Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 153675 April 19, 2007
GOVERNMENT OF HONG ONG SPEC!A" A#M!N!STRAT!VE
REG!ON, r$pr$%$&'$( )* '+$ P+ilippi&$ #$p,r'-$&' o. /0%'i1$,
Petitioner,
vs.
HON. FE"!23ERTO T. O"A"!A, /R. ,&( /UAN ANTON!O MU4O5,
Respondents.
D E C I S I N
SAN#OVA"6GUT!ERRE5, J.:
!or our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule "#
of the $%%& Rules of Civil Procedure, as a'ended, see(in) to nullif*
the t+o rders of the Re)ional ,rial Court -R,C., Branch /, Manila
-presided b* respondent 0ud)e !eli1berto ,. lalia, 0r.. issued in
Civil Case No. %%2%#&&3. ,hese are4 -$. the rder dated Dece'ber
56, 566$ allo+in) 0uan Antonio Mu7o8, private respondent, to post
bail9 and -5. the rder dated April $6, 5665 den*in) the 'otion to
vacate the said rder of Dece'ber 56, 566$ filed b* the
:overn'ent of ;on) <on) Special Ad'inistrative Re)ion,
represented b* the Philippine Depart'ent of 0ustice -D0.,
petitioner. ,he petition alle)es that both rders +ere issued b*
respondent =ud)e +ith )rave abuse of discretion a'ountin) to lac( or
e1cess of =urisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution
)rantin) bail to a potential e1traditee.
,he facts are4
n 0anuar* 36, $%%#, the Republic of the Philippines and the then
British Cro+n Colon* of ;on) <on) si)ned an >A)ree'ent for the
Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons.> It too( effect on 0une
56, $%%&.
n 0ul* $, $%%&, ;on) <on) reverted bac( to the People?s Republic
of China and beca'e the ;on) <on) Special Ad'inistrative Re)ion.
Private respondent Mu7o8 +as char)ed before the ;on) <on) Court
+ith three -3. counts of the offense of >acceptin) an advanta)e as
a)ent,> in violation of Section % -$. -a. of the Prevention of Briber*
rdinance, Cap. 56$ of ;on) <on). ;e also faces seven -&. counts
of the offense of conspirac* to defraud, penali8ed b* the co''on
la+ of ;on) <on). n Au)ust 53, $%%& and ctober 5#, $%%%,
+arrants of arrest +ere issued a)ainst hi'. If convicted, he faces a
=ail ter' of seven -&. to fourteen -$@. *ears for each char)e.
n Septe'ber $3, $%%%, the D0 received fro' the ;on) <on)
Depart'ent of 0ustice a reAuest for the provisional arrest of private
respondent. ,he D0 then for+arded the reAuest to the National
Bureau of Investi)ation -NBI. +hich, in turn, filed +ith the R,C of
Manila, Branch $% an application for the provisional arrest of private
respondent.
n Septe'ber 53, $%%%, the R,C, Branch $%, Manila issued an
rder of Arrest a)ainst private respondent. ,hat sa'e da*, the NBI
a)ents arrested and detained hi'.
n ctober $@, $%%%, private respondent filed +ith the Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus +ith
application for preli'inar* 'andator* in=unction andBor +rit of
habeas corpus Auestionin) the validit* of the rder of Arrest.
n Nove'ber %, $%%%, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision
declarin) the rder of Arrest void.
n Nove'ber $5, $%%%, the D0 filed +ith this Court a petition for
revie+ on certiorari, doc(eted as :.R. No. $@6#56, pra*in) that the
Decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed.
1
n Dece'ber $/, 5666, this Court rendered a Decision )rantin) the
petition of the D0 and sustainin) the validit* of the rder of Arrest
a)ainst private respondent. ,he Decision beca'e final and
e1ecutor* on April $6, 566$.
Mean+hile, as earl* as Nove'ber 55, $%%%, petitioner ;on) <on)
Special Ad'inistrative Re)ion filed +ith the R,C of Manila a petition
for the e1tradition of private respondent, doc(eted as Civil Case No.
%%2%#&33, raffled off to Branch $6, presided b* 0ud)e Ricardo
Bernardo, 0r. !or his part, private respondent filed, i& '+$ %,-$
1,%$,2 , p$'i'io& .or ),il +hich +as opposed b* petitioner.
After hearin), or on ctober /, 566$, 0ud)e Bernardo, 0r. issued an
rder den*in) the petition for bail, holdin) that there is no Philippine
la+ )rantin) bail in e1tradition cases and that private respondent is a
hi)h >fli)ht ris(.>
n ctober 55, 566$, 0ud)e Bernardo, 0r. inhibited hi'self fro'
further hearin) Civil Case No. %%2%#&33. It +as then raffled off to
Branch / presided b* respondent =ud)e.
n ctober 36, 566$, private respondent filed a 'otion for
reconsideration of the rder den*in) his application for bail. ,his +as
)ranted b* respondent =ud)e in an rder dated Dece'ber 56, 566$
allo+in) private respondent to post bail, thus4
In conclusion, this Court +ill not contribute to accused?s further
erosion of civil liberties. ,he petition for bail is )ranted sub=ect to the
follo+in) conditions4
$. Bail is set at Php&#6,666.66 in cash +ith the condition that
accused hereb* underta(es that he +ill appear and ans+er
the issues raised in these proceedin)s and +ill at all ti'es
hold hi'self a'enable to orders and processes of this Court,
+ill further appear for =ud)'ent. If accused fails in this
underta(in), the cash bond +ill be forfeited in favor of the
)overn'ent9
5. Accused 'ust surrender his valid passport to this Court9
3. ,he Depart'ent of 0ustice is )iven i''ediate notice and
discretion of filin) its o+n 'otion for hold departure order
before this Court even in e1tradition proceedin)9 and
@. Accused is reAuired to report to the )overn'ent
prosecutors handlin) this case or if the* so desire to the
nearest office, at an* ti'e and da* of the +ee(9 and if the*
further desire, 'anifest before this Court to reAuire that all
the assets of accused, real and personal, be filed +ith this
Court soonest, +ith the condition that if the accused flees
fro' his underta(in), said assets be forfeited in favor of the
)overn'ent and that the correspondin) lienBannotation be
noted therein accordin)l*.
S RDERED.
n Dece'ber 5$, 566$, petitioner filed an ur)ent 'otion to vacate
the above rder, but it +as denied b* respondent =ud)e in his rder
dated April $6, 5665.
;ence, the instant petition. Petitioner alle)ed that the trial court
co''itted )rave abuse of discretion a'ountin) to lac( or e1cess of
=urisdiction in ad'ittin) private respondent to bail9 that there is
nothin) in the Constitution or statutor* la+ providin) that a potential
e1traditee has a ri)ht to bail, the ri)ht bein) li'ited solel* to cri'inal
proceedin)s.
In his co''ent on the petition, private respondent 'aintained that
the ri)ht to bail )uaranteed under the Bill of Ri)hts e1tends to a
prospective e1traditee9 and that e1tradition is a harsh process
resultin) in a prolon)ed deprivation of one?s libert*.
Section $3, Article III of the Constitution provides that the ri)ht to bail
shall not be i'paired, thus4
Sec. $3. All persons, e1cept those char)ed +ith offenses punishable
b* reclusion perpetua +hen evidence of )uilt is stron), shall, before
conviction, be bailable b* sufficient sureties, or be released on
reco)ni8ance as 'a* be provided b* la+. ,he ri)ht to bail shall not
2
be i'paired even +hen the privile)e of the +rit of habeas corpus is
suspended. E1cessive bail shall not be reAuired.
0urisprudence on e1tradition is but in its infanc* in this =urisdiction.
Nonetheless, this is not the first ti'e that this Court has an occasion
to resolve the Auestion of +hether a prospective e1traditee 'a* be
)ranted bail.
In Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G.
Purganan, Presiding Judge, RT of !anila, "ranch #$, and !ar% ".
Jimene&, a.%.a. !ario "atacan respo,
$
this Court, spea(in) throu)h
then Associate 0ustice Arte'io C. Pan)aniban, later Chief 0ustice,
held that the constitutional provision on bail does not appl* to
e1tradition proceedin)s. It is >available onl* in cri'inal proceedin)s,>
thus4
1 1 1. As su))ested b* the use of the +ord >conviction,> the
constitutional provision on bail Auoted above, as +ell as Section @,
Rule $$@ of the Rules of Court, applies onl* +hen a person has been
arrested and detained for violation of Philippine cri'inal la+s. It does
not appl* to e1tradition proceedin)s because e1tradition courts do
not render =ud)'ents of conviction or acAuittal.
Moreover, the constitutional ri)ht to bail >flo+s fro' the presu'ption
of innocence in favor of ever* accused +ho should not be sub=ected
to the loss of freedo' as thereafter he +ould be entitled to acAuittal,
unless his )uilt be proved be*ond reasonable doubt> -'e la amara
v. (nage, @$ SCRA $, ", Septe'ber $&, $%&$, per !ernando, J., later
J.. It follo+s that the constitutional provision on bail +ill not appl* to
a case li(e e1tradition, +here the presu'ption of innocence is not at
issue.
,he provision in the Constitution statin) that the >ri)ht to bail shall
not be i'paired even +hen the privile)e of the +rit of habeas corpus
is suspended> does not detract fro' the rule that the constitutional
ri)ht to bail is available onl* in cri'inal proceedin)s. It 'ust be noted
that the suspension of the privile)e of the +rit of habeas corpus finds
application >onl* to persons =udiciall* char)ed for rebellion or
offenses inherent in or directl* connected +ith invasion> -Sec. $/,
Art. CIII, Constitution.. ;ence, the second sentence in the
constitutional provision on bail 'erel* e'phasi8es the ri)ht to bail in
cri'inal proceedin)s for the afore'entioned offenses. It cannot be
ta(en to 'ean that the ri)ht is available even in e1tradition
proceedin)s that are not cri'inal in nature.
At first )lance, the above rulin) applies sAuarel* to private
respondent?s case. ;o+ever, this Court cannot i)nore the follo+in)
trends in international la+4 -$. the )ro+in) i'portance of the
individual person in public international la+ +ho, in the 56th centur*,
has )raduall* attained )lobal reco)nition9 -5. the hi)her value no+
bein) )iven to hu'an ri)hts in the international sphere9 -3. the
correspondin) dut* of countries to observe these universal hu'an
ri)hts in fulfillin) their treat* obli)ations9 and -@. the dut* of this Court
to balance the ri)hts of the individual under our funda'ental la+, on
one hand, and the la+ on e1tradition, on the other.
T+$ -o($r& 'r$&( i& p0)li1 i&'$r&,'io&,l l,7 i% '+$ pri-,1*
pl,1$( o& '+$ 7or'+ o. '+$ i&(i8i(0,l p$r%o& ,&( '+$ %,&1'i'* o.
+0-,& ri9+'%. Slo+l*, the reco)nition that the individual person 'a*
properl* be a sub=ect of international la+ is no+ ta(in) root. ,he
vulnerable doctrine that the sub=ects of international la+ are li'ited
onl* to states +as dra'aticall* eroded to+ards the second half of the
past centur*. !or one, the Nure'ber) and ,o(*o trials after Dorld
Dar II resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of individual
defendants for acts characteri8ed as violations of the la+s of +ar,
cri'es a)ainst peace, and cri'es a)ainst hu'anit*. Recentl*, under
the Nure'ber) principle, Serbian leaders have been persecuted for
+ar cri'es and cri'es a)ainst hu'anit* co''itted in the for'er
Eu)oslavia. ,hese si)nificant events sho+ that the individual person
is no+ a valid sub=ect of international la+.
n a 'ore positive note, also after Dorld Dar II, both international
or)ani8ations and states )ave reco)nition and i'portance to hu'an
ri)hts. ,hus, on Dece'ber $6, $%@/, the Fnited Nations :eneral
Asse'bl* adopted the Fniversal Declaration of ;u'an Ri)hts in
+hich the ri)ht to life, libert* and all the other funda'ental ri)hts of
ever* person +ere proclai'ed. Dhile not a treat*, '+$ pri&1ipl$%
1o&',i&$( i& '+$ %,i( #$1l,r,'io& ,r$ &o7 r$1o9&i:$( ,%
10%'o-,ril* )i&(i&9 0po& '+$ -$-)$r% o. '+$ i&'$r&,'io&,l
3
1o--0&i'*. ,hus, in !e)off v. 'irector of Prisons,
5
'+i% Co0r', i&
9r,&'i&9 ),il 'o , pro%p$1'i8$ ($por'$$, +$l( '+,' 0&($r '+$
Co&%'i'0'io&,
3
the principles set forth in that Declaration are part of
the la+ of the land. In $%"", the FN :eneral Asse'bl* also adopted
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Ri)hts +hich the
Philippines si)ned and ratified. !unda'ental a'on) the ri)hts
enshrined therein are the ri)hts of ever* person to life, libert*, and
due process.
,he Philippines, alon) +ith the other 'e'bers of the fa'il* of
nations, co''itted to uphold the funda'ental hu'an ri)hts as +ell
as value the +orth and di)nit* of ever* person. ,his co''it'ent is
enshrined in Section II, Article II of our Constitution +hich provides4
>,he State values the di)nit* of ever* hu'an person and )uarantees
full respect for hu'an ri)hts.> ,he Philippines, therefore, has the
responsibilit* of protectin) and pro'otin) the ri)ht of ever* person to
libert* and due process, ensurin) that those detained or arrested can
participate in the proceedin)s before a court, to enable it to decide
+ithout dela* on the le)alit* of the detention and order their release if
=ustified. In other +ords, the Philippine authorities are under
obli)ation to 'a(e available to ever* person under detention such
re'edies +hich safe)uard their funda'ental ri)ht to libert*. ,hese
re'edies include the ri)ht to be ad'itted to bail. Dhile this Court in
Purganan li'ited the e1ercise of the ri)ht to bail to cri'inal
proceedin)s, ho+ever, in li)ht of the various international treaties
)ivin) reco)nition and protection to hu'an ri)hts, particularl* the
ri)ht to life and libert*, a ree1a'ination of this Court?s rulin) in
Purganan is in order.
*irst, +e note that the e1ercise of the State?s po+er to
deprive an individual of his libert* is not necessaril* li'ited to
cri'inal proceedin)s. Respondents in ad'inistrative
proceedin)s, such as deportation and Auarantine,
@
have
li(e+ise been detained.
Second, to li'it bail to cri'inal proceedin)s +ould be to
close our e*es to our =urisprudential histor*. Philippine
=urisprudence has not li'ited the e1ercise of the ri)ht to bail
to cri'inal proceedin)s onl*. ,his Court has ad'itted to bail
persons +ho are not involved in cri'inal proceedin)s. In
fact, bail has been allo+ed in this =urisdiction to persons in
detention durin) the pendenc* of ad'inistrative
proceedin)s, ta(in) into co)ni8ance the obli)ation of the
Philippines under international conventions to uphold hu'an
ri)hts.
,he $%6% case of US v. Go+Sioco
#
is illustrative. In this case, a
Chinese facin) deportation for failure to secure the necessar*
certificate of re)istration +as )ranted bail pendin) his appeal. After
notin) that the prospective deportee had co''itted no cri'e, the
Court opined that >,o refuse hi' bail is to treat hi' as a person +ho
has co''itted the 'ost serious cri'e (no+n to la+9> and that +hile
deportation is not a cri'inal proceedin), so'e of the 'achiner* used
>is the 'achiner* of cri'inal la+.> ,hus, the provisions relatin) to bail
+as applied to deportation proceedin)s.
In !e)off v. 'irector of Prisons
"
and hirs%off v. ommission of
,mmigration,
&
this Court ruled that forei)n nationals a)ainst +ho' no
for'al cri'inal char)es have been filed 'a* be released on bail
pendin) the finalit* of an order of deportation. As previousl* stated,
the Court in !e)off relied upon the Fniversal declaration of ;u'an
Ri)hts in sustainin) the detainee?s ri)ht to bail.
If bail can be )ranted in deportation cases, +e see no =ustification
+h* it should not also be allo+ed in e1tradition cases. Gi(e+ise,
considerin) that the Fniversal Declaration of ;u'an Ri)hts applies
to deportation cases, there is no reason +h* it cannot be invo(ed in
e1tradition cases. After all, both are ad'inistrative proceedin)s
+here the innocence or )uilt of the person detained is not in issue.
Clearl*, the ri)ht of a prospective e1traditee to appl* for bail in this
=urisdiction 'ust be vie+ed in the li)ht of the various treat*
obli)ations of the Philippines concernin) respect for the pro'otion
and protection of hu'an ri)hts. Fnder these treaties, the
presu'ption lies in favor of hu'an libert*. ,hus, the Philippines
should see to it that the ri)ht to libert* of ever* individual is not
i'paired.
4
Section 5-a. of Presidential Decree -P.D.. No. $6"% -,he Philippine
E1tradition Ga+. defines >e1tradition> as >the re'oval of an accused
fro' the Philippines +ith the ob=ect of placin) hi' at the disposal of
forei)n authorities to enable the reAuestin) state or )overn'ent to
hold hi' in connection +ith an* cri'inal investi)ation directed
a)ainst hi' or the e1ecution of a penalt* i'posed on hi' under the
penal or cri'inal la+ of the reAuestin) state or )overn'ent.>
E1tradition has thus been characteri8ed as the ri)ht of a forei)n
po+er, created b* treat*, to de'and the surrender of one accused or
convicted of a cri'e +ithin its territorial =urisdiction, and the
correlative dut* of the other state to surrender hi' to the de'andin)
state.
/
It is not a cri'inal proceedin).
%
Even if the potential e1traditee
is a cri'inal, an e1tradition proceedin) is not b* its nature cri'inal,
for it is not punish'ent for a cri'e, even thou)h such punish'ent
'a* follo+ e1tradition.
$6
It is sui generis, tracin) its e1istence +holl*
to treat* obli)ations bet+een different nations.
$$
!' i% &o' , 'ri,l 'o
($'$r-i&$ '+$ 90il' or i&&o1$&1$ o. '+$ po'$&'i,l $;'r,(i'$$.
$5

