconstitutional $or it violate& his ri"ht to ,e hear& or his ri"ht to &ue rocess. He sai& that the authorit- rovi&e& ,- <7 626)A to outri"htlcon$iscate cara,aos even +ithout ,ein" hear& is unconstitutional. The lo+er court rule& a"ainst Jnot rulin" that the <7 is a vali& e9ercise o$ olice o+er in or&er to ro#ote "eneral +el$are so as to cur, &o+n the in&iscri#inate slau"hter o$ cara,aos. ISS=<: >hether or not the la+ is vali&. H<?@: The SC rule& that the <7 is not vali& as it in&ee& violates &ue rocess. <7 626)A ctreate& a resu# tion ,ase& on the Cu&"#ent o$ the e9ecutive. The #ove#ent o$ cara,aos $ro# one area to the other &oes not #ean a su,seEuent slau"hter o$ the sa#e +oul& ensue. Jnot shoul& ,e "iven to &e$en& hi#sel$ an& e9 lain +h- the cara,aos are ,ein" trans$erre& ,e$ore thecan ,e con$iscate&. The SC $oun& that the challen"e& #easure is an invali& e9ercise o$ the olice o+er ,ecause the #etho& e# lo-e& to conserve the cara,aos is not reasona,lnecessar- to the ur ose o$ the la+ an&% +orse% is un&ul- o ressive. @ue rocess is violate& ,ecause the o+ner o$ the ro ert- con$iscate& is &enie& the ri"ht to ,e hear& in his &e$ense an& is i##e&iatel- con&e#ne& an& unishe&. The con$er#ent on the a&#inistrative authorities o$ the o+er to a&Cu&"e the "uilt o$ the su ose& o$$en&er is a clear encroach#ent on Cu&icial $unctions an& #ilitates a"ainst the &octrine o$ se aration o$ o+ers. There is% $inall-% also an invali& &ele"ation o$ le"islative o+ers to the o$$icers #entione& therein +ho are "rante& unli#ite& &iscretion in the &istri,ution o$ the ro erties ar,itraril- ta3en. 5. Alonte vs. Savellano GR 1'1652 FACTS: Alonte +as accuse& o$ ra in" Guvie?-n Punon",a-an +ith acco# lice .uenaventura Conce cion. It +as alle"e& that Conce cion ,e$rien&e& Guvie an& ha& later lure& her into Alonete/s house +ho +as then the #a-or o$ .iNan% ?a"una. The case +as ,rou"ht ,e$ore RTC .iNan. The counsel an& the rosecutor later #ove& $or a chan"e o$ venue &ue to alle"e& inti#i&ation. >hile the chan"e o$ venue +as en&in"% Guvie e9ecute& an a$$i&avit o$ &esistance. The rosecutor continue& on +ith the case an& the chan"e o$ venue +as &one not+ithstan&in" o osition $ro# Alonte. The case +as ra$$le& to the Manila RTC un&er G Savellano. Savellano later $oun& ro,a,le cause an& ha& or&ere& the arrest o$ Alonte an& Conce cion. Therea$ter% the rosecution resente& Guvie an& ha& atteste& the voluntariness o$ her &esistance the sa#e ,ein"

&ue to #e&ia ressure an& that the- +oul& rather esta,lish ne+ li$e else+here. Case +as then su,#itte& $or &ecision an& Savellano sentence& ,oth accuse& to reclusion er etua. Savellano co##ente& that Alonte +aive& his ri"ht to &ue rocess +hen he &i& not cross e9a#ine Guvie +hen clari$icator- Euestions +ere raise& a,out the &etails o$ the ra e an& on the voluntariness o$ her &esistance. ISS=<: >hether or not Alonte has ,een &enie& cri#inal &ue rocess. H<?@: The SC rule& that Savellano shoul& inhi,it hi#sel$ $ro# $urther &eci&in" on the case &ue to ani#osit- ,et+een hi# an& the arties. There is no sho+in" that Alonte +aive& his ri"ht. The stan&ar& o$ +aiver reEuires that it Dnot onl- #ust ,e voluntar-% ,ut #ust ,e 3no+in"% intelli"ent% an& &one +ith su$$icient a+areness o$ the relevant circu#stances an& li3el- conseEuences.F Mere silence o$ the hol&er o$ the ri"ht shoul& not ,e so construe& as a +aiver o$ ri"ht% an& the courts #ust in&ul"e ever- reasona,le resu# tion a"ainst +aiver. Savellano has not sho+n i# artialit- ,- re eate&l- not actin" on nu#erous etitions $ile& ,- Alonte. The case is re#an&e& to the lo+er court $or retrial an& the &ecision earlier ro#ul"ate& is nulli$ie&. 1. S s. Ro#ual&e! vs. C7M<?<C GR 165(11 FACTS:

I#el&a% a little over 1 -ears ol&% in or a,out 14'1% esta,lishe& her &o#icile in Taclo,an% ?e-te +here she stu&ie& an& "ra&uate& hi"h school in the Hol- In$ant Aca&e#- $ro# 14'1 to 1404. She then ursue& her colle"e &e"ree% e&ucation% in St. Paul/s Colle"e no+ @ivine >or& =niversit- also in Taclo,an. Su,seEuentl-% she tau"ht in ?e-te Chinese School still in Taclo,an. She +ent to #anila &urin" 1452 to +or3 +ith her cousin% the late s ea3er @aniel Ro#ual&e! in his o$$ice in the House o$ Re resentatives. In 1450% she #arrie& late Presi&ent Fer&inan& Marcos +hen he +as still a Con"ress#an o$ Ilocos Aorte an& +as re"istere& there as a voter. >hen Pres. Marcos +as electe& as Senator in 1454% the- live& to"ether in San Guan% Ri!al +here she re"istere& as a voter. In 1465% +hen Marcos +on resi&enc-% the- live& in Malacanan" Palace an& re"istere& as a voter in San Mi"uel Manila. She serve& as #e#,er o$ the .atasan" Pa#,ansa an& Governor o$ Metro Manila &urin" 1451.

I#el&a Ro#ual&e!)Marcos +as runnin" $or the osition o$ Re resentative o$ the First @istrict o$ ?e-te $or the 1445 <lections. Cirilo Ro- MonteCo% the incu#,ent Re resentative o$ the First @istrict o$ ?e-te an& also a can&i&ate $or the sa#e osition% $ile& a DPetition $or Cancellation an&

@isEuali$icationH +ith the Co##ission on <lections alle"in" that etitioner &i& not #eet the constitutional reEuire#ent $or resi&enc-. The etitioner% in an honest #isre resentation% +rote seven #onths un&er resi&enc-% +hich she sou"ht to recti$- ,- a&&in" the +or&s Hsince chil&hoo&H in her A#en&e&2Correcte& Certi$icate o$ Can&i&ac- $ile& on March 24% 1445 an& that Hshe has al+a-s #aintaine& Taclo,an Cit- as her &o#icile or resi&ence. She arrive& at the seven #onths resi&enc- &ue to the $act that she ,eca#e a resi&ent o$ the Munici alit- o$ Tolosa in sai& #onths.

ISS=<: >hether etitioner has satis$ie& the 1-ear resi&enc- reEuire#ent to ,e eli"i,le in runnin" as re resentative o$ the First @istrict o$ ?e-te.

H<?@:

Resi&ence is use& s-non-#ousl- +ith &o#icile $or election ur oses. The court are in $avor o$ a conclusion su ortin" etitoner/s clai# o$ le"al resi&ence or &o#icile in the First @istrict o$ ?e-te &es ite her o+n &eclaration o$ 5 #onths resi&enc- in the &istrict $or the $ollo+in" reasons:

1. A #inor $ollo+s &o#icile o$ her arents. Taclo,an ,eca#e I#el&a/s &o#icile o$ ori"in ,o eration o$ la+ +hen her $ather ,rou"ht the# to ?e-te;

2. @o#icile o$ ori"in is onl- lost +hen there is actual re#oval or chan"e o$ &o#icile% a ,ona $i&e intention o$ a,an&onin" the $or#er resi&ence an& esta,lishin" a ne+ one% an& acts +hich corres on& +ith the ur ose. In the a,sence an& concurrence o$ all these% &o#icile o$ ori"in shoul& ,e &ee#e& to continue.

'. A +i$e &oes not auto#aticall- "ain the hus,an&/s &o#icile ,ecause the ter# Dresi&enceF in Civil ?a+ &oes not #ean the sa#e thin" in Political ?a+. >hen I#el&a #arrie& late Presi&ent Marcos in 1450% she 3e t her &o#icile o$ ori"in an& #erel- "aine& a ne+ ho#e an& not &o#iciliu# necessariu#.

0. Assu#in" that I#el&a "aine& a ne+ &o#icile a$ter her #arria"e an& acEuire& ri"ht to choose a ne+ one onl- a$ter the &eath o$ Pres. Marcos% her actions u on returnin" to the countr- clearl-

in&icate& that she chose Taclo,an% her &o#icile o$ ori"in% as her &o#icile o$ choice. To a&&% etitioner even o,taine& her resi&ence certi$icate in 1442 in Taclo,an% ?e-te +hile livin" in her ,rother/s house% an act% +hich su orts the &o#iciliar- intention clearl- #ani$este&. She even 3e t close ties ,- esta,lishin" resi&ences in Taclo,an% cele,ratin" her ,irth&a-s an& other i# ortant #ilestones. 4. Phili ine Co##unications Satellite Cor . Ms. Alcua! GRGR 10111 FACTS: .- virtue o$ RA 5510% Phili ine Co##unications Satellite Cor oration +as "rante& Da $ranchise to esta,lish% construct% #aintain an& o erate in the Phili ines% at such laces as the "rantee #a- select% station or stations an& associate& eEui #ent an& $acilities $or international satellite co##unications.F =n&er this $ranchise% it +as li3e+ise "rante& the authorit- to Dconstruct an& o erate such "roun& $acilities as nee&e& to &eliver teleco##unications services $ro# the co##unications satellite s-ste# an& "roun& ter#inal or ter#inals.F =n&er Sec 5 o$ the sa#e la+% PhilCo#Sat +as e9e# t $ro# the Curis&iction% control an& re"ulation o$ the Pu,lic Service Co##ission later 3no+n as the Aational Teleco##unications Co##ission. Ho+ever% <7 146 +as later roclai#e& an& the sa#e has lace& PhilCo#Sat un&er the Curis&iction o$ ATC. ConseEuentl-% PhilCo#Sat has to acEuire er#it to o erate $ro# ATC in or&er to continue o eratin" its e9istin" satellites. ATC "ave the necessar- er#it ,ut it ho+ever &irecte& PhilCo#Sat to re&uce its current rates ,- 15*. ATC ,ase& its o+er to $i9 the rates on <7 506. PhilCo#Sat assaile& the sai& &irective an& hol&s that the ena,lin" act 8<7 506: o$ res on&ent ATC e# o+erin" it to $i9 rates $or u,lic service co##unications &oes not rovi&e the necessar- stan&ar&s constitutionall- reEuire& hence there is an un&ue &ele"ation o$ le"islative o+er% articularl- the a&Cu&icator- o+ers o$ ATC. PhilCo#Sat asserts that no+here in the rovisions o$ <7 506% rovi&in" $or the creation o$ res on&ent ATC an& "rantin" its rate)$i9in" o+ers% nor o$ <7 146% lacin" etitioner un&er the Curis&iction o$ res on&ent ATC% can it ,e in$erre& that res on&ent ATC is "ui&e& ,- an- stan&ar& in the e9ercise o$ its rate)$i9in" an& a&Cu&icator- o+ers. PhilCo#Sat su,seEuentl- clari$ie& its sai& su,#ission to #ean that the or&er #an&atin" a re&uction o$ certain rates is un&ue &ele"ation not o$ le"islative ,ut o$ Euasi) Cu&icial o+er to res on&ent ATC% the e9ercise o$ +hich alle"e&l- reEuires an e9 ress con$er#ent ,- the le"islative ,o&-. ISS=<: >hether or not there is an un&ue &ele"ation o$ o+er. H<?@: Fun&a#ental is the rule that &ele"ation o$ le"islative o+er #a- ,e sustaine& onl- u on the "roun& that so#e stan&ar& $or its e9ercise is rovi&e& an& that the le"islature in #a3in" the