Nor is it a full2blo+n civil action, but one that is 'erel* ad'inistrative
i& 1+,r,1'$r.
$3
Its ob=ect is to prevent the escape of a person
accused or convicted of a cri'e and to secure his return to the state
fro' +hich he fled, for the purpose of trial or punish'ent.
$@

But +hile e1tradition is not a cri'inal proceedin), it is characteri8ed
b* the follo+in)4 -a. it entails a deprivation of libert* on the part of the
potential e1traditee and -b. '+$ -$,&% $-plo*$( 'o ,'',i& '+$
p0rpo%$ o. $;'r,(i'io& i% ,l%o <'+$ -,1+i&$r* o. 1ri-i&,l l,7.<
,his is sho+n b* Section " of P.D. No. $6"% -,he Philippine
E1tradition Ga+. +hich 'andates the >i--$(i,'$ ,rr$%' ,&(
'$-por,r* ($'$&'io& o. '+$ ,110%$(> if such >+ill best serve the
interest of =ustice.> De further note that Section 56 allo+s the
reAuestin) state >in case of ur)enc*> to as( for the >pro8i%io&,l
,rr$%' o. '+$ ,110%$(, p$&(i&9 r$1$ip' o. '+$ r$=0$%' .or
$;'r,(i'io&>> and that release fro' provisional arrest >shall not
pre=udice re2arrest and e1tradition of the accused if a reAuest for
e1tradition is received subseAuentl*.>
bviousl*, an e1tradition proceedin), +hile ostensibl* ad'inistrative,
bears all ear'ar(s of a cri'inal process. A po'$&'i,l $;'r,(i'$$
-,* )$ %0)?$1'$( 'o ,rr$%', 'o , prolo&9$( r$%'r,i&' o. li)$r'*,
,&( .or1$( 'o 'r,&%.$r 'o '+$ ($-,&(i&9 %','$ .ollo7i&9 '+$
pro1$$(i&9%. >,e'porar* detention> 'a* be a necessar* step in the
process of e1tradition, but the len)th of ti'e of the detention should
be reasonable.
Records sho+ that private respondent +as arrested on Septe'ber
53, $%%%, and re'ained incarcerated until Dece'ber 56, 566$, +hen
the trial court ordered his ad'ission to bail. !& o'+$r 7or(%, +$ +,(
)$$& ($',i&$( .or o8$r '7o @2A *$,r% 7i'+o0' +,8i&9 )$$&
1o&8i1'$( o. ,&* 1ri-$. B* an* standard, such an e1tended period
of detention is a serious deprivation of his funda'ental ri)ht to
libert*. In fact, it +as this prolon)ed deprivation of libert* +hich
pro'pted the e1tradition court to )rant hi' bail.
Dhile our e1tradition la+ does not provide for the )rant of bail to an
e1traditee, ho+ever, there is no provision prohibitin) hi' or her fro'
filin) a 'otion for bail, a ri)ht to due process under the Constitution.
,he applicable standard of due process, ho+ever, should not be the
sa'e as that in cri'inal proceedin)s. In the latter, the standard of
due process is pre'ised on the presu'ption of innocence of the
accused. As Purganan correctl* points out, it is fro' this 'a=or
pre'ise that the ancillar* presu'ption in favor of ad'ittin) to bail
arises. Bearin) in 'ind the purpose of e1tradition proceedin)s, the
pre'ise behind the issuance of the arrest +arrant and the
>te'porar* detention> is the possibilit* of fli)ht of the potential
e1traditee. ,his is based on the assu'ption that such e1traditee is a
fu)itive fro' =ustice.
$#
:iven the fore)oin), the prospective e1traditee
thus bears the onus probandi of sho+in) that he or she is not a fli)ht
ris( and should be )ranted bail.
,he ti'e2honored principle of pacta sunt servanda de'ands that the
Philippines honor its obli)ations under the E1tradition ,reat* it
entered into +ith the ;on) <on) Special Ad'inistrative Re)ion.
!ailure to co'pl* +ith these obli)ations is a setbac( in our forei)n
relations and defeats the purpose of e1tradition. ;o+ever, it does not
necessaril* 'ean that in (eepin) +ith its treat* obli)ations, the
Philippines should di'inish a potential e1traditee?s ri)hts to life,
libert*, and due process. More so, +here these ri)hts are
5
)uaranteed, not onl* b* our Constitution, but also b* international
conventions, to +hich the Philippines is a part*. De should not,
therefore, deprive an e1traditee of his ri)ht to appl* for bail, provided
that a certain standard for the )rant is satisfactoril* 'et.
An e1tradition proceedin) bein) sui generis, the standard of proof
reAuired in )rantin) or den*in) bail can neither be the proof be*ond
reasonable doubt in cri'inal cases nor the standard of proof of
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. Dhile ad'inistrative in
character, the standard of substantial evidence used in
ad'inistrative cases cannot li(e+ise appl* )iven the ob=ect of
e1tradition la+ +hich is to prevent the prospective e1traditee fro'
fleein) our =urisdiction. In his Separate pinion in Purganan, then
Associate 0ustice, no+ Chief 0ustice Re*nato S. Puno, proposed
that a ne+ standard +hich he ter'ed >1l$,r ,&( 1o&8i&1i&9
$8i($&1$> %+o0l( )$ 0%$( i& 9r,&'i&9 ),il i& $;'r,(i'io& 1,%$%.
Accordin) to hi', this standard should be lo+er than proof be*ond
reasonable doubt but hi)her than preponderance of evidence. ,he
potential e1traditee 'ust prove b* >clear and convincin) evidence>
that he is not a fli)ht ris( and +ill abide +ith all the orders and
processes of the e1tradition court.
In this case, there is no sho+in) that private respondent presented
evidence to sho+ that he is not a .li9+' ri%B. ConseAuentl*, this case
should be re'anded to the trial court to deter'ine +hether private
respondent 'a* be )ranted bail on the basis of >clear and convincin)
evidence.>
CHEREFORE, +e #!SM!SS the petition. ,his case is REMAN#E#
to the trial court to deter'ine +hether private respondent is entitled
to bail on the basis of >clear and convincin) evidence.> If not, the trial
court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his
i''ediate detention9 and thereafter, conduct the e1tradition
proceedin)s +ith dispatch.
6
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. "62662 M,r1+ 26, 19D9
SH!GENOR! URO#A, petitioner,
vs.
M,?or G$&$r,l RAFAE" /A"AN#ON!, 3ri9,(i$r G$&$r,l
CA"!2TO #UEUE, Colo&$l MARGAR!TO TORA"3A, Colo&$l
!RENEO 3UENCONSE/O, Colo&$l PE#RO TA3UENA, M,?or
FE#ER!CO ARANAS, ME"V!""E S. HUSSEF ,&( RO3ERT PORT,
respondents.
Pedro Serran, Jose G. -u%ban, and -iberato ". inco for petitioner.
*red Rui& astro *ederico Arenas !ariano .engco, Jr., Ricardo A.
Arcilla and S. !elville Husse/ for respondents.
MORAN, C.J.G
Shi)enori <uroda, for'erl* a Gieutenant2:eneral of the 0apanese
I'perial Ar'* and Co''andin) :eneral of the 0apanese I'perial
!orces in ,he Philippines durin) a period coverin) $%@33 and $%@@@
+ho is no+ char)ed before a 'ilitar* Co''ission convened b* the
Chief of Staff of the Ar'ed forces of the Philippines +ith havin)
unla+full* disre)arded and failed >to dischar)e his duties as such
co''and, per'ittin) the' to co''it brutal atrocities and other hi)h
cri'es a)ainst nonco'batant civilians and prisoners of the I'perial
0apanese !orces in violation of the la+s and custo's of +ar> H
co'es before this Court see(in) to establish the ille)alit* of
E1ecutive rder No. "/ of the President of the Philippines4 to en=oin
and prohibit respondents Melville S. ;usse* and Robert Port fro'
participatin) in the prosecution of petitionerIs case before the Militar*
Co''ission and to per'anentl* prohibit respondents fro'
proceedin) +ith the case of petitioners.
In support of his case petitioner tenders the follo+in) principal
ar)u'ents.
*irst. H >,hat E1ecutive rder No. "/ is ille)al on the )round that it
violates not onl* the provision of our constitutional la+ but also our
local la+s to sa* nothin) of the fact -that. the Philippines is not a
si)nator* nor an adherent to the ;a)ue Convention on Rules and
Re)ulations coverin) Gand Darfare and therefore petitioners is
char)ed of Icri'esI not based on la+, national and international.>
;ence petitioner ar)ues H >,hat in vie+ off the fact that this
co''ission has been e'panelled b* virtue of an unconstitutional
la+ an ille)al order this co''ission is +ithout =urisdiction to tr*
herein petitioner.>
Second. H ,hat the participation in the prosecution of the case
a)ainst petitioner before the Co''ission in behalf of the Fnited
State of A'erica of attorne*s Melville ;usse* and Robert Port +ho
are not attorne*s authori8ed b* the Supre'e Court to practice la+ in
the Philippines is a di'inution of our personalit* as an independent
state and their appoint'ent as prosecutor are a violation of our
Constitution for the reason that the* are not Aualified to practice la+
in the Philippines.
Third. H ,hat Attorne*s ;usse* and Port have no personalit* as
prosecution the Fnited State not bein) a part* in interest in the case.
E1ecutive rder No. "/, establishin) a National Dar Cri'es ffice
prescribin) rule and re)ulation )overnin) the trial of accused +ar
cri'inals, +as issued b* the President of the Philippines on the 5%th
da*s of 0ul*, $%@& ,his Court holds that this order is valid and
constitutional. Article 5 of our Constitution provides in its section 3,
that H
,he Philippines renounces +ar as an instru'ent of national
polic* and adopts the )enerall* accepted principles of
international la+ as part of the of the nation.
In accordance +ith the )enerall* accepted principle of international
la+ of the present da* includin) the ;a)ue Convention the :eneva
7
Convention and si)nificant precedents of international =urisprudence
established b* the Fnited Nation all those person 'ilitar* or civilian
+ho have been )uilt* of plannin) preparin) or +a)in) a +ar of
a))ression and of the co''ission of cri'es and offenses
conseAuential and incidental thereto in violation of the la+s and
custo's of +ar, of hu'anit* and civili8ation are held accountable
therefor. ConseAuentl* in the pro'ul)ation and enforce'ent of
E1ecution rder No. "/ the President of the Philippines has acted in
confor'it* +ith the )enerall* accepted and policies of international
la+ +hich are part of the our Constitution.
,he pro'ul)ation of said e1ecutive order is an e1ercise b* the
President of his po+er as Co''ander in chief of all our ar'ed
forces as upheld b* this Court in the case of Ea'ashita vs. St*er -G2
$5%, @5 ff. :a8., ""@. 1 +hen +e said H
Dar is not ended si'pl* because hostilities have ceased.
After cessation of ar'ed hostilities incident of +ar 'a*
re'ain pendin) +hich should be disposed of as in ti'e of
+ar. An i'portance incident to a conduct of +ar is the
adoption of 'easure b* the 'ilitar* co''and not onl* to
repel and defeat the ene'ies but to sei8e and sub=ect to
disciplinar* 'easure those ene'ies +ho in their atte'pt to
th+art or i'pede our 'ilitar* effort have violated the la+ of
+ar. -(0 parte Juirin 3$& F.S., $9 "3 Sup. Ct., 5.. Indeed the
po+er to create a 'ilitar* co''ission for the trial and
punish'ent of +ar cri'inals is an aspect of +a)in) +ar. And
in the lan)ua)e of a +riter a 'ilitar* co''ission has
=urisdiction so lon) as a technical state of +ar continues.
,his includes the period of an ar'istice or 'ilitar*
occupation up to the effective of a treat* of peace and 'a*
e1tend be*ond b* treat* a)ree'ent. -Co+les Trial of 1ar
Cri'inals b* Militar* ,ribunals, A'erica Bar Association