&ele"ation has rescri,e& the #anner o$ the e9ercise o$ the &ele"ate& o+er. There$ore% +hen the a&#inistrative a"enc- concerne&% ATC in this case% esta,lishes a rate% its act #ust ,oth ,e non) con$iscator- an& #ust have ,een esta,lishe& in the #anner rescri,e& ,- the le"islature; other+ise% in the a,sence o$ a $i9e& stan&ar&% the &ele"ation o$ o+er ,eco#es unconstitutional. In case o$ a &ele"ation o$ rate)$i9in" o+er% the onl- stan&ar& +hich the le"islature is reEuire& to rescri,e $or the "ui&ance o$ the a&#inistrative authorit- is that the rate ,e reasona,le an& Cust. Ho+ever% it has ,een hel& that even in the a,sence o$ an e9 ress reEuire#ent as to reasona,leness% this stan&ar& #a- ,e i# lie&. In the case at ,ar% the $i9e& rate is $oun& to ,e o$ #erit an& reasona,le. 1(. An" Ti,a- Ms. CIR GR 06046 FACTS: Teo&oroTori,io o+ns an& o erates An" Ti,a- a leather co# an- +hich su lies the Phili ine Ar#-. @ue to alle"e& shorta"e o$ leather% Tori,io cause& the la- o$$ o$ #e#,ers o$ Aational ?a,or =nion Inc. A?= averre& that Tori,io/s act is not vali& as it is not +ithin the C.A. That there are t+o la,or unions in An" Ti,a-; A?= an& Aational >or3er/s .rotherhoo&. That A>. is &o#inate& ,- Tori,io hence he $avors it over A?=. That A?= +ishes $or a ne+ trial as the+ere a,le to co#e u +ith ne+ evi&ence2&ocu#ents that the- +ere not a,le to o,tain ,e$ore as the- +ere inaccessi,le an& the- +ere not a,le to resent it ,e$ore in the CIR. ISS=<: >hether or not there has ,een a &ue rocess o$ la+. H<?@: The SC rule& that there shoul& ,e a ne+ trial in $avor o$ A?=. The SC rule& that all a&#inistrative ,o&ies cannot i"nore or &isre"ar& the $un&a#ental an& essential reEuire#ents o$ &ue rocess. The- are; 81: The ri"ht to a hearin" +hich inclu&es the ri"ht o$ the art- intereste& or a$$ecte& to resent his o+n case an& su,#it evi&ence in su ort thereo$. 82: Aot onl- #ust the art- ,e "iven an o ortunit- to resent his case an& to a&&uce evi&ence ten&in" to esta,lish the ri"hts +hich he asserts ,ut the tri,unal #ust consi&er the evi&ence resente&. 8': >hile the &ut- to &eli,erate &oes not i# ose the o,li"ation to &eci&e ri"ht% it &oes i# l- a necessit- +hich cannot ,e &isre"ar&e&% na#el-% that o$ havin" so#ethin" to su ort its &ecision. A &ecision +ith a,solutel- nothin" to su ort it is a nullit-% a lace +hen &irectl- attache&. 80: Aot onl- #ust there ,e so#e evi&ence to su ort a $in&in" or conclusion ,ut the evi&ence #ust ,e Dsu,stantial.F Su,stantial evi&ence is #ore than a #ere scintilla It #eans such relevant evi&ence as a reasona,le #in& #i"ht acce t as a&eEuate to su ort a conclusion. 85: The &ecision #ust ,e ren&ere& on the evi&ence resente& at the hearin"% or at least containe& in the recor& an& &isclose& to the arties a$$ecte&.

86: The Court o$ In&ustrial Relations or an- o$ its Cu&"es% there$ore% #ust act on its or his o+n in&e en&ent consi&eration o$ the la+ an& $acts o$ the controvers-% an& not si# l- acce t the vie+s o$ a su,or&inate in arrivin" at a &ecision. 85: The Court o$ In&ustrial Relations shoul&% in all controversial Euestions% ren&er its &ecision in such a #anner that the arties to the rocee&in" can 3no+ the vario issues involve&% an& the reasons $or the &ecisions ren&ere&. The er$or#ance o$ this &ut- is inse ara,le $ro# the authorit- con$erre& u on it. 11. Ateneo &e Manila vs. Ca ulon" GR 44'25 FACTS: 7n Fe,ruar- 1% 4 an& 1( o$ 1441% a $raternit- in Ateneo ?a+ School na#e& A"uila ?e"is con&ucte& its initiation rites u on neo h-tes. =n$ortunatel-% one neo h-te &ie& as a result thereo$ an& one +as hos itali!e& &ue to serious h-sical inCuries. In a resolution &ate& March 4% 1441% the @isci linar- .oar& $or#e& ,- Ateneo $oun& a certain stu&ent "uilt- o$ violatin" Rule ' o$ the Rules on @isci line. ConseEuentl-% he +as &is#isse& to"ether +ith other stu&ents. Ho+ever% on Ma- 15% 1441% Gu&"e Ca ulon"% u on stu&ent/s a eal% or&ere& Ateneo to reverse its &ecision an& reinstate the sai& stu&ents. ISS=<: >hether or not the Ateneo ?a+ School has co# etence to issue an or&er &is#issin" such stu&ents ursuant to its rules. H<?@: Jes% Ateneo has the co# etence an& the o+er to &is#iss its errin" stu&ents an& there$ore it ha& vali&l- e9ercise& such o+er. The stu&ents &o not &eserve to clai# such a venera,le institution such as Ateneo as their o+n a #inute lon"er $or the- #a- $orseea,l- cast a #alevolent in$luence on stu&ents currentl- enrolle& as +ell as those +ho co#e a$ter the#. There$ore% the or&er o$ Gu&"e Ca ulon" is here,- reverse&.

12. Southern he#is here <n"a"e#ent Aet+or3 Inc. v. Anti)terroris# Council GR 151552

FACTS: This case consists o$ 6 etitions challen"in" the constitutionalit- o$ RA 4'52% DAn Act to Secure the State an& Protect our Peo le $ro# Terroris#%F a3a Hu#an Securit- Act o$ 2((5. Petitioner)or"ani!ations assert locus standi on the ,asis o$ ,ein" sus ecte& Dco##unist $rontsF ,- the "overn#ent% +hereas in&ivi&ual etitioners invo3e the Dtranscen&ental i# ortanceF &octrine an& their status as citi!ens an& ta9 a-ers. KARAPATAA% Hustis-a% @esa areci&os% S<?@A% <MGP% an& PCR alle"e the- have ,een su,Cecte& to Dclose securit- surveillance ,- state securit- $orces%F their #e#,ers $ollo+e& ,-

Dsus icious ersonsF an& Dvehicles +ith &ar3 +in&shiel&s%F an& their o$$ices #onitore& ,- D#en +ith #ilitar- ,uil&.F The- li3e+ise clai# the- have ,een ,ran&e& as Dene#ies o$ the State.F .AJAA% GA.RI<?A% KMP% MCCC?% C7=RAG<% KA@AMAJ% SC>% ?FS% Ana3,a-an% PAMA?AKAJA% ACT% Mi"rante% H<A@% an& A"ha# +oul& li3e the Court to ta3e judicial notice o$ res on&ents/ alle"e& action o$ ta""in" the# as #ilitant or"ani!ations $rontin" $or the CPP an& APA. The- clai# such ta""in" is tanta#ount to the e$$ects o$ roscri tion +ithout $ollo+in" the roce&ure un&er the la+. Mean+hile% I.P an& C7@A? ,ase their clai# o$ locus standi on their s+orn &ut- to u hol& the Constitution. Petitioners clai# that RA 4'52 is va"ue an& ,roa&% in that ter#s li3e D+i&es rea& an& e9traor&inar- $ear an& anic a#on" the o ulaceF an& Dcoerce the "overn#ent to "ive in to an unla+$ul &e#an&F are ne,ulous% leavin" la+ en$orce#ent a"encies +ith no stan&ar& to #easure the rohi,ite& acts. Issue: >7A a enal statute #a- ,e assaile& $or ,ein" va"ue as a lie& to etitioners Rulin" : Ao. The &octrine o$ va"ueness an& the &octrine o$ over,rea&th &o not o erate on the sa#e lane. i. A statute or acts su$$ers $ro# the &e$ect o$ va"ueness +hen: 1. It lac3s co# rehensi,le stan&ar&s that #en o$ co##on intelli"ence #ust necessaril- "uess at its #eanin" an& &i$$er as to its a lication. It is re u"nant to the Constitution in 2 +a-s: a. Miolates &ue rocess $or $ailure to accor& $air notice o$ con&uct to avoi& ,. ?eaves la+ en$orcers un,ri&le& &iscretion in carr-in" out its rovisions an& ,eco#es an ar,itrar- $le9in" o$ the Govern#ent #uscle. ii. The over,rea&th &octrine &ecrees that a "overn#ental ur ose to control or revent activities constitutionall- su,Cect to state re"ulations #a- not ,e achieve& ,- #eans% +hich s+ee unnecessaril- ,roa&l- an& there,- inva&e the area o$ rotecte& $ree&o#s. ,. A D$acialF challen"e is li3e+ise &i$$erent $ro# an Das a lie&F challen"e. i. DAs a lie&F challen"e consi&ers onl- e9tant $acts a$$ectin" real liti"ants. ii. DFacialF challen"e is an e9a#ination o$ the entire la+% in ointin" its $la+s an& &e$ects% not onl- on the ,asis o$ its actual o eration to the arties% ,ut also on the assu# tion or re&iction that its ver- e9istence #a- cause others not ,e$ore the court to re$rain $ro# constitutionallrotecte& s eech or activities. 1. =n&er no case #a- or&inar- enal statutes ,e su,Cecte& to a $acial challen"e. I$ $acial challen"e to a enal statute is er#itte&% the rosecution o$ cri#es #a- ,e ha# ere&. Ao rosecution +oul& ,e ossi,le.

1'. <Eual rotectionO Ichon" v. Hernan&e! Su ra

10. Peo le v. Ca-at GR ?)05415 Facts: Accuse& Ca-at% a native o$ .a"uio% .en"uet% Mountain Province% an& a #e#,er o$ the non) Christian tri,es% +as $oun& "uilt- o$ violatin" sections 2 an& ' o$ Act Ao. 16'4 $or havin" acEuire& an& ossesse& one ,ottle o$ A)1)1 "in% an into9icatin" liEuor% +hich is not a native +ine. The la+ #a&e it unla+$ul $or an- native o$ the Phili ines +ho is a #e#,er o$ a non) Christian tri,e +ithin the #eanin" o$ Act 1'45 to ,u-% receive% have in his ossession% or &rin3 an- ar&ent s irits% ale% ,eer% +ine or into9icatin" liEuors o$ an- 3in&% other than the so)calle& native +ines an& liEuors +hich the #e#,ers o$ such tri,es have ,een accusto#e& to rior to the assa"e o$ the la+. Ca-at challen"es the constitutionalit- o$ Act 16'4 on the "roun&s that it is &iscri#inator- an& &enies the eEual rotection o$ the la+s% violates &ue rocess clause% an& is an i# ro er e9ercise o$ olice o+er. Issue: >hether or not sai& rovision violates the &ue rocsess clause an& &enies eEual rotection o$ la+s. Hel&: It is an esta,lishe& rinci le o$ constitutional la+ that the "uarant- o$ the eEual rotection o$ the la+s is not violate& ,- a le"islation ,ase& on reasona,le classi$ication. 81: #ust rest on su,stantial &istinctions; 82: #ust ,e "er#ane to the ur oses o$ the la+; 8': #ust not ,e li#ite& to e9istin" con&itions onl-; an& 80: #ust a l- eEuall- to all #e#,ers o$ the sa#e class.

Act Ao. 16'4 satis$ies these reEuire#ents. The classi$ication rests on real or su,stantial% not #erel- i#a"inar- or +hi#sical &istinctions. It is not ,ase& u on Dacci&ent o$ ,irth or arenta"e%F as counsel $or the a ellant asserts% ,ut u on the &e"ree o$ civili!ation an& culture. DThe ter# Pnon)Christian tri,es/ re$ers% not to reli"ious ,elie$ ,ut in a +a-% to the "eo"ra hical area an& #ore &irectl-% to natives o$ the Phili ine Islan&s o$ a lo+ "ra&e o$ civili!ation% usuall- livin" in tri,al relationshi a art $ro# settle& co##unities.F 8Ru,i vs. Provincial .oar& o$ Min&ora% su ra.: This &istinction is unEuestiona,l- reasona,le% $or the Act +as inten&e& to #eet the eculiar con&itions e9istin" in the non)Christian tri,es.

The rohi,ition enshrine& in Act 1'45 is &esi"ne& to insure eace an& or&er in an& a#on" non) Christian tri,es. It a lies eEuall- to all #e#,ers o$ the class evi&ent $ro# erusal thereo$. That it #a- ,e un$air in its o eration a"ainst a certain nu#,er o$ non)Christians ,- reason o$ their &e"ree o$ culture% is not an ar"u#ent a"ainst the eEualit- o$ its a lication.

15. Hi#a"an vs. Peo le GR 11'11' FACTS:

Hi#a"an is a olice#an assi"ne& in Ca# Catitit"an% @avao Cit-. He +as char"e& $or the #ur&er o$ .enCa#in Machitar Gr an& $or the atte# te& #ur&er o$ .enCa#in/s -oun"er ,rother% .arna,e. Pursuant to Sec 05 o$ RA 6455% Hi#a"an +as lace& into sus ension en&in" the #ur&er case. The la+ rovi&es that D= on the $ilin" o$ a co# laint or in$or#ation su$$icient in $or# an& su,stance a"ainst a #e#,er o$ the PAP $or "rave $elonies +here the enalt- i# ose& ,- la+ is si9 86: -ears an& one 81: &a- or #ore% the court shall i##e&iatel- sus en& the accuse& $ro# o$$ice until the case is ter#inate&. Such case shall ,e su,Cect to continuous trial an& shall ,e ter#inate& +ithin ninet- 84(: &a-s $ro# arrai"n#ent o$ the accuse&. Hi#a"an assaile& the sus ension averrin" that Sec 02 o$ P@ 1(5 o$ the Civil Service @ecree% that his sus ension shoul& ,e li#ite& to ninet- 84(: &a-s. He clai#s that an i# osition o$ reventive sus ension o$ over 4( &a-s is contrar- to the Civil Service ?a+ an& +oul& ,e a violation o$ his constitutional ri"ht to eEual rotection o$ la+s. ISS=<: >hether or not Sec 05% RA 6455 violates eEual rotection "uarantee& ,- the Constitution. H<?@: The lan"ua"e o$ the $irst sentence o$ Sec 05 o$ RA 6455 is clear% lain an& $ree $ro# a#,i"uit-. It "ives no other #eanin" than that the sus ension $ro# o$$ice o$ the #e#,er o$ the PAP char"e& +ith "rave o$$ense +here the enalt- is si9 -ears an& one &a- or #ore shall last until the ter#ination o$ the case. The sus ension cannot ,e li$te& ,e$ore the ter#ination o$ the case. The secon& sentence o$ the sa#e Section rovi&in" that the trial #ust ,e ter#inate& +ithin ninet- 84(: &a-s $ro# arrai"n#ent &oes not Euali$- or li#it the $irst sentence. The t+o can stan& in&e en&entl- o$ each other. The $irst re$ers to the erio& o$ sus ension. The secon& &eals +ith the ti#e $ro# +ithin +hich the trial shoul& ,e $inishe&. The reason +h- #e#,ers o$ the PAP are treate& &i$$erentl- $ro# the other classes o$ ersons char"e& cri#inall- or a&#inistrativel- inso$ar as the a lication o$ the rule on reventive sus ension is concerne& is that olice#en carr- +ea ons an& the ,a&"e o$ the la+ +hich can ,e use& to harass or inti#i&ate +itnesses a"ainst the#% as succinctl- ,rou"ht out in the le"islative &iscussions. I$ a sus en&e& olice#an cri#inall- char"e& +ith a serious o$$ense is reinstate& to his ost +hile his case is en&in"% his victi# an& the +itnesses a"ainst hi# are o,viousl- e9 ose& to constant threat an& thus easil- co+e& to silence ,- the #ere $act that the accuse& is in uni$or# an& ar#e&. the i# osition o$ reventive sus ension $or over 4( &a-s un&er Sec 05 o$ RA 6455 &oes not violate the sus en&e& olice#an/s constitutional ri"ht to eEual rotection o$ the la+s. Su ose the trial is not ter#inate& +ithin ninet- &a-s $ro# arrai"n#ent% shoul& the sus ension o$ accuse& ,e li$te&L

The ans+er is certainl- no. >hile the la+ uses the #an&ator- +or& DshallF ,e$ore the hrase D,e ter#inate& +ithin ninet- 84(: &a-sF% there is nothin" in RA 6455 that su""ests that the reventive sus ension o$ the accuse& +ill ,e li$te& i$ the trial is not ter#inate& +ithin that erio&. Aonetheless% the Gu&"e +ho $ails to &eci&e the case +ithin the erio& +ithout Custi$ia,le reason #a- ,e su,Cect to a&#inistrative sanctions an&% in a ro riate cases +here the $acts so +arrant% to cri#inal or civil lia,ilit-. I$ the trial is unreasona,l- &ela-e& +ithout $ault o$ the accuse& such that he is &e rive& o$ his ri"ht to a s ee&- trial% he is not +ithout a re#e&-. He #a- as3 $or the &is#issal o$ the case. Shoul& the court re$use to &is#iss the case% the accuse& can co# el its &is#issal ,- certiorari% rohi,ition or #an&a#us% or secure his li,ert- ,- ha,eas cor us. 16. Buinto v. C7M<?<C GR 114641

FACTS: Petitioners <lea!ar P. Buinto an& Gerino A. Tolentino% Gr. $ile& a etition $or certiorari an& rohi,ition a"ainst the C7M<?<C $or issuin" a resolution &eclarin" a ointive o$$icials +ho $ile& their certi$icate o$ can&i&ac- as i so $acto resi"ne& $ro# their ositions. In this &e$ense% the C7M<?<C avers that it onl- co ie& the rovision $ro# Sec. 1' o$ R.A. 4'64. ISS=<: >hether or not the sai& C7M<?<C resolution +as vali&. H<?@: A7. In the FariQas case% the etitioners challen"e& Sec. 10 o$ RA. 4((6 re ealin" Sec. 66 o$ the 7#ni,us <lection Co&e 87<C: $or "ivin" un&ue ,ene$it to elective o$$icials in co# arison +ith a ointive o$$icials. Inci&entall-% the Court u hel& the su,stantial &istinctions ,et+een the t+o an& ronounce& that there +as no violation o$ the eEual rotection clause. Ho+ever in the resent case% the Court hel& that the &iscussion on the eEual rotection clause +as an o,iter &ictu# since the issue raise& therein +as a"ainst the re ealin" clause. It &i&nRt sEuarel- challen"e Sec. 66. Sec. 1' o$ RA. 4'64 un&ul- &iscri#inate& a ointive an& elective o$$icials. A l-in" the 0 reEuisites o$ a vali& classi$ication% the roviso &oes not co# l- +ith the secon& reEuire#ent STD that it #ust ,e "er#ane to the ur ose o$ the la+. The o,vious reason $or the challen"e& rovision is to revent the use o$ a "overn#ental osition to ro#ote oneRs can&i&ac-% or even to +iel& a &an"erous or coercive in$luence o$ the electorate. The #easure is $urther ai#e& at ro#otin" the e$$icienc-% inte"rit-% an& &isci line o$ the u,lic service ,- eli#inatin" the &an"er that the &ischar"e o$ o$$icial &ut- +oul& ,e #otivate& ,- olitical consi&erations rather than the +el$are o$ the u,lic. The restriction is also Custi$ie& ,- the ro osition that the entr- o$ civil servants to the electorate arena% +hile still in o$$ice% coul& result in ne"lect or ine$$icienc- in the er$or#ance o$ &ut- ,ecause the- +oul& ,e atten&in" to their ca# ai"n rather than to their o$$ice +or3. Sec. 1' o$ RA. 4'64 ertains to all civil servants hol&in" a ointive osts +ithout &istinction as to +hether the- occu - hi"h ositions in "overn#ent or not. Certainl-% a utilit- +or3er in the "overn#ent +ill also ,e consi&ere& as i so $acto resi"ne& once he $iles his certi$icate o$ can&i&ac- $or the election. This scenario is a,sur& $or% in&ee&% it is uni#a"ina,le ho+ he can use his osition in the "overn#ent to +iel& in$luence in the olitical +orl&.

The rovision s &irecte& to the activit- an- an& all u,lic o$$ices% +hether the- ,e artisan or non artisan in character% +hether the- ,e in the national% #unici al or ,aran"a- level. Con"ress has not sho+n a co# ellin" state interest to restrict the $un&a#ental ri"ht involve& on such a s+ee in" scale. M7TI7A F7R R<C7ASI@<RATI7A FACTS: This is a #otion $or reconsi&eration $ile& ,- the Co##ission on <lections. The latter #ove& to Euestion an earlier &ecision o$ the Su re#e Court &eclarin" Section 0 8a: o$ C7M<?<C Resolution Ao. 1651 unconstitutional. Section 0 8a: o$ C7M<?<C Resolution Ao. 1651 rovi&es that% HAn- erson hol&in" a u,lic a ointive o$$ice or osition inclu&in" active #e#,ers o$ the Ar#e& Forces o$ the Phili ines% an& other o$$icers an& e# lo-ees in "overn#ent)o+ne& or controlle& cor orations% shall ,e consi&ere& i so $acto resi"ne& $ro# his o$$ice u on the $ilin" o$ his certi$icate o$ can&i&ac-.H .e it note& that etitioners o$ the a,ove) entitle& case are a ointive o$$icials +ho inten& to ,e electe& in the reviousl- hel& 2(1( elections an& +ho $elt a""rieve& ,- the issuance o$ the Euestione& resolution. ISS=<: >hether or not Section 0 8a: o$ C7M<?<C Resolution Ao. 1651 is constitutional. R=?IAG: The Su re#e Court overrule& its revious &ecision &eclarin" the assaile& resolution unconstitutional. Here% it stron"l- u hol&s the constitutionalit- o$ the resolution sa-in" that it &oes not violate the eEual rotection clause. It is settle& that the eEual rotection clause &oes not &e#an& a,solute eEualit-; it #erel- reEuires that all ersons shall ,e treate& ali3e% un&er li3e circu#stances an& con&itions ,oth as to rivile"es con$erre& an& lia,ilities en$orce&. The test use& is reasona,leness +hich reEuires that: 1. The classi$ication rests on su,stantial &istinctions; 2. It is "er#ane to the ur oses o$ the la+; '. It is not li#ite& to e9istin" con&itions onl-; an& 0. It a lies eEuall- to all #e#,ers o$ the sa#e class. In the case un&er consi&eration% there is a su,stantial &istinction ,et+een u,lic an& elective o$$icials +hich has ,een ren&ere& #oot an& aca&e#ic ,- the rulin" #a&e in the case o$ Farinas% etl. al. vs. <9ecutive Secretar-% et. al. Section 0 8a: o$ C7M<?<C Resolution Ao. 1651 is constitutional.

15. .irao"o v. The Phili ine Truth Co##ission GR 1424'5

FACTS Pursuant to the slo"an DKun" +alan" corru t% +alan" #ahira F ose& ,- Pres. Ao-no- AEuino in his ca# ai"n $or Presi&ential election% he create& Phili ine Truth Co##ission ,- virtue o$ <9ecutive 7r&er Ao. 1. Sai& e9ecutive or&er +as Euestione& ,- herein etitioners as violative o$ eEual rotection clause inso$ar as its o,Cective is to investi"ate lar"e scale "ra$t an& corru tion

&urin" the revious a&#inistration un&er $or#er resi&ent Arro-o. Petitioners conten& that it &i& not #eet the reEuisites $or a vali& classi$ication as it sin"les out the revious a&#inistration as its sole o,Cect. Res on&ent% on the other han&% &e$en&e& that it +as ,ase& on +i&es rea& re orts o$ lar"e scale "ra$t an& corru tion in the revious a&#inistration +hich have ero&e& u,lic con$i&ence in u,lic institutions. It $urther conten&s that the se"re"ation o$ the rece&in" a&#inistration as the o,Cect o$ the $act)$in&in" is +arrante& ,- the realit- that unli3e +ith a&#inistrations lon" "one% the current a&#inistration +ill #ost li3el- to ,ear the i##e&iate conseEuence o$ the olicies o$ the revious a&#inistration. ISS=< >7A <9ecutive 7r&er Ao. 1 violates the constitutional "uarant- o$ eEual rotection o$ the la+s H<?@ Jes. <9ecutive 7r&er Ao. 1 shoul& ,e struc3 &o+n as violative o$ the eEual rotection clause. The clear #an&ate o$ the envisione& truth co##ission is to investi"ate an& $in& out the truth Hconcernin" the re orte& cases o$ "ra$t an& corru tion &urin" the revious a&#inistrationH onl-. The eEual rotection o$ the la+s clause o$ the Constitution allo+s classi$ication. Classi$ication in la+% as in the other &e art#ents o$ 3no+le&"e or ractice% is the "rou in" o$ thin"s in s eculation or ractice ,ecause the- a"ree +ith one another in certain articulars. A la+ is not invali& ,ecause o$ si# le ineEualit-. The ver- i&ea o$ classi$ication is that o$ ineEualit-% so that it "oes +ithout sa-in" that the #ere $act o$ ineEualit- in no #anner &eter#ines the #atter o$ constitutionalit-. All that is reEuire& o$ a vali& classi$ication is that it ,e reasona,le% +hich #eans that the classi$ication shoul& ,e ,ase& on su,stantial &istinctions +hich #a3e $or real &i$$erences% that it #ust ,e "er#ane to the ur ose o$ the la+; that it #ust not ,e li#ite& to e9istin" con&itions onl-; an& that it #ust a l- eEuall- to each #e#,er o$ the class. This Court has hel& that the stan&ar& is satis$ie& i$ the classi$ication or &istinction is ,ase& on a reasona,le $oun&ation or rational ,asis an& is not al a,l- ar,itrar-. The Arro-o a&#inistration is ,ut Cust a #e#,er o$ a class% that is% a class o$ ast a&#inistrations. It is not a class o$ its o+n. Aot to inclu&e ast a&#inistrations si#ilarl- situate& constitutes ar,itrariness +hich the eEual rotection clause cannot sanction. Such &iscri#inatin" &i$$erentiation clearl- rever,erates to la,el the co##ission as a vehicle $or vin&ictiveness an& selective retri,ution.