0ournal 0une, $%@@..
ConseAuentl*, the President as Co''ander in Chief is full*
e'po+ered to consu''ate this unfinished aspect of +ar na'el* the
trial and punish'ent of +ar cri'inal throu)h the issuance and
enforce'ent of E1ecutive rder No. "/.
Petitioner ar)ues that respondent Militar* Co''ission has no
0urisdiction to tr* petitioner for acts co''itted in violation of the
;a)ue Convention and the :eneva Convention because the
Philippines is not a si)nator* to the first and si)ned the second onl*
in $%@&. It cannot be denied that the rules and re)ulation of the
;a)ue and :eneva conventions for', part of and are +holl* based
on the )enerall* accepted principals of international la+. In facts
these rules and principles +ere accepted b* the t+o belli)erent
nation the Fnited State and 0apan +ho +ere si)natories to the t+o
Convention, Such rule and principles therefore for' part of the la+ of
our nation even if the Philippines +as not a si)nator* to the
conventions e'bod*in) the' for our Constitution has been
deliberatel* )eneral and e1tensive in its scope and is not confined to
the reco)nition of rule and principle of international la+ as continued
inn treaties to +hich our )overn'ent 'a* have been or shall be a
si)nator*.
!urther'ore +hen the cri'es char)ed a)ainst petitioner +ere
alle)edl* co''itted the Philippines +as under the soverei)nt* of
Fnited States and thus +e +ere eAuall* bound to)ether +ith the
Fnited States and +ith 0apan to the ri)ht and obli)ation contained in
the treaties bet+een the belli)erent countries. ,hese ri)hts and
obli)ation +ere not erased b* our assu'ption of full soverei)nt*. If at
all our e'er)enc* as a free state entitles us to enforce the ri)ht on
our o+n of tr*in) and punishin) those +ho co''itted cri'es a)ainst
cri'es a)ainst our people. In this connection it is +ell to re'e'ber
+hat +e have said in the case of -aurel vs. !isa -&" Phil., 3&5.4
. . . ,he chan)e of our for' )overn'ent fro'
Co''on+ealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution
of those char)ed +ith the cri'e of treason co''itted durin)
then Co''on+ealth because it is an offense a)ainst the
sa'e soverei)n people. . . .
B* the sa'e to(en +ar cri'es co''itted a)ainst our people and our
)overn'ent +hile +e +ere a Co''on+ealth are triable and
punishable b* our present Republic.
8
Petitioner challen)es the participation of t+o A'erican attorne*s
na'el* Melville S. ;usse* and Robert Port in the prosecution of his
case on the )round that said attorne*Is are not Aualified to practice
la+ in Philippines in accordance +ith our Rules of court and the
appoint'ent of said attorne*s as prosecutors is violative of our
national soverei)nt*.
In the first place respondent Militar* Co''ission is a special 'ilitar*
tribunal )overned b* a special la+ and not b* the Rules of court
+hich )overn ordinar* civil court. It has alread* been sho+n that
E1ecutive rder No. "/ +hich provides for the or)ani8ation of such
'ilitar* co''ission is a valid and constitutional la+. ,here is nothin)
in said e1ecutive order +hich reAuires that counsel appearin) before
said co''ission 'ust be attorne*s Aualified to practice la+ in the
Philippines in accordance +ith the Rules of Court. In facts it is
co''on in 'ilitar* tribunals that counsel for the parties are usuall*
'ilitar* personnel +ho are neither attorne*s nor even possessed of
le)al trainin).
Secondl* the appoint'ent of the t+o A'erican attorne*s is not
violative of our nation soverei)nt*. It is onl* fair and proper that
Fnited States, +hich has sub'itted the vindication of cri'es a)ainst
her )overn'ent and her people to a tribunal of our nation should be
allo+ed representation in the trial of those ver* cri'es. If there has
been an* relinAuish'ent of soverei)nt* it has not been b* our
)overn'ent but b* the Fnited State :overn'ent +hich has *ielded
to us the trial and punish'ent of her ene'ies. ,he least that +e
could do in the spirit of co'it* is to allo+ the' representation in said
trials.
Alle)in) that the Fnited State is not a part* in interest in the case
petitioner challen)es the personalit* of attorne*s ;usse* and Port as
prosecutors. It is of co''on (no+led)e that the Fnited State and its
people have been eAuall* if not 'ore )reatl* a))rieved b* the cri'es
+ith +hich petitioner stands char)ed before the Militar* Co''ission.
It can be considered a privile)e for our Republic that a leader nation
should sub'it the vindication of the honor of its citi8ens and its
)overn'ent to a 'ilitar* tribunal of our countr*.
,he Militar* Co''ission havin) been convened b* virtue of a valid
la+ +ith =urisdiction over the cri'es char)ed +hich fall under the
provisions of E1ecutive rder No. "/, and havin) said petitioner in its
custod*, this Court +ill not interfere +ith the due process of such
Militar* co''ission.
!or all the fore)oin) the petition is denied +ith costs de oficio.
9
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. "62H55 /0l* 30, 19D9
3OR!S ME/OFF, petitioner,
vs.
#!RECTOR OF PR!SONS, respondent.
*irst Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gian&on and Solicitor
-ucas -acson for respondent.
3ENG5ON, J.G
,he petitioner Boris Me=off is an alien of Russian descent +ho +as
brou)ht to this countr* fro' Shan)hai as a secret operative b* the
0apanese forces durin) the latterIs re)i'e in these Islands. Fpon
liberation he +as arrested aa a 0apanese sp*, b* F. S. Ar'* Counter
Intelli)ence Corps. Gater he +as handed to the Co''on+ealth
:overn'ent for disposition in accordance +ith Co''on+ealth Act
No. "/5. ,hereafter the PeopleIs Court ordered his release. But the
deportation board ta(in) his case up, found that havin) no travel
docu'ents Me=off +as ille)all* in this countr*, and conseAuentl*
refferd the 'atter to the i''i)ration authorities. After the
correspondin) investi)ation, the Board o! Co''issioners of
I''i)ration on April #, $%@/, declared that Me=off had entered the
Philippines ille)all* in $%@@, +ithoutinspection and ad'ission b* the
i''i)ration officials at a desi)nated port of entr* and, therefore, it
ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to
Russia. ,he petitioner +as then under custod*, he havin) been
arrested on March $/, $%@/. In Ma*, $%@/, he +as transferred to the
Cebu Provincial 0ail to)ether +ith three other Russians to a+ait the
arrival of so'e Russian vessels. In 0ul* and in Au)ust of that *ear
t+o boats of Russian nationalit* called at the Cebu Port. But their
'asters refused to ta(e petitioner and his co'panions alle)in) lac(
of authorit* to do so. In ctober, $%@/, after repeated failures to ship
this deportee abroad, the authorities re'oved hi' to Bilibid Prison at
Muntin)lupa +here he has been confined up to the present ti'e,
inas'uch as the Co''issioner of I''i)ration believes it is for the
best interest of the countr* to (eep hi' under detention +hile
arran)e'ents for his deportation are bein) 'ade.
It is contended on behalf of petitioner that havin) been brou)ht to the
Philippines legall/ b* the 0apanese forces, he 'a* not no+ be
deported. It is enou)h to sa* that the ar)u'ent +ould den* to this
:overn'ent the po+er and the authorit* to e=ect fro' the Islands
an* and all of that 'e'bers of the Nipponese Ar'* of occupation
+ho 'a* still be found hidin) in re'ote places. Dhich is absurd.
Petitioner li(e+ise contends that he 'a* not be deported because
the statutor* period to do that under the la+s has lon) e1pired. ,he
proposition has no basis. Fnder section 3& of the Philippine
I''i)ration Act of $%@6 an* alien +ho enters this countr* >+ithout
inspection and ad'ission b* the i''i)ration authorities at a
desi)nated point of entr*> is sub=ect to deportation +ithin five *ears.
In a recent decision of a si'ilar liti)ation -Borovs(* vs.
Co''issioner of I''i)ration. +e denied the reAuest for habeas
corpus, sa*in)4
>It 'ust be ad'itted that te'porar* detention is a necessar* step in
the process of e1clusion or e1pulsion of undesirable aliens and that
pendin) arran)e'ents for his deportation, the :overn'ent has the
ri)ht to hold the undesirable alien under confine'ent for a
reasonable len)ht of ti'e. ;o+ever, under established precedents,
too lon) a detention 'a* =ustif* the issuance of a +rit of habeas
corpus.
$
>,he 'eanin) of >reasonable ti'e> depends upon the
circu'stances, speciall* the difficulties of obtainin) a passport, the
availabilit* of transfortation, the diplo'atic arran)e'ents concerned
and the efforts displa*ed to send the deportee a+a*.
5
Considerin)
that this :overn'ent desires to e1pel the alien, and does not relish
(eepin) hi' at the peopleIs e1pense, +e 'ust presu'e it is 'a(in)
efforts to carr* out the decree of e1clusion b* the hi)hest officer of
the land. n top of this presu'ption assurances +ere 'ade durin)
the oral ar)u'ent that the :overn'ent is reall* tr*in) to e1pedite the
e1pulsion of this petitioner. n the other hand, the record fails to
10
sho+ ho+ lon) he has been under confine'ent since the last ti'e
he +as apprehended. Neither does he indicate ne)lected
opportunities to send hi' abroad. And unless it is sho+n that the
deportee is bein) indefinitel* i'prisoned under the pretense of
a+aitin) a chance for deportation
3
or unless the :overn'ent ad'its
that itcan not deport hi'
@
or unless the detainee is bein) held for too
lon) a period our courts +ill not interfere.
>In the Fnited States there +ere at least t+o instances in +hich
courts fi1ed a ti'e li'it +ithin +hich the i'prisoned aliens should be
deported
#
other+ise their release +ould be ordered b* +rit of habeas
corpus. Nevertheless, supposin) such precedents appl* in this
=urisdiction, still +e have no sufficient data fairl* to fi1 a definite
deadline.>
,he difference bet+een this and the Borovs(* case lies in the fact
that the record sho+s this petitioner has been detained since March,
$%@/. ;o+ever, considerin) that in the Fnited States -+here
transportation facilities are 'uch )reater and diplo'atic
arran)e'ents are easier to 'a(e. a dela* of t+ent* 'onths in
carr*in) out an order of deportation has not been held sufficient to
=ustif* the issuance of the +rit of habeas corpus,
"
this petition 'ust
be, and it is hereb* denied. So ordered.
11
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. "631195 /0&$ 5, 1973
PH!"!PP!NE 3"OOM!NG M!""S EMP"OFMENT ORGAN!5AT!ON,
N!CANOR TO"ENT!NO, F"ORENC!O, PA#R!GANO RUF!NO,
RO2AS MAR!ANO #E "EON, ASENC!ON PAC!ENTE, 3ON!FAC!O
VACUNA, 3EN/AM!N PAGCU ,&( RO#U"FO MUNSO#,
petitioners,
vs.
PH!"!PP!NE 3"OOM!NG M!""S CO., !NC. ,&( COURT OF
!N#USTR!A" RE"AT!ONS, respondents.
-.S. 2sorio 3 P.". astillo and J.. (spinas 3 Associates for
petitioners.
'emetrio ". Salem 3 Associates for private respondent.