11. Mantarin" M. Cu&"e Ro#an 252 SCRA 151 Facts: 7n the a lication ,- a olice o$$icer% res on&ent Cu&"e issue& a search +arrant+hich resulte& in the sei!ure $ro# a certain Goel Ga#o o$ a ho#e)#a&e "un% a han&"rena&e% $ive live a##unitions $or Cal. '1 an& three live a##unitions $or 12 "au"eshot"un; a co# laint $or Ille"al Possession

o$ Firear#s an& A##unition +as $ile&a"ainst Ga#o in +hich the herein co# lainant ?eovi"il&o% Sr. an& his son% ?eovi"il&o%Gr.% +ere inclu&e& an& that $in&in" that the house in +hich the $irear#s an& a##unitionha& ,een $oun& +as o+ne& ,- co# lainant an& his son% res on&ent Cu&"e conclu&e&that there +as ro,a,le cause to ,elieve that co# lainant an& his son +ere "uilt- o$ille"al ossession o$ $irear#s an& a##unition an& accor&in"l- or&ere& theirarrest. Res on&ent Cu&"e clai#s that he inhi,ite& hi#sel$ $ro# the case a$ter he +asor&ere& ,- the <9ecutive Gu&"e% RTC% .ranch 01% Pina#ala-an% 7riental Min&oro.Co# lainant conten&s that as the search +arrant +as issue& onl- a"ainst Ga#o an&Mantarin"% Gr. it +as +ron" $or res on&ent Cu&"e to $in& ro,a,le cause a"ainst hi# onthe theor- that% as o+ners o$ the house in +hich the $irear#s an& a##unitions +ere$oun&% the- ha& constructive ossession o$ the sa#e. Issue: >hether or not there +as vali& ,asis $or issuance o$ the +arrant o$ arrest Rulin": Ao. The issuance o$ a search +arrant an& o$ a +arrant o$ arrest reEuires thesho+in" o$ ro,a,ilities as to &i$$erent $acts. In the case o$ search +arrants% the&eter#ination is ,ase& on the $in&in" that 81: the articles to ,e sei!e& are connecte& toa cri#inal activit- an& 82: the- are $oun& in the lace to ,e searche&. It is not necessar-that a articular erson ,e i# licate&. 7n the other han&% in arrest cases% the&eter#ination o$ ro,a,le cause is ,ase& on a $in&in" that a cri#e has ,een co##itte&an& that the erson to ,e arreste& has co##itte& it. It is no+ settle& that in issuin"+arrants o$ arrest in reli#inar- investi"ations% the investi"atin" Cu&"e #ust: 8a: havee9a#ine& in +ritin" an& un&er oath the co# lainant an& his +itnesses ,searchin"Euestions an& ans+ers; 8,: ,e satis$ie& that ro,a,le cause e9ists; an& 8c: that there isa nee& to lace the res on&ent un&er i##e&iate custo&- in or&er not to $rustrate theen&s o$ Custice.In this case the res on&ent Cu&"e or&ere& the issuance o$ +arrant o$ arrest solel-on his $in&in" o$ ro,a,le cause% totall- o#ittin" to consi&er the thir& reEuire#ent that there #ust ,e a nee& to lace the res on&ent un&er i##e&iate custo&- Din or&er not to $rustrate the en&s o$ Custice.

14. Sala!ar M. Achacoso GR 1151( Facts: Rosalie Tesoro o$ Pasa- Cit- in a s+orn state#ent $ile& +ith the P7<A% char"e& etitioner +ith ille"al recruit#ent. Pu,lic res on&ent Att-. Fer&inan& MarEue! sent etitioner a tele"ra# &irectin" hi# to a ear to the P7<A re"ar&in" the co# laint a"ainst hi#. 7n the sa#e &a-% a$ter 3no+in" that etitioner ha& no license to o erate a recruit#ent a"enc-% u,lic res on&ent A&#inistrator To#as Achacoso issue& a Closure an& Sei!ure 7r&er Ao. 12(5 to etitioner. It state& that there +ill a sei!ure o$ the &ocu#ents an& ara hernalia ,ein" use& or inten&e& to ,e use& as the #eans o$ co##ittin" ille"al recruit#ent% it havin" veri$ie& that etitioner hasU 81: Ao vali& license or authorit- $ro# the @e art#ent o$ ?a,or an& <# lo-#ent to recruit an&

&e lo- +or3ers $or overseas e# lo-#ent; 82: Co##itte&2are co##ittin" acts rohi,ite& un&er Article '0 o$ the Ae+ ?a,or Co&e in relation to Article '1 o$ the sa#e co&e. A tea# +as then tas3e& to i# le#ent the sai& 7r&er. The "rou % acco# anie& ,- #e&ia#en an& Man&alu-on" olice#en% +ent to etitioner/s resi&ence. The- serve& the or&er to a certain Mrs. For a Sala!ar% +ho let the# in. The tea# con$iscate& assorte& costu#es. Petitioner $ile& +ith P7<A a letter reEuestin" $or the return o$ the sei!e& ro erties% ,ecause she +as not "iven rior notice an& hearin". The sai& 7r&er violate& &ue rocess. She also alle"e& that it violate& sec 2 o$ the .ill o$ Ri"hts% an& the ro erties +ere con$iscate& a"ainst her +ill an& +ere &one +ith unreasona,le $orce an& inti#i&ation. Issue: >hether or Aot the Phili ine 7verseas <# lo-#ent A&#inistration 8or the Secretar- o$ ?a,or: can vali&l- issue +arrants o$ search an& sei!ure 8or arrest: un&er Article '1 o$ the ?a,or Co&e Hel&: =n&er the ne+ Constitution% D. . . no search +arrant or +arrant o$ arrest shall issue e9ce t u on ro,a,le cause to ,e &eter#ine& ersonall- ,- the Cu&"e a$ter e9a#ination un&er oath or a$$ir#ation o$ the co# lainant an& the +itnesses he #a- ro&uce% an& articularl- &escri,in" the lace to ,e searche& an& the ersons or thin"s to ,e sei!e&F. Ma-ors an& rosecutin" o$$icers cannot issue +arrants o$ sei!ure or arrest. The Closure an& Sei!ure 7r&er +as ,ase& on Article '1 o$ the ?a,or Co&e. The Su re#e Court hel&% D>e reiterate that the Secretar- o$ ?a,or% not ,ein" a Cu&"e% #a- no lon"er issue search or arrest +arrants. Hence% the authorities #ust "o throu"h the Cu&icial rocess. To that e9tent% +e &eclare Article '1% ara"ra h 8c:% o$ the ?a,or Co&e% unconstitutional an& o$ no $orce an& e$$ectV The o+er o$ the Presi&ent to or&er the arrest o$ aliens $or &e ortation is% o,viousl-% e9ce tional. It 8the o+er to or&er arrests: cannot ,e #a&e to e9ten& to other cases% li3e the one at ,ar. =n&er the Constitution% it is the sole &o#ain o$ the courts.F Further#ore% the search an& sei!ure or&er +as in the nature o$ a "eneral +arrant. The court hel& that the +arrant is null an& voi&% ,ecause it #ust i&enti$- s eci$icall- the thin"s to ,e sei!e&.

2(. Alvare! v. CFI GR 05'51

Facts: The Anti)=sur- .oar& o$ the @e art#ent o$ Gustice resente& to Gu&"e @avi& a s+orn a$$i&avit that a certain Aarciso Alvare! is in ossession o$ ,oo3s% recei ts% chits% lists use& ,- hi# as #one- len&er2usurer char"in" usurious rates in violation o$ la+. A$$iant Al#e&a% chie$ o$ the tas3 $orce% &i&n/t sa- that the in$or#ation +as ,ase& on his ersonal 3no+le&"e ,ut +as onlreceive& ,- hi# $ro# a relia,le source. Su,seEuentl-% the Cu&"e issue& the +arrant or&erin" the search o$ Alvare!/ house. 7n Gune 0% 14'6% the a"ents rai&e& the su,Cect lace an& sei!e& &i$$erent &ocu#ents na#el-% ,an3notes% ,an3,oo3s% stu,s% cash,oo3s% ,ills o$ la&in"% cre&it recei ts% etc. Therea$ter% the articles sei!e& +as not ,rou"ht i##e&iatel- to the custo&- o$ the Cu&"e +ho issue& the S>. Alvare! #ove& that the a"ents o$ the .oar& ,e &eclare& "uilt- o$ conte# t an& ra-s that all articles in Euestion ,e returne& to hi# ,ecause the S> issue& +as

ille"al. 7n the other han&% the Anti)=sur- .oar& lea&e& that the- ,e allo+e& to retain custo&o$ the articles sei!e& $or $urther investi"ation. >hen the Cu&"e sustaine& the latter/s #otion. Alvare! elevate& the #atter to the SC an& ra-e& that the search +arrant as +ell as the or&er o$ the Cu&"e authori!in" the Anti)=sur- .oar& to retain custo&- ,e &eclare& null an& voi&. Issue: >hether the S> issue& ,- the Cu&"e is ille"al $or havin" solel- as ,asis the a$$i&avit o$ A"ent Al#e&a in +hose oath the latter &eclare& that he ha& no ersonal 3no+le&"e o$ the $acts +hich +ere to serve as ,asis $or the issuance o$ the +arrant ,ut he ha& 3no+le&"e thereo$ onl- throu"h in$or#ation secure& $ro# a erson +ho# he consi&ere& relia,le. Rulin": Section 1% ara"ra h '% o$ Article III o$ the Constitution an& Section 45 o$ General 7r&ers 51 reEuire that there ,e not onl- ro,a,le cause ,e$ore the issuance o$ a search +arrant ,ut that the search +arrant #ust ,e ,ase& u on an a lication su orte& ,- oath o$ the a licant an& the +itnesses he #a- ro&uce. In its ,roa&est sense% an oath inclu&es an- $or# o$ attestation ,+hich a art- si"ni$ies that he is ,oun& in conscience to er$or# an act $aith$ull- an& truth$ull-; an& it is so#eti#es &e$ine& as an out+ar& le&"e "iven ,- the erson ta3in" it that his attestation or ro#ise is #a&e un&er an i##e&iate sense o$ his res onsi,ilit- to Go&. The oath reEuire& #ust re$er to the truth o$ the $acts +ithin the ersonal 3no+le&"e o$ the etitioner or his +itnesses% ,ecause the ur ose thereo$ is to convince the co##ittin" #a"istrate% not the in&ivi&ual #a3in" the a$$i&avit an& see3in" the issuance o$ the +arrant% o$ the e9istence o$ ro,a,le cause. The true test o$ su$$icienc- o$ an a$$i&avit to +arrant issuance o$ a search +arrant is +hether it has ,een &ra+n in such a #anner that erCur- coul& ,e char"e& thereon an& a$$iant ,e hel& lia,le $or &a#a"es cause&. The a$$i&avit% +hich serve& as the e9clusive ,asis o$ the search +arrant% is insu$$icient an& $atall- &e$ective ,- reason o$ the #anner in +hich the oath +as #a&e% an& there$ore% the search +arrant an& the su,seEuent sei!ure o$ the ,oo3s% &ocu#ents an& other a ers are ille"al. Further% it is the ractice in this Curis&iction to attach the a$$i&avit o$ at least the a licant or co# lainant to the a lication. It is a&#itte& that the Cu&"e +ho issue& the search +arrant in this case% relie& e9clusivel- u on the a$$i&avit #a&e ,- a"ent Al#e&a an& that he &i& not reEuire nor ta3e the &e osition o$ an- other +itness. The Constitution &oes not rovi&e that it is o$ an i# erative necessit- to ta3e the &e ositions o$ the +itnesses to ,e resente& ,- the a licant or co# lainant in a&&ition to the a$$i&avit o$ the latter. The ur ose o$ ,oth in reEuirin" the resentation o$ &e ositions is nothin" #ore than to satis$- the co##ittin" #a"istrate o$ the e9istence o$ ro,a,le cause. There$ore% i$ the a$$i&avit o$ the a licant or co# lainant is su$$icient% the Cu&"e #a- &is ense +ith that o$ other +itnesses. Inas#uch as the a$$i&avit o$ the a"ent +as insu$$icient ,ecause his 3no+le&"e o$ the $acts +as not ersonal ,ut #erel- hearsa-% it is the &ut- o$ the Cu&"e to reEuire the a$$i&avit o$ one or #ore +itnesses $or the ur ose o$ &eter#inin" the e9istence o$ ro,a,le cause to +arrant the issuance o$ the search +arrant. >hen the a$$i&avit o$ the a licant or co# lainant contains su$$icient $acts +ithin his ersonal an& &irect 3no+le&"e% it is su$$icient i$ the Cu&"e is satis$ie& that there e9ists ro,a,le cause; +hen the a licant/s 3no+le&"e o$ the $acts is #ere hearsa-% the a$$i&avit o$ one or #ore +itnesses havin" a ersonal 3no+le&"e o$ the $acts is necessar-. Thus the +arrant issue& is

li3e+ise ille"al ,ecause it +as ,ase& onl- on the a$$i&avit o$ the a"ent +ho ha& no ersonal 3no+le&"e o$ the $acts

21. Peo le v. Gerente 214 SCRA 556

FACTS: <&na <&+ina Re-es testi$ie& that Ga,riel Gerente% to"ether +ith Fre&o <chi"oren an& Toto<chi"oren% starte& &rin3in" liEuor an& s#o3in" #ariCuana in the house o$ the a ellant. She overhear& the three #en tal3in" a,out their intention to 3ill Clarito .lace. Fre&o% Toto<chi"oren an& Gerente carrie& out their lan to 3ill Clarito .lace . Re-es% testi$ie& that she +itnesse& the 3illin" as $ollo+s: Fre&o <chi"oren struc3 the $irst ,lo+ a"ainst Clarito .lace% $ollo+e& ,- Toto- <chi"oren an& Ga,riel Gerente +ho hit hi# t+ice +ith a iece o$ +oo& in the hea& an& +hen he $ell% Toto- <chi"oren &ro e& a hollo+ ,loc3 on the victi#Rs hea&. Therea$ter% the three #en &ra""e& .lace to a lace ,ehin& the house o$ Gerente. Patrol#an Gai#e =rrutia o$ the Malen!uela Police Station receive& a re ort $ro# the Palo Police @etach#ent a,out a #aulin" inci&ent. He +ent to the Malen!uela @istrict Hos ital +here the victi# +as ,rou"ht. He +as in$or#e& ,- the hos ital o$$icials that the victi# &ie& on arrival. The cause o$ &eath +as #assive $racture o$ the s3ull cause& ,- a har& an& heav- o,Cect. Ri"ht a+a-% Patrol#an =rrutia% rocee&e& to Paseo &e .las +here the #aulin" inci&ent too3 lace. There the- $oun& a iece o$ +oo& +ith ,loo& stains% a hollo+ ,loc3 an& t+o roaches o$ #ariCuana. The- +ere in$or#e& ,- Re-es% that she sa+ the 3illin" an& she ointe& to Ga,riel Gerente as one o$ the three #en +ho 3ille& Clarito. The olice#en rocee&e& to the house o$ the a ellant +ho +as then slee in". The- tol& hi# to co#e out o$ the house an& the- intro&uce& the#selves as olice#en. Patrol#an =rrutia $ris3e& a ellant an& $oun& a coin urse in his oc3et +hich containe& &rie& leaves +ra e& in ci"arette $oil. 7nl- the a ellant% Ga,riel Gerente% +as a rehen&e& ,- the olice. The other sus ects% Fre&o an& Toto- <chi"oren% are still at lar"e. T+o se arate in$or#ations +ere $ile& ,- Assistant Provincial Prosecutor .enCa#in Carai" a"ainst hi# $or Miolation o$ Section 1% Article II% o$ Re u,lic Act Ao. 6025% an& $or Mur&er. The trial court convicte& hi# o$ Miolation o$ Section 1 o$ R.A. 6025 an& o$ Mur&er. ISS=<S: 1. >hether or not the court erre& in a&#ittin" the #ariCuana leaves a&&uce& in evi&ence ,- the rosecution; an& 2. >hether or not the court erre& in convictin" the accuse&)a ellant o$ the cri#es char"e& &es ite the a,sence o$ evi&ence reEuire& to rove his "uilt ,e-on& reasona,le &ou,t. H<?@: The a eale& &ecision +as a$$ir#e&.

ARR<ST The olice#en arreste& Gerente onl- so#e three 8': hours a$ter Gerente an& his co# anions ha& 3ille& .lace. The- sa+ .lace &ea& in the hos ital an& +hen the- ins ecte& the scene o$ the cri#e% the- $oun& the instru#ents o$ &eath: a iece o$ +oo& an& a concrete hollo+ ,loc3 +hich the 3illers ha& use& to ,lu&"eon hi# to &eath. The e-e)+itness% <&na <&+ina Re-es% re orte& the ha enin" to the olice#en an& in ointe& her nei"h,or% Gerente% as one o$ the 3illers. =n&er those circu#stances% since the olice#en ha& ersonal 3no+le&"e o$ the violent &eath o$ .lace an& o$ $acts in&icatin" that Gerente an& t+o others ha& 3ille& hi#% the- coul& la+$ull- arrest Gerente +ithout a +arrant. I$ the- ha& ost one& his arrest until the- coul& o,tain a +arrant% he +oul& have $le& the la+ as his t+o co# anions &i&. S<ARCH an& S<IW=R< The search con&ucte& on GerenteRs erson +as li3e+ise la+$ul ,ecause it +as #a&e as an inci&ent to a vali& arrest. This is in accor&ance +ith Section 12% Rule 126 o$ the Revise& Rules o$ Court +hich rovi&es: A erson la+$ull- arreste& #a- ,e searche& $or &an"erous +ea ons or an-thin" +hich #a- ,e use& as roo$ o$ the co##ission o$ an o$$ense% +ithout a search +arrant. The $ris3 an& search o$ a ellantRs erson u on his arrest +as a er#issi,le recautionar#easure o$ arrestin" o$$icers to rotect the#selves% $or the erson +ho is a,out to ,e arreste& #a- ,e ar#e& an& #i"ht attac3 the# unless he is $irst 22. Go vs. CA GR 1(11'5

Facts: Petitioner% +hile travelin" in the +ron" &irection on a one)+a- street% al#ost ha& a collision +ith another vehicle. Petitioner therea$ter "ot out o$ his car% shot the &river o$ the other vehicle% an& &rove o$$. An e-e+itness o$ the inci&ent +as a,le to ta3e &o+n etitioner/s late nu#,er an& re orte& the sa#e to the olice% +ho su,seEuentl- or&ere& a #anhunt $or etitioner. 6 &a-s a$ter the shootin"% etitioner resente& hi#sel$ in the olice station% acco# anie& ,- 2 la+-ers% the olice &etaine& hi#. Su,seEuentl- a cri#inal char"e +as ,rou"ht a"ainst hi#. Petitioner oste& ,ail% the rosecutor $ile& the case to the lo+er court% settin" an& co##encin" trial +ithout reli#inar- investi"ation. Prosecutor reasons that the etitioner has +aive& his ri"ht to reli#inar- investi"ation as ,ail has ,een oste& an& that such situation% that etitioner has ,een arreste& +ithout a +arrant la+$ull-% $alls un&er Section 5% Rule 11' an& Section 5% Rule 112 o$ The 1415 Rules o$ Cri#inal Proce&ure +hich rovi&es $or the rules an& roce&ure ertainin" to situations o$ la+$ul +arrantless arrests. Petitioner in his etition $or certiorari assails such roce&ure an& actions un&erta3en an& $iles $or a reli#inar- investi"ation. Issues: 81: >7A +arrantless arrest o$ etitioner +as la+$ul. 82: >7A etitioner e$$ectivel- +aive& his ri"ht to reli#inar- investi"ation. Hel&: Petitioner an& rosecutor err in rel-in" on =#il v. Ra#os% +herein the Court u hel& the +arrantless arrest as vali& e$$ecte& 1 to 10 &a-s $ro# actual co##ission o$ the o$$enses% +hich ho+ever constitute& Dcontinuin" cri#es%F i.e. su,version% #e#,ershi in an outla+e&

or"ani!ation% etc. There +as no la+$ul +arrantless arrest un&er Section 5% Rule 11'. This is ,ecause the arrestin" o$$icers +ere not actuall- there &urin" the inci&ent% thus the- ha& no ersonal 3no+le&"e an& their in$or#ation re"ar&in" etitioner +ere &erive& $ro# other sources. Further% Section 5% Rule 112% &oes not a l-. Petitioner +as not arreste& at all% as +hen he +al3e& in the olice station% he neither e9 resse& surren&er nor an- state#ent that he +as or +as not "uilt- o$ an- cri#e. >hen a co# laint +as $ile& to the rosecutor% reli#inar- investi"ation shoul& have ,een sche&ule& to &eter#ine ro,a,le cause. Prosecutor #a&e a su,stantive error% etitioner is entitle& to reli#inarinvesti"ation% necessaril- in a cri#inal char"e% +here the sa#e is reEuire& a ear thereat. Petition "rante&% rosecutor is or&ere& to con&uct reli#inar- investi"ation% trial $or the cri#inal case is sus en&e& en&in" result $ro# reli#inar- investi"ation% etitioner is or&ere& release& u on ostin" a ,ail ,on&.

2'. =nite& la,oratories v. Isi GR 16'451 FACTS: =AI?A. hire& a rivate investi"ator to investi"ate a lace ur orte& to ,e #anu$acturin" $a3e =AI?A. ro&ucts% es eciall- Revicon #ultivita#ins. The a"ent too3 so#e hoto"ra hs +here the clan&estine #anu$acturin" o eration +as ta3in" lace. =AI?A. then sou"ht the hel o$ the A.I% +hich therea$ter $ile& an a lication $or the issuance o$ search +arrant in the RTC o$ Manila. A$ter $in&in" ro,a,le cause% the court issue& a search +arrant &irectin" the olice to sei!e D$inishe& or un$inishe& ro&ucts o$ =AI?A.% articularl- R<MIC7A #ultivita#ins.F Ao $a3e Revicon +as ho+ever $oun&; instea&% seale& ,o9es +here sei!e&% +hich% +hen o ene& containe& 6( #l ,ottles o$ @isu&rin an& 2((#" ta,lets o$ Ino$lo9% ,oth +ere ,ran&s use& ,=AI?A.. A.I ra-e& that so#e o$ the si!e& ite#s ,e turne& over to the custo&- o$ the .ureau o$ Foo& an& @ru"s 8.FA@: $or e9a#ination. The court "rante& the #otion. The res on&ents then $ile& a #otion to Euash the search +arrant or to su ress evi&ence% alle"in" that the sei!e& ite#s are consi&ere& to ,e $ruit o$ a oisonous tree% an& there$ore ina&#issi,le $or an- ur ose in anrocee&in"% +hich the etitioners o ose& alle"in" that the ,o9es o$ @isu&rin an& Ino$lo9 +ere sei!e& un&er the lain vie+ &octrine. The court% ho+ever% "rante& the #otion o$ the res on&ents. ISS=<: >hether or not the sei!ure o$ the seale& ,o9es +hich% +hen o ene&% containe& @isu&rin s-ru an& Ino$lo9% +ere vali& un&er the lain vie+ &octrine. H<?@: It is true that thin"s not &escri,e& in the +arrant #a- ,e sei!e& un&er the lain vie+ &octrine. Ho+ever% sei!e& thin"s not &escri,e& in the +arrant cannot ,e resu#e& as lain vie+. The State #ust a&&uce evi&ence to rove that the ele#ents $or the &octrine to a l- are resent% na#el-: 8a: the e9ecutin" la+ en$orce#ent o$$icer has a rior Custi$ication $or an initial intrusion or other+ise ro erl- in a osition $ro# +hich he can vie+ a articular or&er; 8,: the o$$icer #ust &iscover incri#inatin" evi&ence ina&vertentl-; an& 8c: it #ust ,e i##e&iatel- a arent to the olice that the ite#s the- o,serve #a- ,e evi&ence o$ a cri#e% contra,an&% or other+ise su,Cect to sei!ure It +as thus incu#,ent on the A.I an& the etitioner to rove that the ite#s +ere sei!e&

on lain vie+. It is not enou"h that the seale& ,o9es +ere in the lain vie+ o$ the A.I a"ents. Ho+ever% the A.I $aile& to resent an- o$ o$$icers +ho +ere resent +hen the +arrant +as en$orce& to rove that the the seale& ,o9es +as &iscovere& ina&vertentl-% an& that such ,o9es an& their contents +ere incri#inatin" an& i##e&iatel- a arent. It #ust ,e stresse& that onl- the en$orcin" o$$icers ha& ersonal 3no+le&"e +hether the seale& ,o9es an& their contents thereo$ +ere incri#inatin" an& that the- +ere i##e&iatel- a arent. There is even no sho+in" that the A.I a"ents 3ne+ the contents o$ the seale& ,o9es ,e$ore the- +ere o ene&. In su# then% the etitioner an& the A.I $aile& to rove that the lain vie+ &octrine a lies to the sei!e& ite#s. 20. Peo le v. Peralta GR 105156

25. =S v. .ustos GR ?)12542

Facts: In the latter art o$ 1415% nu#erous citi!ens o$ the Province o$ Pa# an"a asse#,le&% an& re are& an& si"ne& a etition to the <9ecutive Secretar-8 rivile"e& co##unication: throu"h the la+ o$$ice o$ Cross$iel& an& 7R.rien% an& $ive in&ivi&uals si"ne& a$$i&avits% char"in" Ro#an Punsalan% Custice o$ the eace o$ Maca,e,e an& Masantol% Pa# an"a% +ith #al$easance in o$$ice an& as3in" $or his re#oval. The s eci$ic char"es a"ainst the Custice o$ the eace inclu&e the solicitation o$ #one- $ro# ersons +ho have en&in" cases ,e$ore the Cu&"e. Ao+% Punsalan alle"e& that accuse& u,lishe& a +ritin" +hich +as $alse% scan&alous% #alicious% &e$a#ator-% an& li,elous a"ainst hi#.