MAAS!AR, J.:
,he petitioner Philippine Bloo'in) Mills E'plo*ees r)ani8ation
-hereinafter referred to as PBME. is a le)iti'ate labor union
co'posed of the e'plo*ees of the respondent Philippine Bloo'in)
Mills Co., Inc., and petitioners Nicanor ,olentino, !lorencio
Padri)ano, Rufino Ro1as, Mariano de Geon, Asencion Paciente,
Bonifacio Cacuna, Ben=a'in Pa)cu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers
and 'e'bers of the petitioner Fnion.
Petitioners clai' that on March $, $%"%, the* decided to sta)e a
'ass de'onstration at Malaca7an) on March @, $%"%, in protest
a)ainst alle)ed abuses of the Pasi) police, to be participated in b*
the +or(ers in the first shift -fro' " A.M. to 5 P.M.. as +ell as those in
the re)ular second and third shifts -fro' & A.M. to @ P.M. and fro' /
A.M. to # P.M., respectivel*.9 and that the* infor'ed the respondent
Co'pan* of their proposed de'onstration.
,he Auestioned order dated Septe'ber $#, $%"%, of Associate 0ud)e
0oaAuin M. Salvador of the respondent Court reproduced the
follo+in) stipulation of facts of the parties H parties H
3. ,hat on March 5, $%"% co'plainant co'pan*
learned of the pro=ected 'ass de'onstration at
Malaca7an) in protest a)ainst alle)ed abuses of the
Pasi) Police Depart'ent to be participated b* the
first shift -"466 AM25466 PM. +or(ers as +ell as
those +or(in) in the re)ular shifts -&466 A.M. to @466
PM and /466 AM to #466 PM. in the 'ornin) of
March @, $%"%9
@. ,hat a 'eetin) +as called b* the Co'pan* on
March 3, $%"% at about $$466 A.M. at the Co'pan*Is
canteen, and those present +ere4 for the Co'pan*4
-$. Mr. Arthur G. An) -5. Att*. S. de Geon, 0r., -3. and
all depart'ent and section heads. !or the PBME
-$. !lorencio Padri)ano, -5. Rufino Ro1as, -3.
Mariano de Geon, -@. Asencion Paciente, -#.
Bonifacio Cacuna and -". Ben=a'in Pa)cu.
#. ,hat the Co'pan* as(ed the union panel to
confir' or den* said pro=ected 'ass de'onstration
at Malaca7an) on March @, $%"%. PBME thru
Ben=a'in Pa)cu +ho acted as spo(es'an of the
union panel, confir'ed the planned de'onstration
and stated that the de'onstration or rall* cannot be
cancelled because it has alread* been a)reed upon
in the 'eetin). Pa)cu e1plained further that the
de'onstration has nothin) to do +ith the Co'pan*
because the union has no Auarrel or dispute +ith
Mana)e'ent9
12
". ,hat Mana)e'ent, thru Att*. C.S. de Geon,
Co'pan* personnel 'ana)er, infor'ed PBME that
the de'onstration is an inalienable ri)ht of the union
)uaranteed b* the Constitution but e'phasi8ed,
ho+ever, that an* de'onstration for that 'atter
should not undul* pre=udice the nor'al operation of
the Co'pan*. !or +hich reason, the Co'pan*, thru
Att*. C.S. de Geon +arned the PBME
representatives that +or(ers +ho belon) to the first
and re)ular shifts, +ho +ithout previous leave of
absence approved b* the Co'pan*, particularl* , the
officers present +ho are the or)ani8ers of the
de'onstration, +ho shall fail to report for +or( the
follo+in) 'ornin) -March @, $%"%. shall be
dis'issed, because such failure is a violation of the
e1istin) CBA and, therefore, +ould be a'ountin) to
an ille)al stri(e9
&. ,hat at about #466 P.M. on March 3, $%"%,
another 'eetin) +as convo(ed Co'pan*
represented b* Att*. C.S. de Geon, 0r. ,he Fnion
panel +as co'posed of4 Nicanor ,olentino, Rodolfo
Munsod, Ben=a'in Pa)cu and !lorencio Padri)ano.
In this afternoon 'eetin) of March 3, $%"%,
Co'pan* reiterated and appealed to the PBME
representatives that +hile all +or(ers 'a* =oin the
Malaca7an) de'onstration, the +or(ers for the first
and re)ular shift of March @, $%"% should be
e1cused fro' =oinin) the de'onstration and should
report for +or(9 and thus utili8e the +or(ers in the
5nd and 3rd shifts in order not to violate the
provisions of the CBA, particularl* Article KKIC4 N
GC<F, H N S,RI<EI. All those +ho +ill not
follo+ this +arnin) of the Co'pan* shall be dis'iss9
De Geon reiterated the Co'pan*Is +arnin) that the
officers shall be pri'aril* liable bein) the or)ani8ers
of the 'ass de'onstration. ,he union panel
countered that it +as rather too late to chan)e their
plans inas'uch as the Malaca7an) de'onstration
+ill be held the follo+in) 'ornin)9 and
/. ,hat a certain Mr. Dilfredo Ariston, adviser of
PBME sent a cable)ra' to the Co'pan* +hich
+as received %4#6 A.M., March @, $%"%, the contents
of +hich are as follo+s4 IREI,ERA,IN: REJFES,
EKCFSE DAE S;I!, EMPGEEES 0ININ:
DEMNS,RA,IN MARC; @, $%"%.I -Pars. 32/,
Anne1 >!>, pp. @52@3, rec..
Because the petitioners and their 'e'bers nu'berin) about @66
proceeded +ith the de'onstration despite the pleas of the
respondent Co'pan* that the first shift +or(ers should not be
reAuired to participate in the de'onstration and that the +or(ers in
the second and third shifts should be utili8ed for the de'onstration
fro' " A.M. to 5 P.M. on March @, $%"%, respondent Co'pan* prior
notice of the 'ass de'onstration on March @, $%"%, +ith the
respondent Court, a char)e a)ainst petitioners and other e'plo*ees
+ho co'posed the first shift, char)in) the' +ith a >violation of
Section @-a.2" in relation to Sections $3 and $@, as +ell as Section
$#, all of Republic Act No. /&#, and of the CBA providin) for INo
Stri(e and No Goc(out.I > -Anne1 >A>, pp. $%256, rec... ,he char)e
+as acco'panied b* the =oint affidavit of Arthur G. An) and Cesareo
de Geon, 0r. -Anne1 >B>, pp. 5$25@, rec... ,hereafter, a correspondin)
co'plaint +as filed, dated April $/, $%"%, b* Actin) Chief Prosecutor
Antonio ,. ,irona and Actin) Prosecutor Ginda P. Ila)an -Anne1 >C>,
pp. 5#236, rec..
In their ans+er, dated Ma* %, $%"%, herein petitioners clai' that the*
did not violate the e1istin) CBA because the* )ave the respondent
Co'pan* prior notice of the 'ass de'onstration on March @, $%"%9
that the said 'ass de'onstration +as a valid e1ercise of their
constitutional freedo' of speech a)ainst the alle)ed abuses of so'e
Pasi) police'en9 and that their 'ass de'onstration +as not a
declaration of stri(e because it +as not directed a)ainst the
respondent fir' -Anne1 >D>, pp. 3$23@, rec..
After considerin) the afore'entioned stipulation of facts sub'itted
b* the parties, 0ud)e 0oaAuin M. Salvador, in an order dated
Septe'ber $#, $%"%, found herein petitioner PBME )uilt* of
bar)ainin) in bad faith and herein petitioners !lorencio Padri)ano,
Rufino Ro1as, Mariano de Geon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio
13
Cacuna, Ben=a'in Pa)cu, Nicanor ,olentino and Rodulfo Munsod as
directl* responsible for perpetratin) the said unfair labor practice and
+ere, as a conseAuence, considered to have lost their status as
e'plo*ees of the respondent Co'pan* -Anne1 >!>, pp. @52#", rec..
;erein petitioners clai' that the* received on Septe'ber 53, $%"%,
the aforesaid order -p. $$, rec..9 and that the* filed on Septe'ber 5%,
$%"%, because Septe'ber 5/, $%"% fell on Sunda* -p. #%, rec.., a
'otion for reconsideration of said order dated Septe'ber $#, $%"%,
on the )round that it is contrar* to la+ and the evidence, as +ell as
as(ed for ten -$6. da*s +ithin +hich to file their ar)u'ents pursuant
to Sections $#, $" and $& of the Rules of the CIR, as a'ended
-Anne1 >:>, pp. #&2"6, rec. .
In its opposition dated ctober &, $%"%, filed on ctober $$, $%"% -p.
"3, rec.., respondent Co'pan* averred that herein petitioners
received on Septe'ber 55, $%"%, the order dated Septe'ber $&
-should be Septe'ber $#., $%"%9 that under Section $# of the
a'ended Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations, herein
petitioners had five -#. da*s fro' Septe'ber 55, $%"% or until
Septe'ber 5&, $%"%, +ithin +hich to file their 'otion for
reconsideration9 and that because their 'otion for reconsideration
+as t+o -5. da*s late, it should be accordin)l* dis'issed, invo(in)
"ien vs. astillo,
1
+hich held a'on) others, that a 'otion for
e1tension of the five2da* period for the filin) of a 'otion for
reconsideration should be filed before the said five2da* period
elapses -Anne1 >M>, pp. "$2"@, rec...
SubseAuentl*, herein petitioners filed on ctober $@, $%"% their
+ritten ar)u'ents dated ctober $$, $%"%, in support of their 'otion
for reconsideration -Anne1 >I>, pp. "#2&3, rec...
In a resolution dated ctober %, $%"%, the respondent en banc
dis'issed the 'otion for reconsideration of herein petitioners for
bein) pro forma as it +as filed be*ond the re)le'entar* period
prescribed b* its Rules -Anne1 >0>, pp. &@2&#, rec.., +hich herein
petitioners received on ctober 5/, $%" -pp. $5 L &", rec...
At the botto' of the notice of the order dated ctober %, $%"%, +hich
+as released on ctober 5@, $%"% and addressed to the counsels of
the parties -pp. &#2&", rec.., appear the reAuire'ents of Sections $#,
$" and $&, as a'ended, of the Rules of the Court of Industrial
Relations, that a 'otion for reconsideration shall be filed +ithin five
-#. da*s fro' receipt of its decision or order and that an appeal fro'
the decision, resolution or order of the C.I.R., sittin) en banc, shall
be perfected +ithin ten -$6. da*s fro' receipt thereof -p. &", rec...
n ctober 3$, $%"%, herein petitioners filed +ith the respondent
court a petition for relief fro' the order dated ctober %, $%"%, on the
)round that their failure to file their 'otion for reconsideration on ti'e
+as due to e1cusable ne)li)ence and honest 'ista(e co''itted b*
the president of the petitioner Fnion and of the office cler( of their
counsel, attachin) thereto the affidavits of the said president and
cler( -Anne1es ><>, ><2$> and ><25>, rec...
Dithout +aitin) for an* resolution on their petition for relief fro' the
order dated ctober %, $%"%, herein petitioners filed on Nove'ber 3,
$%"%, +ith the Supre'e Court, a notice of appeal -Anne1 >G>, pp. //2
/%, rec...
,
,here is need of briefl* restatin) basic concepts and principles +hich
underlie the issues posed b* the case at bar.
-$. In a de'ocrac*, the preservation and enhance'ent of the di)nit*
and +orth of the hu'an personalit* is the central core as +ell as the
cardinal article of faith of our civili8ation. ,he inviolable character of
'an as an individual 'ust be >protected to the lar)est possible
e1tent in his thou)hts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person.>
2
-5. ,he Bill of Ri)hts is desi)ned to preserve the ideals of libert*,
eAualit* and securit* >a)ainst the assaults of opportunis', the
e1pedienc* of the passin) hour, the erosion of s'all encroach'ents,
and the scorn and derision of those +ho have no patience +ith
)eneral principles.>
3