Issue: >hether or Aot accuse& is entitle& to constitutional rotection ,- virtue o$ his ri"ht to $ree s eech an& $ree ress. Hel&: Jes. The "uaranties o$ a $ree s eech an& a $ree ress inclu&e the ri"ht to critici!e Cu&icial con&uct. The a&#inistration o$ the la+ is a #atter o$ vital u,lic concern. >hether the la+ is +isel- or ,a&l- en$orce& is% there$ore% a $it su,Cect $or ro er co##ent. I$ the eo le cannot critici!e a Custice o$ the eace or a Cu&"e the sa#e as an- other u,lic o$$icer% u,lic o inion +ill ,e e$$ectivel- su resse&. It is a &ut- +hich ever- one o+es to societ- or to the State to assist in the investi"ation o$ an- alle"e& #iscon&uct. It is $urther the &ut- o$ all +ho 3no+ o$ an- o$$icial &ereliction on the art o$ a #a"istrate or the +ron"$ul act o$ an- u,lic o$$icer to ,rin" the $acts to the notice o$ those +hose &ut- it is to inEuire into an& unish the#. The ri"ht to asse#,le an& etition is the necessar- conseEuence o$ re u,lican institutions an& the co# le#ent o$ the art o$ $ree s eech. Asse#,l- #eans a ri"ht on the art o$ citi!ens to #eet

eacea,l- $or consultation in res ect to u,lic a$$airs. Petition #eans that an- erson or "rou o$ ersons can a l-% +ithout $ear o$ enalt-% to the a ro riate ,ranch or o$$ice o$ the "overn#ent $or a re&ress o$ "rievances. The ersons asse#,lin" an& etitionin" #ust% o$ course% assu#e res onsi,ilit- $or the char"es #a&e. All ersons have an interest in the ure an& e$$icient a&#inistration o$ Custice an& o$ u,lic a$$airs. Pu,lic olic-% the +el$are o$ societ-% an& the or&erl- a&#inistration o$ "overn#ent have &e#an&e& rotection $or u,lic o inion. The inevita,le an& incontesta,le result has ,een the &evelo #ent an& a&o tion o$ the &octrine o$ rivile"e. All ersons have an interest in the ure an& e$$icient a&#inistration o$ Custice an& o$ u,lic a$$airs. The &ut- un&er +hich a art- is rivile"e& is su$$icient i$ it is social or #oral in its nature an& this erson in "oo& $aith ,elieves he is actin" in ursuance thereo$ althou"h in $act he is #ista3en. Althou"h the char"es are ro,a,l- not true as to the Custice o$ the eace% the- +ere ,elieve& to ,e true ,- the etitioners. Goo& $aith surroun&e& their action. Pro,a,le cause $or the# to thin3 that #al$easance or #is$easance in o$$ice e9iste& is a arent. The en&s an& the #otives o$ these citi!ensU to secure the re#oval $ro# o$$ice o$ a erson thou"ht to ,e venal U +ere Custi$ia,le. In no +a- &i& thea,use the rivile"e. In the usual case #alice can ,e resu#e& $ro# &e$a#ator- +or&s. Privile"e &estro-s that resu# tion. A rivile"e& co##unication shoul& not ,e su,Cecte& to #icrosco ic e9a#ination to &iscover "roun&s o$ #alice or $alsit-.

26. Peo le v. Alarcon GR 06551

25. S>S v. Co#elec GR 105551

Facts: Petitioner S>S an& KPC states that it +ishes to con&uct an election surve- throu"hout the erio& o$ the elections an& release to the #e&ia the results o$ such surve- as +ell as u,lish the# &irectl-. Petitioners ar"ue that the restriction on the u,lication o$ election surve- results constitutes a rior restraint on the e9ercise o$ $ree&o# o$ s eech +ithout an- clear an& resent &an"er to Custi$- such restraint. Issue: Are the Co#elec Resolutions rohi,itin" the hol&in" o$ re) olls an& e9it olls an& the

&isse#ination o$ their results throu"h #ass #e&ia% vali& an& constitutionalL Rulin": Ao. The Court hel& that Section 85:0 is invali& ,ecause 81: it i# oses a rior restraint on the $ree&o# o$ e9 ression% 82: it is a &irect an& total su ression o$ a cate"or- o$ e9 ression even thou"h such su ression is onl- $or a li#ite& erio&% an& 8': the "overn#ental interest sou"ht to ,e ro#ote& can ,e achieve& ,- #eans other than su ression o$ $ree&o# o$ e9 ression. It has ,een hel& that HX#ereY le"islative re$erences or ,elie$s res ectin" #atters o$ u,lic convenience #a- +ell su ort re"ulation &irecte& at other ersonal activities% ,ut ,e insu$$icient to Custi$- such as &i#inishes the e9ercise o$ ri"hts so vital to the #aintenance o$ &e#ocratic institutions.F

21. Pri#icias v. Fu"oso GR ?)11((

FACTS: In Aove#,er 1405% the #a-or o$ Manila re$use& to "rant a er#it to hol& a u,lic #eetin" at Pla!a Miran&a $or the ur ose o$ etitionin" the "overn#ent $or re&ress o$ "rievances. The #a-or/s reason: Hthat there is a reasona,le "roun& to ,elieve% ,asin" u on revious utterances an& u on the $act that assions% s eciall- on the art o$ the losin" "rou s% re#ains ,itter an& hi"h% that si#ilar s eeches +ill ,e &elivere& ten&in" to un&er#ine the $aith an& con$i&ence o$ the eo le in their "overn#ent% an& in the &ul- constitute& authorities% +hich #i"ht threaten ,reaches o$ the eace an& a &isru tion o$ u,lic or&er.H A Manila or&inance at that ti#e reEuire& a #a-or/s er#it to hol& a ara&e or rocession% or% ,- analo"-% a u,lic #eetin" or asse#,l-. Pri#icias $ile& a case to co# el the #a-or to "rant the er#it. ISS=<: Ma- the #a-or ,e co# elle& to "rant the er#itL R=?IAG: Jes. The Su re#e Court or&ere& the #a-or to "rant the er#it% inter retin" the or&inance to #ean that the Ma-or &i& not have the o+er to "rant or re$use the er#it% onl- the &iscretion to s eci$- +here the ara&e #a- ass or +here the #eetin" #a- ,e hel&. The Court sai& that the constitutional ri"ht to $ree s eech an& eace$ul asse#,l- +as a $un&a#ental ri"ht o$ the eo le an& #a- not ,e su resse& unless there +as the ro,a,ilit- o$ serious inCur- to the state% an& Euote& =S Su re#e Court Gustice .ran&eis in Whitney vs. California: HFear o$ serious inCurcannot alone Custi$- su ression o$ $ree s eech an& asse#,l-.F

24. .a-an v. <r#ita GR 1641'1

Facts: The etitioners% .a-an% et al.% alle"e& that the- are citi!ens an& ta9 a-ers o$ the Phili ines an& that their ri"ht as or"ani!ations an& in&ivi&uals +ere violate& +hen the rall- theartici ate& in on 7cto,er 6% 2((5 +as violentl- &is erse& ,- olice#en i# le#entin" .atas Pa#,ansa Ao. 11(. Petitioners conten&e& that .atas Pa#,ansa Ao. 11( is clearl- a violation o$ the Constitution an& the International Covenant on Civil an& Political Ri"hts an& other hu#an ri"hts treaties o$ +hich the Phili ines is a si"nator-. The- ar"ue that ..P. Ao. 11( reEuires a er#it ,e$ore one can sta"e a u,lic asse#,l- re"ar&less o$ the resence or a,sence o$ a clear an& resent &an"er. It also curtails the choice o$ venue an& is thus re u"nant to the $ree&o# o$ e9 ression clause as the ti#e an& lace o$ a u,lic asse#,l- $or# art o$ the #essa"e +hich the e9 ression is sou"ht. Further#ore% it is not content)neutral as it &oes not a l- to #ass actions in su ort o$ the "overn#ent. The +or&s Dla+$ul cause%F Do inion%F D rotestin" or in$luencin"F su""est the e9 osition o$ so#e cause not es ouse& ,- the "overn#ent. Also% the hrase D#a9i#u# toleranceF sho+s that the la+ a lies to asse#,lies a"ainst the "overn#ent ,ecause the- are ,ein" tolerate&. As a content),ase& le"islation% it cannot ass the strict scrutin- test. This etition an& t+o other etitions +ere or&ere& to ,e consoli&ate& on Fe,ruar- 10% 2((6. @urin" the course o$ oral ar"u#ents% the etitioners% in the interest o$ a s ee&- resolution o$ the etitions% +ith&re+ the ortions o$ their etitions raisin" $actual issues% articularl- those raisin" the issue o$ +hether ..P. Ao. 11( an&2or CPR is voi& as a lie& to the rallies o$ Se te#,er 2(% 7cto,er 0% 5 an& 6% 2((5. Issue: >hether the Cali,rate& Pre)e# tive res onse an& the .atas Pa#,ansa Ao. 11(% s eci$icall- Sections 0% 5% 6% 12% 1'8a: an& 108a: violates Art. III Sec. 0 o$ the Phili ine Constitution as it causes a &istur,in" e$$ect on the e9ercise ,- the eo le o$ the ri"ht to eacea,l- asse#,le. Hel&: Section 0 o$ Article III o$ the Phili ine Constitution rovi&es that no la+ shall ,e asse& a,ri&"in" the $ree&o# o$ s eech% o$ e9 ression% or o$ the ress% or the ri"ht o$ the eo le eacea,l- to asse#,le an& etition the "overn#ent $or re&ress o$ "rievances. The ri"ht to eacea,l- asse#,le an& etition $or re&ress o$ "rievances% to"ether +ith $ree&o# o$ s eech% o$ e9 ression% an& o$ the ress% is a ri"ht that enCo-s &o#inance in the s here o$ constitutional rotection. For this ri"hts re resent the ver- ,asis o$ a $unctional &e#ocratic olit-% +ithout +hich all the other ri"hts +oul& ,e #eanin"less an& un rotecte&. Ho+ever% it #ust ,e re#e#,ere& that the ri"ht% +hile sacrosanct% is not a,solute. It #a- ,e re"ulate& that it shall not ,e inCurious to the eEual enCo-#ent o$ others havin" eEual ri"hts% nor

inCurious to the ri"hts o$ the co##unit- or societ-. The o+er to re"ulate the e9ercise o$ such an& other constitutional ri"hts is ter#e& the soverei"n D olice o+er%F +hich is the o+er to rescri,e re"ulations% to ro#ote the health% #orals% eace% e&ucation% "oo& or&er or sa$et-% an& "eneral +el$are o$ the eo le. ..P. Ao 11( is not an a,solute ,an o$ u,lic asse#,lies ,ut a restriction that si# l- re"ulates the ti#e% lace an& #anner o$ the asse#,lies. ..P. Ao. 11( thus rea&il- sho+s that it re$ers to all 3in&s o$ u,lic asse#,lies that +oul& use u,lic laces. The re$erence to Dla+$ul causeF &oes not #a3e it content),ase& ,ecause asse#,lies reall- have to ,e $or la+$ul causes% other+ise the+oul& not ,e D eacea,leF an& entitle& to rotection. Aeither the +or&s Do inion%F D rotestin"%F an& Din$luencin"F in o$ "rievances co#e $ro# the +or&in" o$ the Constitution% so its use cannot ,e avoi&e&. Finall-% #a9i#u# tolerance is $or the rotection an& ,ene$it o$ all rall-ist an& is in&e en&ent o$ the content o$ the e9 ression in the rall-. Further#ore% the er#it can onl- ,e &enie& on the "roun& o$ clear an& resent &an"er to u,lic or&er% u,lic sa$et-% u,lic convenience% u,lic #orals or u,lic health. This is a reco"ni!e& e9ce tion to the e9ercise o$ the ri"hts even un&er the =niversal @eclaration o$ Hu#an Ri"hts an& The International Covenant on Civil an& Political Ri"hts.

'(. A"li a- v. Rui! GR 05054

FACTS: The etitioner% Mons. Gre"orio A"li a-% Su re#e Hea& o$ the Phili ine In&e en&ent Church% see3s the issuance $ro# this court o$ a +rit o$ rohi,ition to revent the res on&ent @irector o$ Posts $ro# issuin" an& sellin" osta"e sta# s co##e#orative o$ the Thirt-)thir& International <ucharistic Con"ress. In Ma-% 14'6% the @irector o$ Posts announce& in the &ailies o$ Manila that he +oul& or&er the issues o$ osta"e sta# s co##e#oratin" the cele,ration in the Cit- o$ Manila o$ the Thirt-)thir& international <ucharistic Con"ress% or"ani!e& ,- the Ro#an Catholic Church. The etitioner% in the $ul$ill#ent o$ +hat he consi&ers to ,e a civic &ut-% reEueste& Micente Sotto% <sE.% #e#,er o$ the Phili ine .ar% to &enounce the #atter to the Presi&ent o$ the Phili ines. In s ite o$ the rotest o$ the etitionerRs attorne-% the res on&ent u,licl- announce& havin" sent to the =nite& States the &esi"ns o$ the osta"e sta# s $or rintin" ISS=< : >7A the sellin" o$ sta# s in co##e#oratin" the Thirt-)thir& International <ucharistic Con"ress. constitutional H<?@: J<S .The sta# s +ere not issue an& sol& $or the ,ene$it o$ the Ro#an Catholic Church.

Aor +ere #one- &erive& $ro# the sale o$ the sta# s "iven to that church. 7n the contrar-% it a ears $ro# the latter o$ the @irector o$ Posts o$ Gune 5% 14'6% incor orate& on a"e 2 o$ the etitionerRs co# laint% that the onl- ur ose in issuin" an& sellin" the sta# s +as Hto a&vertise the Phili ines an& attract #ore tourist to this countr-.H The o$$icials concerne& #erel-% too3 a&vanta"e o$ an event consi&ere& o$ international i# ortance Hto "ive u,licit- to the Phili ines an& its eo le

'1. <stra&a v. <scritor AM )(2)1651

FACTS: Sole&a& <scritor is a court inter reter since 1444 in the RTC o$ ?as Pinas Cit-. AleCan&ro <stra&a% the co# lainant% +rote to Gu&"e Gose F. Caoi,es% resi&in" Cu&"e o$ .ranch 25'% RTC o$ ?as Pinas Cit-% reEuestin" $or an investi"ation o$ ru#ors that <scritor has ,een livin" +ith ?uciano Buila io Gr.% a #an not her hus,an&% an& ha& eventuall- ,e"otten a son. <scritor/s hus,an&% +ho ha& live& +ith another +o#an% &ie& a -ear ,e$ore she entere& into the Cu&iciar-. 7n the other han&% Buila io is still le"all- #arrie& to another +o#an. <stra&a is not relate& to either <scritor or Buila io an& is not a resi&ent o$ ?as Pinas ,ut o$ .acoor% Cavite. Accor&in" to the co# lainant% res on&ent shoul& not ,e allo+e& to re#ain e# lo-e& in the Cu&iciar- $or it +ill a ear as i$ the court allo+s such act. <scritor is a #e#,er o$ the reli"ious sect 3no+n as the Gehovah/s >itnesses an& the >atch To+er an& .i,le Tract Societ- +here her conCu"al arran"e#ent +ith Buila io is in con$or#it+ith their reli"ious ,elie$s. A$ter ten -ears o$ livin" to"ether% she e9ecute& on Gul- 21% 1441 a D@eclaration o$ Ple&"in" Faith$ulnessF +hich +as a rove& ,- the con"re"ation. Such &eclaration is e$$ective +hen le"al i# e&i#ents ren&er it i# ossi,le $or a cou le to le"ali!e their union. Gre"orio% Sala!ar% a #e#,er o$ the Gehovah/s >itnesses since 1415 an& has ,een a resi&in" #inister since 1441% testi$ie& an& e9 laine& the i# ort o$ an& roce&ures $or e9ecutin" the &eclaration +hich +as co# letel- e9ecute& ,- <scritor an& Buila io/s in Ati#onan% Bue!on an& +as si"ne& ,- three +itnesses an& recor&e& in >atch To+er Central 7$$ice. ISS=<: >hether or not res on&ent shoul& ,e $oun& "uilt- o$ the a&#inistrative char"e o$ D"ross an& i##oral con&uctF an& ,e enali!e& ,- the State $or such conCu"al arran"e#ent. H<?@: A &istinction ,et+een u,lic an& secular #oralit- an& reli"ious #oralit- shoul& ,e 3e t in #in&. The Curis&iction o$ the Court e9ten&s onl- to u,lic an& secular #oralit-.

The Court states that our Constitution a&heres the ,enevolent neutralit- a roach that "ives roo# $or acco##o&ation o$ reli"ious e9ercises as reEuire& ,- the Free <9ercise Clause. This ,enevolent neutralit- coul& allo+ $or acco##o&ation o$ #oralit- ,ase& on reli"ion% rovi&e& it &oes not o$$en& co# ellin" state interests. The state/s interest is the reservation o$ the inte"rit- o$ the Cu&iciar- ,- #aintainin" a#on" its ran3s a hi"h stan&ar& o$ #oralit- an& &ecenc-. DThere is nothin" in the 7CA/s 87$$ice o$ the Court A&#inistrator: #e#oran&u# to the Court that &e#onstrates ho+ this interest is so co# ellin" that it shoul& overri&e res on&ent/s lea o$ reli"ious $ree&o#. In&ee&% it is ina ro riate $or the co# lainant% a rivate erson% to resent evi&ence on the co# ellin" interest o$ the state. The ,ur&en o$ evi&ence shoul& ,e &ischar"e& ,- the ro er a"enc- o$ the "overn#ent +hich is the 7$$ice o$ the Solicitor GeneralF. In or&er to ro erl- settle the case at ,ar% it is essential that the "overn#ent ,e "iven an o ortunit- to &e#onstrate the co# ellin" state interest it see3s to u hol& in o osin" the res on&ent/s osition that her conCu"al arran"e#ent is not i##oral an& unisha,le as it is +ithin the sco e o$ $ree e9ercise rotection. The Court coul& not rohi,it an& unish her con&uct +here the Free <9ercise Clause rotects it% since this +oul& ,e an unconstitutional encroach#ent o$ her ri"ht to reli"ious $ree&o#. Further#ore% the court cannot si# l- ta3e a assin" loo3 at res on&ent/s clai# o$ reli"ious $ree&o# ,ut #ust also a l- the Dco# ellin" state interestF test. '2. Province o$ Cota,ato M. The Gov/t o$ the RP Peace Panel Ancestral @o#ain GR 11'541

Facts: 7n Au"ust 5% 2((1% the Govern#ent o$ the Re u,lic o$ the Phili ines 8GRP: an& the MI?F% throu"h the Chair ersons o$ their res ective eace ne"otiatin" anels% +ere sche&ule& to si"n a Me#oran&u# o$ A"ree#ent on the Ancestral @o#ain 8M7A)A@: As ect o$ the GRP)MI?F Tri oli A"ree#ent on Peace o$ 2((1 in Kuala ?u# ur% Mala-sia. The si"nin" o$ the M7A)A@ ,et+een the GRP an& the MI?F +as not to #ateriali!e% ho+ever% $or u on #otion o$ etitioners% s eci$icall- those +ho $ile& their cases ,e$ore the sche&ule& si"nin" o$ the M7A)A@% this Court issue& a Te# orar- Restrainin" 7r&er enCoinin" the GRP $ro# si"nin" the sa#e. The M7A)A@ +as rece&e& ,- a lon" rocess o$ ne"otiation an& the conclu&in" o$ several rior a"ree#ents ,et+een the t+o arties ,e"innin" in 1446% +hen the GRP)MI?F eace ne"otiations ,e"an. 7n Gul- 11% 1445% the GRP an& MI?F Peace Panels si"ne& the A"ree#ent on General Cessation o$ Hostilities. The $ollo+in" -ear% the- si"ne& the General Fra#e+or3 o$ A"ree#ent

o$ Intent on Au"ust 25% 1441. 7n Gul- 2'% 2((1% the Province o$ Aorth Cota,ato an& Mice)Governor <##anuel PiQol $ile& a etition% &oc3ete& as G.R. Ao. 11'541% $or Man&a#us an& Prohi,ition +ith Pra-er $or the Issuance o$ >rit o$ Preli#inar- InCunction an& Te# orar- Restrainin" 7r&er. Invo3in" the ri"ht to in$or#ation on #atters o$ u,lic concern% etitioners see3 to co# el res on&ents to &isclose an& $urnish the# the co# lete an& o$$icial co ies o$ the M7A)A@ inclu&in" its attach#ents% an& to rohi,it the slate& si"nin" o$ the M7A)A@% en&in" the &isclosure o$ the contents o$ the M7A)A@ an& the hol&in" o$ a u,lic consultation thereon. Su le#entaril-% etitioners rathat the M7A)A@ ,e &eclare& unconstitutional.

ISS=<:

>hether the constitutionalit- an& the le"alit- o$ the M7A is ri e $or a&Cu&ication;

R=?IAG:

The M7A)A@ cannot ,e reconcile& +ith the resent Constitution an& la+s. Aot onl- its s eci$ic rovisions ,ut the ver- conce t un&erl-in" the#% na#el-% the associative relationshi envisione& ,et+een the GRP an& the .G<% are unconstitutional% $or the conce t resu oses that the associate& entit- is a state an& i# lies that the sa#e is on its +a- to in&e en&ence. The Me#oran&u# o$ A"ree#ent on the Ancestral @o#ain As ect o$ the GRP)MI?F Tri oli A"ree#ent on Peace o$ 2((1 is &eclare& contrar- to la+ an& the Constitution.

''. <cha"ara- v. Secretar- o$ Gustice GR 1'26(1 FACTS: 7n Ganuar- 0% 1444% the SC issue& a TR7 sta-in" the e9ecution o$ etitioner ?eo <che"arasche&ule& on that sa#e &a-. The u,lic res on&ent Gustice Secretar- assaile& the issuance o$ the TR7 ar"uin" that the action o$ the SC not onl- violate& the rule on $inalit- o$ Cu&"#ent ,ut also encroache& on the o+er o$ the e9ecutive to "rant re rieve. ISS=<: >hether or not the court a,use& its &iscretion in "rantin" a Te# orar- Restrainin" 7r&er 8TR7: on the e9ecution o$ <che"ara- &es ite the $act that the $inalit- o$ Cu&"#ent has alrea&-

,een ren&ere&V that ,- "rantin" the TR7% the Honora,le Court has in e$$ect "rante& re rieve +hich is an e9ecutive $unction. H<?@: Ao. Res on&ents cite& sec 14% art MII. The rovision is si# l- the source o$ o+er o$ the Presi&ent to "rant re rieves% co##utations% an& ar&ons an& re#it $ines an& $or$eitures a$ter conviction ,- $inal Cu&"#ent. The rovision% ho+ever% cannot ,e inter rete& as &en-in" the o+er o$ courts to control the en$orce#ent o$ their &ecisions a$ter their $inalit-. The o+ers o$ the <9ecutive% the ?e"islative an& the Gu&iciar- to save the li$e o$ a &eath convict &o not e9clu&e each other $or the si# le reason that there is no hi"her ri"ht than the ri"ht to li$e. For the u,lic res on&ents there$ore to conten& that onl- the <9ecutive can rotect the ri"ht to li$e o$ an accuse& a$ter his $inal conviction is to violate the rinci le o$ co)eEual an& coor&inate o+ers o$ the three ,ranches o$ our "overn#ent.

'0. Chave! v. resi&ential Co##ission on Goo& Govern#ent GR 1'(5516

FACTS:

Petitioner as3s this Court to &e$ine the nature an& the e9tent o$ the eo le/s constitutional ri"ht to in$or#ation on #atters o$ u,lic concern. Petitioner% invo3in" his constitutional ri"ht to in$or#ation an& the correlative &ut- o$ the state to &isclose u,licl- all its transactions involvin" the national interest% &e#an&s that res on&ents #a3e u,lic an- an& all ne"otiations an& a"ree#ents ertainin" to PCGG/s tas3 o$ recoverin" the Marcoses/ ill)"otten +ealth. ISS=<:

Are the ne"otiations lea&in" to a settle#ent on ill)"otten +ealth o$ the Marcoses +ithin the sco e o$ the constitutional "uarantee o$ access to in$or#ationL H<?@:

Jes. Consi&erin" the intent o$ the $ra#ers o$ the Constitution% it is incu#,ent u on the PCGG an& its o$$icers% as +ell as other "overn#ent re resentatives% to &isclose su$$icient u,lic in$or#ation on an- ro ose& settle#ent the- have &eci&e& to ta3e u +ith the ostensi,le o+ners an& hol&ers o$ ill)"otten +ealth. Such in$or#ation% thou"h% #ust ertain to &e$inite ro ositions

o$ the "overn#ent% not necessaril- to intra)a"enc- or inter)a"enc- reco##en&ations or co##unications &urin" the sta"e +hen co##on assertions are still in the rocess o$ ,ein" $or#ulate& or are in the De9 lorator-F sta"e. There is a nee&% o$ course% to o,serve the sa#e restrictions on &isclosure o$ in$or#ation in "eneral )) such as on #atters involvin" national securit-% &i lo#atic or $orei"n relations% intelli"ence an& other classi$ie& in$or#ation.

'5. In Re: Pro&uction o$ Court Recor&s an& @ocu#ents an& the Atten&ance o$ CourtVV an& various letters $or the I# each#ent Prosecution Panel &ate& Can% 14 an& 25% 2(12 Z$e, 10% 21(12[

'6. Gan!on v. Inserto Gr. ?)5605(

FACTS: Gan!on +as the then #a-or o$ Iloilo Cit-. 1( co# laints +ere $ile& a"ainst hi# on "roun&s o$ #iscon&uct an& #is$easance o$ o$$ice. The Secretar- o$ ?ocal Govern#ent issue& a 6(( &asus ension a"ainst Gan!on ,ase& on the #erits o$ the co# laints $ile& a"ainst hi#. Gan!on a eale& the issue to the CA an& the CA a$$ir#e& the sus ension or&er ,- the Secretar-. Gan!on asserte& that the 1415 Constitution &oes not authori!e the Presi&ent nor an- o$ his alter e"o to sus en& an& re#ove local o$$icials; this is ,ecause the 1415 Constitution su orts local autono#- an& stren"thens the sa#e. >hat +as "iven ,- the resent Constitution +as #ere su ervisor- o+er. ISS=<: >hether or not the Secretar- o$ ?ocal Govern#ent% as the Presi&ent/s alter e"o% can sus en& an& or re#ove local o$$icials. H<?@: Gan!on is un&er the i# ression that the Constitution has le$t the Presi&ent #ere su ervisor- o+ers% +hich su ose&l- e9clu&es the o+er o$ investi"ation% an& &enie& her control% +hich alle"e&l- e#,races &isci linar- authorit-. It is a #ista3en i# ression ,ecause le"all-% Dsu ervisionF is not inco# ati,le +ith &isci linar- authorit-. The SC ha& occasion to &iscuss the sco e an& e9tent o$ the o+er o$ su ervision ,- the Presi&ent over local "overn#ent o$$icials in contrast to the o+er o$ control "iven to hi# over e9ecutive o$$icials o$ our "overn#ent +herein it +as e# hasi!e& that the t+o ter#s% control an& su ervision% are t+o &i$$erent thin"s +hich &i$$er one $ro# the other in #eanin" an& e9tent. DIn a&#inistration la+ su ervision #eans overseein" or the o+er or authorit- o$ an o$$icer to see that su,or&inate o$$icers er$or# their &uties. I$ the latter $ail or ne"lect to $ul$ill the# the $or#er #a- ta3e such action or ste as rescri,e& ,- la+ to #a3e the# er$or# their &uties. Control% on the other han&% #eans the o+er o$ an o$$icer to alter or #o&i$- or nulli$- o$ set asi&e +hat a su,or&inate o$$icer ha& &one in the er$or#ance o$ his &uties an& to su,stitute the Cu&"#ent o$ the $or#er $or that o$ the latter.F .ut $ro# this ronounce#ent it cannot ,e reasona,l- in$erre& that the o+er o$

su ervision o$ the Presi&ent over local "overn#ent o$$icials &oes not inclu&e the o+er o$ investi"ation +hen in his o inion the "oo& o$ the u,lic service so reEuires. The Secretar- o$ ?ocal Govern#ent% as the alter e"o o$ the resi&ent% in sus en&in" Gan!on is e9ercisin" a vali& o+er. He ho+ever overste e& ,- i# osin" a 6(( &a- sus ension.