14
In the pith* lan)ua)e of Mr. 0ustice Robert 0ac(son, the purpose of
the Bill of Ri)hts is to +ithdra+ >certain sub=ects fro' the vicissitudes
of political controvers*, to place the' be*ond the reach of 'a=orities
and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied
b/ the courts. neIs ri)hts to life, libert* and propert*, to free speech,
or free press, freedo' of +orship and asse'bl*, and other
funda'ental ri)hts 'a* not be sub'itted to a vote9 the* depend on
the outco'e of no elections.>
D
Gas(i proclai'ed that >the happiness
of the individual, not the +ell2bein) of the State, +as the criterion b*
+hich its behaviour +as to be =ud)ed. ;is interests, not its po+er, set
the li'its to the authorit* it +as entitled to e1ercise.>
5

-3. ,he freedo's of e1pression and of asse'bl* as +ell as the ri)ht
to petition are included a'on) the i''unities reserved b* the
soverei)n people, in the rhetorical aphoris' of 0ustice ;ol'es, to
protect the ideas that +e abhor or hate 'ore than the ideas +e
cherish9 or as Socrates insinuated, not onl* to protect the 'inorit*
+ho +ant to tal(, but also to benefit the 'a=orit* +ho refuse to listen.

6
And as 0ustice Dou)las co)entl* stresses it, the liberties of one are
the liberties of all9 and the liberties of one are not safe unless the
liberties of all are protected.
7

-@. ,he ri)hts of free e1pression, free asse'bl* and petition, are not
onl* civil ri)hts but also political ri)hts essential to 'anIs en=o*'ent
of his life, to his happiness and to his full and co'plete fulfill'ent.
,hru these freedo's the citi8ens can participate not 'erel* in the
periodic establish'ent of the )overn'ent throu)h their suffra)e but
also in the ad'inistration of public affairs as +ell as in the discipline
of abusive public officers. ,he citi8en is accorded these ri)hts so that
he can appeal to the appropriate )overn'ental officers or a)encies
for redress and protection as +ell as for the i'position of the la+ful
sanctions on errin) public officers and e'plo*ees.
-#. Dhile the Bill of Ri)hts also protects propert* ri)hts, the pri'ac*
of hu'an ri)hts over propert* ri)hts is reco)ni8ed.
H
Because these
freedo's are >delicate and vulnerable, as +ell as supre'el*
precious in our societ*> and the >threat of sanctions 'a* deter their
e1ercise al'ost as potentl* as the actual application of sanctions,>
the* >need breathin) space to survive,> per'ittin) )overn'ent
re)ulation onl* >+ith narro+ specificit*.>
9

Propert* and propert* ri)hts can be lost thru prescription9 but hu'an
ri)hts are i'prescriptible. If hu'an ri)hts are e1tin)uished b* the
passa)e of ti'e, then the Bill of Ri)hts is a useless atte'pt to li'it
the po+er of )overn'ent and ceases to be an efficacious shield
a)ainst the t*rann* of officials, of 'a=orities, of the influential and
po+erful, and of oli)archs H political, econo'ic or other+ise.
In the hierarch* of civil liberties, the ri)hts of free e1pression and of
asse'bl* occup* a preferred position as the* are essential to the
preservation and vitalit* of our civil and political institutions9
10
and
such priorit* >)ives these liberties the sanctit* and the sanction not
per'ittin) dubious intrusions.>
11

,he superiorit* of these freedo's over propert* ri)hts is
underscored b* the fact that a 'ere reasonable or rational relation
bet+een the 'eans e'plo*ed b* the la+ and its ob=ect or purpose
H that the la+ is neither arbitrar* nor discri'inator* nor oppressive
H +ould suffice to validate a la+ +hich restricts or i'pairs propert*
ri)hts.
12
n the other hand, a constitutional or valid infrin)e'ent of
hu'an ri)hts reAuires a 'ore strin)ent criterion, na'el* e1istence of
a )rave and i''ediate dan)er of a substantive evil +hich the State
has the ri)ht to prevent. So it has been stressed in the 'ain opinion
of Mr. 0ustice !ernando in Gon&ales vs. omelec and reiterated b*
the +riter of the opinion in ,mbong vs. *errer.
13
It should be added
that Mr. 0ustice Barredo in Gon&ales vs. omelec, supra, li(e
0ustices Dou)las, Blac( and :oldber) in 4... Times o. vs. Sullivan,
1D
believes that the freedo's of speech and of the press as +ell as of
peaceful asse'bl* and of petition for redress of )rievances are
absolute +hen directed a)ainst public officials or >+hen e1ercised in
relation to our ri)ht to choose the 'en and +o'en b* +ho' +e shall
be )overned,>
15
even as Mr. 0ustice Castro relies on the balancin)2
of2interests test.
16
Chief 0ustice Cinson is partial to the i'probable
dan)er rule for'ulated b* Chief 0ud)e Gearned ;and, vi&. H
+hether the )ravit* of the evil, discounted b* its i'probabilit*,
=ustifies such invasion of free e1pression as is necessar* to avoid the
dan)er.
17

II
15
,he respondent Court of Industrial Relations, after opinin) that the
'ass de'onstration +as not a declaration of stri(e, concluded that
b* their >concerted act and the occurrence te'porar* stoppa)e of
+or(,> herein petitioners are )uilt* bar)ainin) in bad faith and hence
violated the collective bar)ainin) a)ree'ent +ith private respondent
Philippine Bloo'in) Mills Co., inc.. Set a)ainst and tested b*
fore)oin) principles )overnin) a de'ocratic societ*, such conclusion
cannot be sustained. ,he de'onstration held petitioners on March @,
$%"% before Malaca7an) +as a)ainst alle)ed abuses of so'e Pasi)
police'en, not a)ainst their e'plo*er, herein private respondent
fir', said de'onstrate +as purel* and co'pletel* an e1ercise of
their freedo' e1pression in )eneral and of their ri)ht of asse'bl*
and petition for redress of )rievances in particular before appropriate
)overn'ental a)enc*, the Chief E1ecutive, a)ain the police officers
of the 'unicipalit* of Pasi). ,he* e1ercise their civil and political
ri)hts for their 'utual aid protection fro' +hat the* believe +ere
police e1cesses. As 'atter of fact, it +as the dut* of herein private
respondent fir' to protect herein petitioner Fnion and its 'e'bers
fro the harass'ent of local police officers. It +as to the interest
herein private respondent fir' to rall* to the defense of, and ta(e up
the cud)els for, its e'plo*ees, so that the* can report to +or( free
fro' harass'ent, ve1ation or peril and as conseAuence perfor'
'ore efficientl* their respective tas(s enhance its productivit* as +ell
as profits. ;erein respondent e'plo*er did not even offer to
intercede for its e'plo*ees +ith the local police. Das it securin)
peace for itself at the e1penses of its +or(ersM Das it also
inti'idated b* the local police or did it encoura)e the local police to
terrori8e or ve1 its +or(ersM Its failure to defend its o+n e'plo*ees
all the 'ore +ea(ened the position of its laborers the alle)ed
oppressive police +ho 'i)ht have been all the 'ore e'boldened
thereb* sub=ect its lo+l* e'plo*ees to further indi)nities.
In see(in) sanctuar* behind their freedo' of e1pression +ell as their
ri)ht of asse'bl* and of petition a)ainst alle)ed persecution of local
officialdo', the e'plo*ees and laborers of herein private respondent
fir' +ere fi)htin) for their ver* survival, utili8in) onl* the +eapons
afforded the' b* the Constitution H the untra''elled en=o*'ent of
their basic hu'an ri)hts. ,he pretension of their e'plo*er that it
+ould suffer loss or da'a)e b* reason of the absence of its
e'plo*ees fro' " oIcloc( in the 'ornin) to 5 oIcloc( in the
afternoon, is a plea for the preservation 'erel* of their propert*
ri)hts. Such apprehended loss or da'a)e +ould not spell the
difference bet+een the life and death of the fir' or its o+ners or its
'ana)e'ent. ,he e'plo*eesI pathetic situation +as a star( realit*
H abused, harass'ent and persecuted as the* believed the* +ere
b* the peace officers of the 'unicipalit*. As above inti'ated, the
condition in +hich the e'plo*ees found the'selves vis+a+vis the
local police of Pasi), +as a 'atter that vitall* affected their ri)ht to
individual e1istence as +ell as that of their fa'ilies. Material loss can
be repaired or adeAuatel* co'pensated. ,he debase'ent of the
hu'an bein) bro(en in 'orale and brutali8ed in spirit2can never be
full* evaluated in 'onetar* ter's. ,he +ounds fester and the scars
re'ain to hu'iliate hi' to his d*in) da*, even as he cries in an)uish
for retribution, denial of +hich is li(e rubbin) salt on bruised tissues.
As heretofore stated, the pri'ac* of hu'an ri)hts H freedo' of
e1pression, of peaceful asse'bl* and of petition for redress of
)rievances H over propert* ri)hts has been sustained.
1H
E'phatic
reiteration of this basic tenet as a coveted boon H at once the shield
and ar'or of the di)nit* and +orth of the hu'an personalit*, the all2
consu'in) ideal of our enli)htened civili8ation H beco'es ur dut*,
if freedo' and social =ustice have an* 'eanin) at all for hi' +ho
toils so that capital can produce econo'ic )oods that can )enerate
happiness for all. ,o re)ard the de'onstration a)ainst police officers,
not a)ainst the e'plo*er, as evidence of bad faith in collective
bar)ainin) and hence a violation of the collective bar)ainin)
a)ree'ent and a cause for the dis'issal fro' e'plo*'ent of the
de'onstratin) e'plo*ees, stretches undul* the co'pass of the
collective bar)ainin) a)ree'ent, is >a potent 'eans of inhibitin)
speech> and therefore inflicts a 'oral as +ell as 'ortal +ound on the
constitutional )uarantees of free e1pression, of peaceful asse'bl*
and of petition.
19

,he collective bar)ainin) a)ree'ent +hich fi1es the +or(in) shifts of
the e'plo*ees, accordin) to the respondent Court Industrial
Relations, in effect i'poses on the +or(ers the >dut* ... to observe
re)ular +or(in) hours.> ,he strain construction of the Court of
Industrial Relations that a stipulated +or(in) shifts den* the +or(ers
the ri)ht to sta)e 'ass de'onstration a)ainst police abuses durin)
+or(in) hours, constitutes a virtual t*rann* over the 'ind and life the
16
+or(ers and deserves severe conde'nation. Renunciation of the
freedo' should not be predicated on such a slender )round.
,he 'ass de'onstration sta)ed b* the e'plo*ees on March @, $%"%
could not have been le)all* en=oined b* an* court, such an in=unction
+ould be trenchin) upon the freedo' e1pression of the +or(ers,
even if it le)all* appears to be ille)al pic(etin) or stri(e.
20
,he
respondent Court of Industrial Relations in the case at bar concedes
that the 'ass de'onstration +as not a declaration of a stri(e >as the
sa'e not rooted in an* industrial dispute althou)h there is concerted
act and the occurrence of a te'porar* stoppa)e +or(.> -Anne1 >!>,
p. @#, rec...
,he respondent fir' clai's that there +as no need for all its
e'plo*ees to participate in the de'onstration and that the*
su))ested to the Fnion that onl* the first and re)ular shift fro' "
A.M. to 5 P.M. should report for +or( in order that loss or da'a)e to
the fir' +ill be averted. ,his stand failed appreciate the sine 5ua non
of an effective de'onstration especiall* b* a labor union, na'el* the
co'plete unit* of the Fnion 'e'bers as +ell as their total presence
at the de'onstration site in order to )enerate the 'a1i'u'
s*'path* for the validit* of their cause but also i''ediatel* action
on the part of the correspondin) )overn'ent a)encies +ith
=urisdiction over the issues the* raised a)ainst the local police.
Circulation is one of the aspects of freedo' of e1pression.
21
If
de'onstrators are reduced b* one2third, then b* that 'uch the
circulation of the issues raised b* the de'onstration is di'inished.
,he 'ore the participants, the 'ore persons can be apprised of the
purpose of the rall*. Moreover, the absence of one2third of their
'e'bers +ill be re)arded as a substantial indication of disunit* in
their ran(s +hich +ill enervate their position and abet continued
alle)ed police persecution. At an* rate, the Fnion notified the
co'pan* t+o da*s in advance of their pro=ected de'onstration and
the co'pan* could have 'ade arran)e'ents to counteract or
prevent +hatever losses it 'i)ht sustain b* reason of the absence of
its +or(ers for one da*, especiall* in this case +hen the Fnion
reAuested it to e1cuse onl* the da*2shift e'plo*ees +ho +ill =oin the
de'onstration on March @, $%"% +hich reAuest the Fnion reiterated
in their tele)ra' received b* the co'pan* at %4#6 in the 'ornin) of
March @, $%"%, the da* of the 'ass de'onstration -pp. @52@3, rec...
,here +as a lac( of hu'an understandin) or co'passion on the part
of the fir' in re=ectin) the reAuest of the Fnion for e1cuse fro' +or(
for the da* shifts in order to carr* out its 'ass de'onstration. And to
re)ard as a )round for dis'issal the 'ass de'onstration held
a)ainst the Pasi) police, not a)ainst the co'pan*, is )ross
vindictiveness on the part of the e'plo*er, +hich is as unchristian as
it is unconstitutional.
III
,he respondent co'pan* is the one )uilt* of unfair labor practice.
Because the refusal on the part of the respondent fir' to per'it all
its e'plo*ees and +or(ers to =oin the 'ass de'onstration a)ainst
alle)ed police abuses and the subseAuent separation of the ei)ht -/.
petitioners fro' the service constituted an unconstitutional restraint
on the freedo' of e1pression, freedo' of asse'bl* and freedo'
petition for redress of )rievances, the respondent fir' co''itted an
unfair labor practice defined in Section @-a2$. in relation to Section 3
of Republic Act No. /&#, other+ise (no+n as the Industrial Peace
Act. Section 3 of Republic Act No. / )uarantees to the e'plo*ees
the ri)ht >to en)a)e in concert activities for ... 'utual aid or
protection>9 +hile Section @-a2$. re)ards as an unfair labor practice
for an e'plo*er interfere +ith, restrain or coerce e'plo*ees in the
e1ercise their ri)hts )uaranteed in Section ,hree.>
De repeat that the obvious purpose of the 'ass de'onstration
sta)ed b* the +or(ers of the respondent fir' on March @, $%"%, +as
for their 'utual aid and protection a)ainst alle)ed police abuses,
denial of +hich +as interference +ith or restraint on the ri)ht of the
e'plo*ees to en)a)e in such co''on action to better shield
the'selves a)ainst such alle)ed police indi)nities. ,he insistence on
the part of the respondent fir' that the +or(ers for the 'ornin) and
re)ular shift should not participate in the 'ass de'onstration, under
pain of dis'issal, +as as heretofore stated, >a potent 'eans of
inhibitin) speech.>
22
Such a concerted action for their 'utual help and protection
deserves at least eAual protection as the concerted action of
e'plo*ees in )ivin) publicit* to a letter co'plaint char)in) ban(
17
president +ith i''oralit*, nepotis', favoritis' an discri'ination in
the appoint'ent and pro'otion of ban e'plo*ees.
23
De further
ruled in the Republic Savin)s Ban( case, supra, that for the
e'plo*ees to co'e +ithin the protective 'antle of Section 3 in
relation to Section @-a2$. on Republic Act No. /&#, >it is not
necessar* that union activit* be involved or that collective bar)ainin)
be conte'plated,> as lon) as the concerted activit* is for the
furtherance of their interests.
2D

As stated clearl* in the stipulation of facts e'bodied in the
Auestioned order of respondent Court dated Septe'ber $#, $%"%,
the co'pan*, >+hile e1pressl* ac(no+led)in), that the
de'onstration is an inalienable ri)ht of the Fnion )uaranteed b* the
Constitution,> nonetheless e'phasi8ed that >an* de'onstration for
that 'atter should not undul* pre=udice the nor'al operation of the
co'pan*> and >+arned the PBME representatives that +or(ers
+ho belon) to the first and re)ular shifts, +ho +ithout previous leave
of absence approved b* the Co'pan*, particularl* the officers
present +ho are the or)ani8ers of the de'onstration, +ho shall fail to
report for +or( the follo+in) 'ornin) -March @, $%"%. shall be
dis'issed, because such failure is a violation of the e1istin) CBA
and, therefore, +ould be a'ountin) to an ille)al stri(e -9.> -p. III,
petitionerIs brief.. Such threat of dis'issal tended to coerce the
e'plo*ees fro' =oinin) the 'ass de'onstration. ;o+ever, the
issues that the e'plo*ees raised a)ainst the local police, +ere 'ore
i'portant to the' because the* had the coura)e to proceed +ith the
de'onstration, despite such threat of dis'issal. ,he 'ost that could
happen to the' +as to lose a da*Is +a)e b* reason of their absence
fro' +or( on the da* of the de'onstration. ne da*Is pa* 'eans
'uch to a laborer, 'ore especiall* if he has a fa'il* to support. Eet,
the* +ere +illin) to fore)o their one2da* salar* hopin) that their
de'onstration +ould brin) about the desired relief fro' police
abuses. But 'ana)e'ent +as ada'ant in refusin) to reco)ni8e the
superior le)iti'ac* of their ri)ht of free speech, free asse'bl* and
the ri)ht to petition for redress.
Because the respondent co'pan* ostensibl* did not find it
necessar* to de'and fro' the +or(ers proof of the truth of the
alle)ed abuses inflicted on the' b* the local police, it thereb*
concedes that the evidence of such abuses should properl* be
sub'itted to the correspondin) authorities havin) =urisdiction over
their co'plaint and to +ho' such co'plaint 'a* be referred b* the
President of the Philippines for proper investi)ation and action +ith a
vie+ to disciplinin) the local police officers involved.
n the other hand, +hile the respondent Court of Industrial Relations
found that the de'onstration >paral*8ed to a lar)e e1tent the
operations of the co'plainant co'pan*,> the respondent Court of
Industrial Relations did not 'a(e an* findin) as to the fact of loss
actuall* sustained b* the fir'. ,his si)nificant circu'stance can onl*
'ean that the fir' did not sustain an* loss or da'a)e. It did not
present evidence as to +hether it lost e1pected profits for failure to
co'pl* +ith purchase orders on that da*9 or that penalties +ere
e1acted fro' it b* custo'ers +hose orders could not be filled that
da* of the de'onstration9 or that purchase orders +ere cancelled b*
the custo'ers b* reason of its failure to deliver the 'aterials
ordered9 or that its o+n eAuip'ent or 'aterials or products +ere
da'a)ed due to absence of its +or(ers on March @, $%"%. n the
contrar*, the co'pan* saved a si8able a'ount in the for' of +a)es
for its hundreds of +or(ers, cost of fuel, +ater and electric
consu'ption that da*. Such savin)s could have a'pl* co'pensated
for unreali8ed profits or da'a)es it 'i)ht have sustained b* reason
of the absence of its +or(ers for onl* one da*.
IC
Apart fro' violatin) the constitutional )uarantees of free speech and
asse'bl* as +ell as the ri)ht to petition for redress of )rievances of
the e'plo*ees, the dis'issal of the ei)ht -/. leaders of the +or(ers
for proceedin) +ith the de'onstration and conseAuentl* bein)
absent fro' +or(, constitutes a denial of social =ustice li(e+ise
assured b* the funda'ental la+ to these lo+l* e'plo*ees. Section #
of Article II of the Constitution i'poses upon the State >the pro'otion
of social =ustice to insure the +ell2bein) and econo'ic securit* of all
of the people,> +hich )uarantee is e'phasi8ed b* the other directive
in Section " of Article KIC of the Constitution that >the State shall
afford protection to labor ...>. Respondent Court of Industrial
Relations as an a)enc* of the State is under obli)ation at all ti'es to
)ive 'eanin) and substance to these constitutional )uarantees in
favor of the +or(in) 'an9 for other+ise these constitutional
18
safe)uards +ould be 'erel* a lot of >'eanin)less constitutional
patter.> Fnder the Industrial Peace Act, the Court of Industrial
Relations is en=oined to effect the polic* of the la+ >to eli'inate the
causes of industrial unrest b* encoura)in) and protectin) the
e1ercise b* e'plo*ees of their ri)ht to self2or)ani8ation for the
purpose of collective bar)ainin) and for the promotion of their moral,
social and economic 6ell+being.> It is 'ost unfortunate in the case at
bar that respondent Court of Industrial Relations, the ver*
)overn'ental a)enc* desi)ned therefor, failed to i'ple'ent this
polic* and failed to (eep faith +ith its avo+ed 'ission H its raison
d7etre H as ordained and directed b* the Constitution.
C
It has been li(e+ise established that a violation of a constitutional
ri)ht divests the court of =urisdiction9 and as a conseAuence its
=ud)'ent is null and void and confers no ri)hts. Relief fro' a cri'inal
conviction secured at the sacrifice of constitutional liberties, 'a* be
obtained throu)h habeas corpus proceedin)s even lon) after the
finalit* of the =ud)'ent. ,hus, habeas corpus is the re'ed* to obtain
the release of an individual, +ho is convicted b* final =ud)'ent
throu)h a forced confession, +hich violated his constitutional ri)ht
a)ainst self2incri'ination9
25
or +ho is denied the ri)ht to present
evidence in his defense as a deprivation of his libert* +ithout due
process of la+,
26
even after the accused has alread* served
sentence for t+ent*2t+o *ears.
27