'5. In. re: Buer- o$ Mr. Ro"er Prioreschi A# no. (4)6)4 SC

FACTS:

In his letter &ate& Ma- 22% 2((4 a&&resse& to the Chie$ Gustice% Mr. Ro"er C. Prioreschi% a&#inistrator o$ the Goo& She her& Foun&ation% Inc.% Euestione& 7CA Circular Ao. 02)2((5 an& Rule 101 o$ the Rules o$ Court o$ the Phili ines that reserve the rivile"e o$ e9e# tion $ro# &oc3et an& $ilin" $ees to Din&i"ent ersonsF. He Euestione& +h- the rules e9clu&e& $oun&ations or associations that +or3 +ith an& $or the #ost In&i"ent ersons% as in the case o$ the Goo& She her& Foun&ation% Inc. +hich ha& ,een reachin" out since 1415 Dto the oorest a#on" the oor% the ne+l- ,orn an& a,an&one& ,a,ies% chil&ren +ho never sa+ the s#ile o$ their #other% ol& eo le +ho cannot a$$or& a $e+ esos to a- $or co##on rescri tions% ,ro3en $a#ilies +ho returne& to a nor#al li$eF% +ho# the Phili ine Govern#ent an& the Fili ino societ- coul& not reach to or ha& reCecte& or a,an&one&. To ans+er the Euer- o$ Mr. Prioreschi% the Su re#e Court hel& that it coul& not "rant to $oun&ations li3e the Goo& She her& Foun&ation% Inc. the sa#e e9e# tion $ro# a-#ent o$ le"al $ees "rante& to in&i"ent liti"ants even i$ the $oun&ations are +or3in" $or in&i"ent an& un&er rivile"e& eo le. The ,asis $or the e9e# tion $ro# le"al an& $ilin" $ees is the $ree access clause% e#,o&ie& in Sec. 11% Art. III o$ the 1415 Constitution% +hich rovi&es that D$ree access to the courts an& Euasi Cu&icial ,o&ies an& a&eEuate le"al assistance shall not ,e &enie& to anerson ,- reason o$ overt-F. In i# le#entation o$ the ri"ht o$ $ree access un&er the Constitution% the Su re#e Court ro#ul"ate& rules% s eci$icall-% Sec. 21% Rule '% Rules o$ Court% an& Sec. 14% Rule 101% Rules o$ Court% +hich res ectivel- state thus: ec. !". #ndigent party. $ % party may &e authori'ed to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an e( parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and availa&le for food, shelter and &asic necessities for himself and his family.

uch authority shall include an e(emption from payment of doc)et and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to &e furnished him. The amount of the doc)et and other lawful fees which the indigent was e(empted from paying shall &e a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favora&le to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.

%ny adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time &efore judgment is rendered &y the trial court. #f the court should determine after hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the proper doc)et and other lawful fees shall &e assessed and collected &y the cler) of court. #f payment is not made within the time fi(ed &y the court, e(ecution shall issue for the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.* ec. "+. #ndigent litigants e(empt from payment of legal fees. , #ndigent litigants -a. whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not e(ceed an amount dou&le the monthly minimum wage of an employee and -&. who do not own real property with a fair mar)et value as stated in the current ta( declaration of more than three hundred thousand -P/00, 000.00. pesos shall &e e(empt from payment of legal fees. The legal fees shall &e a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favora&le to the indigent litigant unless the court otherwise provides. To &e entitled to the e(emption herein provided, the litigant shall e(ecute an affidavit that he and his immediate family do not earn a gross income a&ovementioned, and they do not own any real property with the fair value aforementioned, supported &y an affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the truth of the litigant1s affidavit. The current ta( declaration, if any, shall &e attached to the litigant1s affidavit. %ny falsity in the affidavit of litigant or disinterested person shall &e sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint or action or to stri)e out the pleading of that party, without prejudice to whatever criminal lia&ility may have &een incurred.*

234#567 The Court hel& that the clear intent an& recise lan"ua"e o$ the a$oreEuote& rovisions o$ the Rules o$ Court in&icate& that onl- a natural art- liti"ant #a- ,e re"ar&e& as an in&i"ent liti"ant. The Goo& She her& Foun&ation% Inc.% ,ein" a cor oration investe& ,- the State +ith a Curi&ical ersonalit- se arate an& &istinct $ro# that o$ its #e#,ers% is a Curi&ical erson. A#on" others% it

has the o+er to acEuire an& ossess ro ert- o$ all 3in&s as +ell as incur o,li"ations an& ,rin" civil or cri#inal actions% in con$or#it- +ith the la+s an& re"ulations o$ their or"ani!ation. As a Curi&ical erson% it cannot ,e accor&e& the e9e# tion $ro# le"al an& $ilin" $ees "rante& to in&i"ent liti"ants. The Court state& that the $ree access clause o$ the Constitution a lies onl- to a natural erson +ho su$$ers $ro# overt-. It a&&e& that e9ten&in" the e9e# tion to a Curi&ical erson on the "roun& that it +or3s $or in&i"ent an& un&er rivile"e& eo le #a- ,e rone to a,use 8even +ith the i# osition o$ ri"i& &ocu#entation reEuire#ents:% articularl- ,- cor orations an& entities ,ent on circu#ventin" the rule on a-#ent o$ the $ees an& that the scrutin- o$ co# liance +ith the &ocu#entation reEuire#ents #a- rove too ti#e)consu#in" an& +aste$ul $or the courts.

'1. Ho +ai Pan" v. eo le o$ the Phil. GR 156224

'4. Peo le v. #aca# GR nos. 41(11)12

Facts: Accuse& +as char"e& an& rosecute& $or ro,,er- +ith ho#ici&e as "uilt- ,e-on& reasona,le &ou,t. @e$ense assails the court &ecision conten&in" the constitutional ri"hts o$ the accuse& +ere violate& $or su,Cectin" the# to a olice line u at the hos ital +here the- +ere i&enti$ie& ,- the victi#s +ithout the resence o$ their counsel an& +ithout an- +arrant. Issue? >hether or not the constitutional ri"hts o$ the accuse& +ere violate&. Hel&: Althou"h the accuse& +ere arreste& +ithout a +arrant such &e$ect +as cure& &urin" the rocee&in" +hen the &e$ense $aile& to o,Cect on the issue &urin" the initial rocee&in"s ,e$ore the court. Havin" $aile& to assail the issue ,e$orehan& the accuse& is esto e& to assail the vali&it- o$ their arrest as the- $urther voluntaril- su,#itte& their sel$ ,e$ore the court ,- enterin" the lea o$ not "uilt- instea& o$ #ovin" to Euash the in$or#ation ,e$ore the court on "roun& o$ an invali& arrest. It is also hel& that an- i&enti$ication o$ an uncounsele& accuse& #a&e in a olice line)u is ina&#issi,le. H7><M<R% the rosecution &i& not resent evi&ence re"ar&in" a ellant/s i&enti$ication at the line)u . The +itnesses i&enti$ie& the accuse& a"ain in o en court. Also% accuse& &i& not o,Cect to the in)court i&enti$ication as ,ein" tainte& ,- ille"al line)u . The +itnesses an& victi#s ositivel- i&enti$ie& the accuse& there,- $urther a$$ir#in" the "uilt o$ the accuse& ,e-on& reasona,le &ou,t. SC a$$ir#e& the &ecision o$ the lo+er court. 0(. Peo le v. Cu&"e A-son GR 15215

Facts: Feli e Ra#os +as a tic3et $rei"ht cler3 o$ the Phili ine Airlines an& +as alle"e&linvolve& in irre"ularities in the sales o$ lane tic3ets. The PA? #ana"e#ent noti$ie& hi# o$ an investi"ation to ,e con&ucte&. That investi"ation +as sche&ule& in accor&ance +ith PA?Rs Co&e o$ Con&uct an& @isci line% an& the Collective .ar"ainin" A"ree#ent si"ne& ,- it +ith the Phili ine Airlines <# lo-eesR Association 8PA?<A: to +hich Ra#os ertaine&. A letter +as sent ,- Ra#os statin" his +illin"ness to settle the a#ount o$ P56%(((. The $in&in"s o$ the Au&it tea# +ere "iven to hi#% an& he re$ute& that he #isuse& rocee&s o$ tic3ets also statin" that he +as revente& $ro# settlin" sai& a#ounts. He ro$$ere& a co# ro#ise ho+ever this &i& not ensue. T+o #onths a$ter a cri#e o$ esta$a +as char"e& a"ainst Ra#os. Ra#os lea&e& not "uilt-. <vi&ence ,- the rosecution containe& Ra#os/ +ritten a&#ission an& state#ent% to +hich &e$en&ants ar"ue& that the con$ession +as ta3en +ithout the accuse& ,ein" re resente& ,- a la+-er. Res on&ent Gu&"e &i& not a&#it those statin" that accuse& +as not re#in&e& o$ his constitutional ri"hts to re#ain silent an& to have counsel. A #otion $or reconsi&eration $ile& ,the rosecutors +as &enie&. Hence this a eal. Issue: >hether or Aot the res on&ent Gu&"e correct in #a3in" ina&#issi,le as evi&ence the a&#ission an& state#ent o$ accuse&. Hel&: Ao. The Cu&"e shoul& a&#it the evi&ence in court as the accuse& +as not un&er custo&ial investi"ation +hen his state#ents +ere ta3en. 7ne cannot invo3e violation o$ the ri"ht to counsel in a&#inistrative rocee&in". The ri"ht to sel$ incri#ination an& custo&ial investi"ation are accor&e& onl- +hen the accuse& is su,Cecte& to custo&ial inEuest +hich involves the Euestionin" initiate& ,- olice authorities a$ter a erson is ta3en in custo&- or &e rive& o$ his $ree&o# in an+a-. .ecause the state#ents +ere o,taine& ,e-on& the urvie+ o$ custo&ial investi"ation the evi&ence shoul& ,e a&#itte& in court. 01. Peo le v. An&an GR 1160'5 02. .asco v. Ra atalo A&# Matter Ao RTG)46)1''5 0'. .a-lon v. Gu&"e Sison A&# #atter Ao. 42)5)'6()( 00. Govern#ent o$ the =S v. Cu&"e Puru"an GR 101551 05. Govern#ent o$ Hon" Kon" v. Hon. 7lalia GR 15'655 06. Alonte M. Savellano Gr. 1'1652 05. MarEue9! v. C7M<?<C GR 112114 01. Fee&er International ?ine v. CA GR 40262 04. Peo le v. A",a-ani GR 12255( 5(. A#ion v. Gu&"e Chion"son AM RTG)45)1'51

51. Peo le v. Buiton" GR 121562 52. Pecho v. Peo le GR 111'44 5'. Soriano v. San&i"an,a-an GR ?)65452 50. Peo le v. Tee GR nos. 10(506)05 55. Flores v. eo le GR l)25564 56. Peo le v. Teehan3ee Gr. GR 112(6)(1 55. In Re: ReEuest $or ?ive Ra&io an& TM covera"e o$ the Trial in the San&i"an,a-an o$ the Plun&er case o$ Gose h <stra&a AM Ao (()1)0)(' SC 51. Re: Petitoion $or Ra&io an& Television covera"e o$ the Multi le Mur&er cases a"ainst Wal&A# atuan AM Ao 1()11)5 54. Peo le v. Ma alao GR 42015 6(. Peo le v. Maleriano GR 1('6(0)(5 61. Roco v. Contreras GR 151255 62. ?ansan$ v. Garcia GR ?)''460 6'. Gac3son M. Macalino GR 1'4255 60. In re: The Issuance o$ >rit o$ Ha,eas Cor us $or @r. Paron" vs. Ponce <nrile GR ?)61'11 65. Peo le v. Gallar&o GR 1''(25 66. Peo le v. <s aras GR 12(('0 65. <cha"ara- v. Sec. o$ Gustice GR 1'26(1 61. PS. v. .er#o- GR 151412 64. ?eCano v. eo le o$ the Phil GR 156'14 5(. Peo le v. Ta# al GR 1(2015 51. Melo v. eo le GR ?)'51( 52. Peo le v. A&il GR ?)0116' 5'. Peo le v. Relova GR ?)05124 50. Tecson v. Co#elec Gr 1610'0

55. Re u,lic v. ?i# GR 15'11' 56. Ca,ilin" v. Fernan&e! GR 11'1'' 55. M& Ja ?i# Jao v. co#. 7$ I##i"ration GR ?)21214