Both the respondents Court of Industrial Relations and private fir'
trenched upon these constitutional i''unities of petitioners. Both
failed to accord preference to such ri)hts and a))ravated the
inhu'anit* to +hich the a))rieved +or(ers clai'ed the* had been
sub=ected b* the 'unicipal police. ;avin) violated these basic
hu'an ri)hts of the laborers, the Court of Industrial Relations ousted
itself of =urisdiction and the Auestioned orders it issued in the instant
case are a nullit*. Reco)nition and protection of such freedo's are
i'perative on all public offices includin) the courts
2H
as +ell as
private citi8ens and corporations, the e1ercise and en=o*'ent of
+hich 'ust not be nullified b* 'ere procedural rule pro'ul)ated b*
the Court Industrial Relations e1ercisin) a purel* dele)ate le)islative
po+er, +hen even a la+ enacted b* Con)ress 'ust *ield to the
untra''elled en=o*'ent of these hu'an ri)hts. ,here is no ti'e
li'it to the e1ercise of the freedo's. ,he ri)ht to en=o* the' is not
e1hausted b* the deliver* of one speech, the printin) of one article or
the sta)in) of one de'onstration. It is a continuin) i''unit* to be
invo(ed and e1ercised +hen e1i)ent and e1pedient +henever there
are errors to be rectified, abuses to be denounced, inhu'anities to
be conde'ned. ther+ise these )uarantees in the Bill of Ri)hts
+ould be vitiated b* rule on procedure prescribin) the period for
appeal. ,he battle then +ould be reduced to a race for ti'e. And in
such a contest bet+een an e'plo*er and its laborer, the latter
eventuall* loses because he cannot e'plo* the best an dedicated
counsel +ho can defend his interest +ith the reAuired dili)ence and
8eal, bereft as he is of the financial resources +ith +hich to pa* for
co'petent le)al services.
2H
6,
CI
,he Court of Industrial Relations rule prescribes that 'otion for
reconsideration of its order or +rit should filed +ithin five -#. da*s
fro' notice thereof and that the ar)u'ents in support of said 'otion
shall be filed +ithin ten -$6. da*s fro' the date of filin) of such
'otion for reconsideration -Sec. $".. As above inti'ated, these rules
of procedure +ere pro'ul)ated b* the Court of Industrial Relations
pursuant to a le)islative dele)ation.
29

,he 'otion for reconsideration +as filed on Septe'ber 5%, $%"%, or
seven -&. da*s fro' notice on Septe'ber 55, $%"% of the order
dated Septe'ber $#, $%"% or t+o -5. da*s late. Petitioners clai' that
the* could have filed it on Septe'ber 5/, $%"%, but it +as a Sunda*.
Does the 'ere fact that the 'otion for reconsideration +as filed t+o
-5. da*s late defeat the ri)hts of the petitionin) e'plo*eesM r 'ore
directl* and concretel*, does the inadvertent o'ission to co'pl* +ith
a 'ere Court of Industrial Relations procedural rule )overnin) the
period for filin) a 'otion for reconsideration or appeal in labor cases,
pro'ul)ated pursuant to a le)islative dele)ation, prevail over
constitutional ri)htsM ,he ans+er should be obvious in the li)ht of the
aforecited cases. ,o accord supre'ac* to the fore)oin) rules of the
Court of Industrial Relations over basic hu'an ri)hts sheltered b*
19
the Constitution, is not onl* inco'patible +ith the basic tenet of
constitutional )overn'ent that the Constitution is superior to an*
statute or subordinate rules and re)ulations, but also does violence
to natural reason and lo)ic. ,he do'inance and superiorit* of the
constitutional ri)ht over the aforesaid Court of Industrial Relations
procedural rule of necessit* should be affir'ed. Such a Court of
Industrial Relations rule as applied in this case does not i'ple'ent
or reinforce or stren)then the constitutional ri)hts affected,I but
instead constrict the sa'e to the point of nullif*in) the en=o*'ent
thereof b* the petitionin) e'plo*ees. Said Court of Industrial
Relations rule, pro'ul)ated as it +as pursuant to a 'ere le)islative
dele)ation, is unreasonable and therefore is be*ond the authorit*
)ranted b* the Constitution and the la+. A period of five -#. da*s
+ithin +hich to file a 'otion for reconsideration is too short,
especiall* for the a))rieved +or(ers, +ho usuall* do not have the
read* funds to 'eet the necessar* e1penses therefor. In case of the
Court of Appeals and the Supre'e Court, a period of fifteen -$#.
da*s has been fi1ed for the filin) of the 'otion for re hearin) or
reconsideration -See. $6, Rule #$9 Sec. $, Rule #59 Sec. $, Rule #",
Revised Rules of Court.. ,he dela* in the filin) of the 'otion for
reconsideration could have been onl* one da* if Septe'ber 5/, $%"%
+as not a Sunda*. ,his fact accentuates the unreasonableness of
the Court of Industrial are concerned.
It should be stressed here that the 'otion for reconsideration dated
Septe'ber 5&, $%"%, is based on the )round that the order sou)ht to
be reconsidered >is not in accordance +ith la+, evidence and facts
adduced durin) the hearin),> and li(e+ise pra*s for an e1tension of
ten -$6. da*s +ithin +hich to file ar)u'ents pursuant to Sections $#,
$" and $& of the Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations -Anne1
>:>, pp. #&2"6, rec..9 althou)h the ar)u'ents +ere actuall* filed b*
the herein petitioners on ctober $@, $%"% -Anne1 >I>, pp. &62&3,
rec.., lon) after the $62da* period reAuired for the filin) of such
supportin) ar)u'ents counted fro' the filin) of the 'otion for
reconsideration. ;erein petitioners received onl* on ctober 5/,
$%"% the resolution dated ctober %, $%"% dis'issin) the 'otion for
reconsideration for bein) pro forma since it +as filed be*ond the
re)le'entar* period -Anne1 >0>, pp. &@2&#, rec..
It is true that De ruled in several cases that +here a 'otion to
reconsider is filed out of ti'e, or +here the ar)u'ents in suppf such
'otion are filed be*ond the $6 da* re)le'entar* period provided for
b* the Court of Industrial Relations rules, the order or decision
sub=ect of
29
6, reconsideration beco'es final and unappealable. But
in all these cases, the constitutional ri)hts of free e1pression, free
asse'bl* and petition +ere not involved.
It is a procedural rule that )enerall* all causes of action and
defenses presentl* available 'ust be specificall* raised in the
co'plaint or ans+er9 so that an* cause of action or defense not
raised in such pleadin)s, is dee'ed +aived. ;o+ever, a
constitutional issue can be raised an* ti'e, even for the first ti'e on
appeal, if it appears that the deter'ination of the constitutional issue
is necessar* to a decision of the case, the ver* lis mota of the case
+ithout the resolution of +hich no final and co'plete deter'ination
of the dispute can be 'ade.
30
It is thus seen that a procedural rule of
Con)ress or of the Supre'e Court )ives +a* to a constitutional ri)ht.
In the instant case, the procedural rule of the Court of Industrial
Relations, a creature of Con)ress, 'ust li(e+ise *ield to the
constitutional ri)hts invo(ed b* herein petitioners even before the
institution of the unfair labor practice char)ed a)ainst the' and in
their defense to the said char)e.
In the case at bar, enforce'ent of the basic hu'an freedo's
sheltered no less b* the or)anic la+, is a 'ost co'pellin) reason to
den* application of a Court of Industrial Relations rule +hich
i'pin)es on such hu'an ri)hts.
30
6,
It is an accepted principle that the Supre'e Court has the inherent
po+er to >suspend its o+n rules or to e1cept a particular case fro'
its operation, +henever the purposes of =ustice reAuire.>
30
6) Mr.
0ustice Barredo in his concurrin) opinion in (strada vs. Sto.
'omingo.
30
61 reiterated this principle and added that
Under this authorit/, this ourt is enabled to cove
6ith all situations 6ithout concerning itself about
procedural niceties that do not s5uare 6ith the need
to do )ustice, in an/ case, 6ithout further loss of
20
time, provided that the right of the parties to a full
da/ in court is not substantiall/ impaired. Thus, this
ourt ma/ treat an appeal as a certiorari and vice+
versa. ,n other 6ords, 6hen all the material facts are
spread in the records before Us, and all the parties
have been dul/ heard, it matters little that the error
of the court a 5uo is of )udgment or of )urisdiction.
1e can then and there render the appropriate
)udgment. Is +ithin the conte'plation of this doctrine
that as it is perfectl* le)al and +ithin the po+er of
this Court to stri(e do+n in an appeal acts +ithout or
in e1cess of =urisdiction or co''itted +ith )rave
abuse of discretion, it cannot be be*ond the ad'it of
its authorit*, in appropriate cases, to reverse in a
certain proceed in an/ error of )udgment of a court a
5uo 6hich cannot be e0actl/ categori&ed as a fla6
of )urisdiction. If there can be an* doubt, +hich I do
not entertain, on +hether or not the errors this Court
has found in the decision of the Court of Appeals are
short of bein) =urisdiction nullities or e1cesses, this
Court +ould still be on fir' le)al )rounds should it
choose to reverse said decision here and no+ even
if such errors can be considered as mere mista%es
of )udgment or onl/ as faults in the e0ercise of
)urisdiction, so as to avoid the unnecessar* return of
this case to the lo+er court for the sole purpose of
pursuin) the ordinar* course of an appeal.
-E'phasis supplied..
30
6(
Insistence on the application of the Auestioned Court industrial
Relations rule in this particular case at bar +ould an unreasonin)
adherence to >Procedural niceties> +hich denies =ustice to the herein
laborers, +hose basic hu'an freedo's, includin) the ri)ht to
survive, 'ust be accordin) supre'ac* over the propert* ri)hts of
their e'plo*er fir' +hich has been )iven a full hearin) on this case,
especiall* +hen, as in the case at bar, no actual 'aterial da'a)e
has be de'onstrated as havin) been inflicted on its propert* ri)hts.
If De can disre)ard our o+n rules +hen =ustice reAuires it, obedience
to the Constitution renders 'ore i'perative the suspension of a
Court of Industrial Relations rule that clash +ith the hu'an ri)hts
sanctioned and shielded +ith resolution concern b* the specific
)uarantees outlined in the or)anic la+. It should be stressed that the
application in the instant case Section $# of the Court of Industrial
Relations rules relied upon b* herein respondent fir' is
unreasonable and therefore such application beco'es
unconstitutional as it subverts the hu'an ri)hts of petitionin) labor
union and +or(ers in the li)ht of the peculiar facts and circu'stances
revealed b* the record.
,he suspension of the application of Section $# of the Court of
Industrial Relations rules +ith reference to the case at is also
authori8ed b* Section 56 of Co''on+ealth Act No. $63, the C.I.R.
charter, +hich en=oins the Court of Industrial Relations to >act
accordin) to =ustice and eAuit* and substantial 'erits of the case,
+ithout re)ard to technicalities or le)al for's ...>
n several occasions, De e'phasi8ed this doctrine +hich +as re2
stated b* Mr. 0ustice Barredo, spea(in) for the Court, in the $%&6
case of 8apisanan, etc. vs. Hamilton, etc., et. al.,
30
6$ thus4
As to the point that the evidence bein) offered b* the
petitioners in the 'otion for ne+ trial is not >ne+l*
discovered,> as such ter' is understood in the rules
of procedure for the ordinar* courts, De hold that
such criterion is not bindin) upon the Court of
Industrial Relations. Fnder Section 56 of
Co''on+ealth Act No. $63, I,he Court of Industrial
Relations shall adopt its, rules or procedure and
shall have such other po+ers as )enerall* pertain to
a court of =ustice4 Provided, ho+ever, ,hat in the
hearin), investi)ation and deter'ination of an*
Auestion or controvers* and in e1ercisin) an* duties
and po+er under this Act, the Court shall act
accordin) to =ustice and eAuit* and substantial
'erits of the case, +ithout re)ard to technicalities or
le)al for's and shall not be bound b* an* technical
rules of le)al evidence but 'a* infor' its 'ind in
such 'anner as it 'a* dee' =ust and eAuitable.I "/
this provision the industrial court is disengaged from
21
the rigidit/ of the technicalities applicable to ordinar/
courts. Said court is not even restricted to the
specific relief demanded b/ the parties but 'a*
issue such orders as 'a* be dee'ed necessar* or
e1pedient for the purpose of settlin) the dispute or
dispellin) an* doubts that 'a* )ive rise to future
disputes. -An) ,iba* v. C.I.R., :.R. No. @"@%", !eb.
$&, $%@69 Manila ,radin) L Suppl* Co. v. Phil. Gabor,
&$ Phil. $5@.. !or these reasons, De believe that
this provision is a'ple enou)h to have enabled the
respondent court to consider +hether or not its
previous rulin) that petitioners constitute a 'inorit*
+as founded on fact, +ithout re)ard to the technical
'eanin) of ne+l* discovered evidence. ... -Alonso v.
Cilla'or, $" Phil. 3$#9 Chua <ion) v. Dhita(er, @"
Phil. #&/.. -e'phasis supplied..
,o appl* Section $# of the Court of Industrial Relations rules +ith
>pedantic ri)or> in the instant case is to rule in effect that the poor
+or(ers, +ho can ill2afford an alert co'petent la+*er, can no lon)er
see( the sanctuar* of hu'an freedo's secured to the' b* the
funda'ental la+, si'pl* because their counsel H erroneousl*
believin) that he received a cop* of the decision on Septe'ber 53,
$%"%, instead of Septe'ber 55, $%"% 2 filed his 'otion for
reconsideration Septe'ber 5%, $%"%, +hich practicall* is onl* one
da* late considerin) that Septe'ber 5/, $%"% +as a Sunda*.
Man* a ti'e, this Court deviated fro' procedure technicalities +hen
the* ceased to be instru'ents of =ustice, for the attain'ent of +hich
such rules have been devised. Su''ari8in) the =urisprudence on
this score, Mr. 0ustice !ernando, spea(in) for a unani'ous Court in
Palma vs. 2reta,
30
6. Stated4
As +as so aptl* e1pressed b* 0ustice Moreland in
Alonso v. 9illamor -$" Phil. 3$# N$%$6O. ,he Cilla'or
decision +as cited +ith approval in Re)ister of
Deeds v. Phil. Nat. Ban(, /@ Phil. "66 N$%@%O9
Potenciano v. Court of Appeals, $6@ Phil. $#" N$%#/O
and F* v. F*, $@5@3, 0une 36, $%"$, 5 SCRA "&#..,
decided as far bac( as $%$6, >technicalit*. +hen it
deserts its proper2office as an aid to =ustice and
beco'es its )reat hindrance and chief ene'*,
deserves scant consideration fro' courts.> -,bid., p,
355.. ,o that nor', this Court has re'ained
co''itted. ,he late 0ustice Recto in Blanco v.
Bernabe, -"3 Phil. $5@ N$%3"O. +as of a si'ilar 'ind.
!or hi' the interpretation of procedural rule should
never >sacrifice the ends =ustice.> Dhile >procedural
la+s are no other than technicalities> vie+ the' in
their entiret*, Ithe* +ere adopted not as ends
the'selves for the co'pliance +ith +hich courts
have or)ani8ed and function, but as 'eans
conducive to the reali8ation the ad'inistration of the
la+ and of =ustice -,bid., p.,$5/.. De have re'ained
steadfastl* opposed, in the hi)hl* rhetorical
lan)ua)e 0ustice !eli1, to >a sacrifice of substantial
ri)hts of a liti)ant in altar of sophisticated
technicalities +ith i'pair'ent of the sacred
principles of =ustice.> -Potenciano v. Court of
Appeals, $6@ Phil. $#", $"$ N$%#/O.. As succinctl*
put b* 0ustice Ma(alintal, the* >should )ive +a* to
the realities of the situation.> -Frba*an v. Calte1, G2
$#3&%, Au). 3$, $%"5, # SCRA $6$", $6$%.. In the
latest decision in point pro'ul)ated in $%"/, -Fdan
v. A'on, -$%"/, 53 SCRA citin) McEntee v.
Manoto(, G2$@%"/, ct. 5&, $%"$, 3 SCRA 5&5..
0ustice Paldivar +as partial to an earlier for'ulation
of 0ustice Gabrador that rules of procedure >are not
to be applied in a ver* ri)id, technical sense>9 but
are intended >to help secure substantial =ustice.>
-,bid., p. /@3. ...
30
69
Even if the Auestioned Court of Industrial Relations orders and rule
+ere to be )iven effect, the dis'issal or ter'ination of the
e'plo*'ent of the petitionin) ei)ht -/. leaders of the Fnion is harsh
for a one2da* absence fro' +or(. ,he respondent Court itself
reco)ni8ed the severit* of such a sanction +hen it did not include the
dis'issal of the other 3%3 e'plo*ees +ho are 'e'bers of the sa'e
Fnion and +ho participated in the de'onstration a)ainst the Pasi)
police. As a 'atter of fact, upon the intercession of the Secretar* of
22
Gabor, the Fnion 'e'bers +ho are not officers, +ere not dis'issed
and onl* the Fnion itself and its thirteen -$3. officers +ere specificall*
na'ed as respondents in the unfair labor practice char)e filed
a)ainst the' b* the fir' -pp. $"256, respondentIs Brief9 Anne1es >A>,
>B> and >C>, pp. 56236, rec... Counsel for respondent fir' insinuates
that not all the @66 or so e'plo*ee participated in the de'onstration,
for +hich reason onl* the Fnion and its thirteen -$3. officers +ere
specificall* na'ed in the unfair labor practice char)e -p. 56,
respondentIs brief.. If that +ere so, then 'an*, if not all, of the
'ornin) and re)ular shifts reported for +or( on March @, $%"% and
that, as a conseAuence, the fir' continued in operation that da* and
did not sustain an* da'a)e.
,he appropriate penalt* H if it deserves an* penalt* at all H should
have been si'pl* to char)e said one2da* absence a)ainst their
vacation or sic( leave. But to dis'iss the ei)ht -/. leaders of the
petitioner Fnion is a 'ost cruel penalt*, since as aforestated the
Fnion leaders depend on their +a)es for their dail* sustenance as
+ell as that of their respective fa'ilies aside fro' the fact that it is a
lethal blo+ to unionis', +hile at the sa'e ti'e stren)thenin) the
oppressive hand of the pett* t*rants in the localities.
Mr. 0ustice Dou)las articulated this pointed re'inder4
,he challen)e to our liberties co'es freAuentl* not
fro' those +ho consciousl* see( to destro* our
s*ste' of :overn'ent, but fro' 'en of )ood+ill H
)ood 'en +ho allo+ their proper concerns to blind
the' to the fact that +hat the* propose to
acco'plish involves an i'pair'ent of libert*.
... ,he Motives of these 'en are often
co''endable. Dhat +e 'ust re'e'ber, ho+ever,
is that preservation of liberties does not depend on
motives. A suppression of libert/ has the same
effect 6hether the suppress or be a reformer or an
outla6. The onl/ protection against misguided &eal
is a constant alertness of the infractions of the
guarantees of libert/ contained in our Constitution.
(ach surrender of libert/ to the demands of the
moment ma%es easier another, larger surrender.
The battle over the "ill of Rights is a never ending
one.
... The liberties of an/ person are the liberties of all
of us.
... In short, the -iberties of none are safe unless the
liberties of all are protected.
... "ut even if 6e should sense no danger to our o6n
liberties, even if 6e feel secure because 6e belong
to a group that is important and respected, 6e must
recogni&e that our "ill of Rights is a code of fair pla/
for the less fortunate that 6e in all honor and good
conscience must be observe.
31

,he case at bar is +orse.
Mana)e'ent has sho+n not onl* lac( of )ood2+ill or )ood intention,
but a co'plete lac( of s*'pathetic understandin) of the pli)ht of its
laborers +ho clai' that the* are bein) sub=ected to indi)nities b* the
local police, It +as 'ore e1pedient for the fir' to conserve its inco'e
or profits than to assist its e'plo*ees in their fi)ht for their freedo's
and securit* a)ainst alle)ed pett* t*rannies of local police officers.
,his is sheer opportunis'. Such opportunis' and e1pedienc*
resorted to b* the respondent co'pan* assaulted the i''unities
and +elfare of its e'plo*ees. It +as pure and i'ple'ent selfishness,
if not )reed.
f happ* relevance is the $%"& case of Republic Savings "an% vs.
.,.R.,
32
+here the petitioner Ban( dis'issed ei)ht -/. e'plo*ees
for havin) +ritten and published >a patentl* libelous letter ... to the
Ban( president de'andin) his resi)nation on the )rounds of
i''oralit*, nepotis' in the appoint'ent and favoritis' as +ell as
discri'ination in the pro'otion of ban( e'plo*ees.> ,herein, thru Mr.
0ustice Castro, De ruled4
23
It +ill avail the Ban( none to )loat over this
ad'ission of the respondents. Assu'in) that the
latter acted in their individual capacities +hen the*
+rote the letter2char)e the* +ere nonetheless
protected for the* +ere en)a)ed in concerted
activit*, in the e1ercise of their ri)ht of self
or)ani8ation that includes concerted activit* for
'utual aid and protection, -Section 3 of the Industrial
Peace Act .... ,his is the vie+ of so'e 'e'bers of
this Court. !or, as has been aptl* stated, the )oining
in protests or demands, even b/ a small group of
emplo/ees, if in furtherance of their interests as
such, is a concerted activit/ protected b/ the
,ndustrial Peace Act. ,t is not necessar/ that union
activit/ be involved or that collective bargaining be
contemplated. -Annot., " A.G.R. 5d @$" N$%@%O..
111 111 111
Instead of stiflin) criticis', the Ban( should have
allo+ed the respondents to air their )rievances.
111 111 111
,he Ban( defends its action b* invo(in) its ri)ht to
discipline for +hat it calls the respondentsI libel in
)ivin) undue publicit* to their letter2char)e. ,o be
sure, the ri)ht of self2or)ani8ation of e'plo*ees is
not unli'ited -Republic Aviation Corp. vs. NGRB 35@
F.S. &%3 N$%@#O., as the ri)ht of the e'plo*er to
dischar)e for cause -Philippine Education Co. v.
Fnion of Phil. Educ. E'plo*ees, G2$3&&3, April 5%,
$%"6. is undenied. ,he Industrial Peace Act does
not touch the nor'al e1ercise of the ri)ht of the
e'plo*er to select his e'plo*ees or to dischar)e
the'. It is directed solel* a)ainst the abuse of that
ri)ht b* interferin) +ith the countervailin) ri)ht of self
or)ani8ation -Phelps Dod)e Corp. v. NGRB 3$3 F.S.
$&& N$%@$O....
111 111 111
In the final su' and substance, this ourt is in
unanimit/ that the "an%7s conduct, identified as an
interference 6ith the emplo/ees7 right of self+
organi&ation or as a retaliator/ action, andBor as a
refusal to bar)ain collectivel*, constituted an unfair
labor practice +ithin the 'eanin) and intend'ent of
section @-a. of the Industrial Peace Act. -E'phasis
supplied..
33

If free e1pression +as accorded reco)nition and protection to fortif*
labor unionis' in the Republic Savin)s case, supra, +here the
co'plaint assailed the 'oralit* and inte)rit* of the ban( president no
less, such reco)nition and protection for free speech, free asse'bl*
and ri)ht to petition are rendered all the 'ore =ustifiable and 'ore
i'perative in the case at bar, +here the 'ass de'onstration +as not
a)ainst the co'pan* nor an* of its officers.
D;ERE!RE, =ud)e'ent is hereb* rendered4
-$. settin) aside as null and void the orders of the respondent Court
of Industrial Relations dated Septe'ber $# and ctober %, $%"%9 and
-5. directin) the re instate'ent of the herein ei)ht -/. petitioners, +ith
full bac( pa* fro' the date of their separation fro' the service until
re instated, 'inus one da*Is pa* and +hatever earnin)s the* 'i)ht
have reali8ed fro' other sources durin) their separation fro' the
service.
Dith costs a)ainst private respondent Philippine Bloo'in) Co'pan*,
Inc.
SUPREME COURT
F!RST #!V!S!ON
24
MA2!MO CA"A"ANG,
Petitioner,
-versus- G.R. No. D7H00
#$1$-)$r 2, 19D0
A. #. C!""!AMS, ET A".,
Respondents.
;66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666;
# E C ! S ! O N
"AURE", J.G
Ma1i'o Calalan), in his capacit* as a private citi8en and as a
ta1pa*er of Manila, brou)ht before this court this petition for a +rit of
prohibition a)ainst the respondents, A. D. Dillia's, as Chair'an of
the National ,raffic Co''ission9 Cicente !ra)ante, as Director of
Public Dor(s9 Ser)io Ba*an, as Actin) Secretar* of Public Dor(s
and Co''unications9 Eulo)io Rodri)ue8, as Ma*or of the Cit* of
Manila9 and 0uan Do'in)ue8, as Actin) Chief of Police of Manila.
It is alle)ed in the petition that the National ,raffic Co''ission, in its
resolution of 0ul* $&, $%@6, resolved to reco''end to the Director of
Public Dor(s and to the Secretar* of Public Dor(s and
Co''unications that ani'al2dra+n vehicles be prohibited fro'
passin) alon) Rosario Street e1tendin) fro' Pla8a Calderon de la
Barca to Das'ari7as Street, fro' &436 a.'. to $5436 p.'. and fro'
$436 p.'. to #436 p.'.9 and alon) Ri8al Avenue e1tendin) fro' the
railroad crossin) at Antipolo Street to Echa)ue Street, fro' & a.'. to
$$ p.'., fro' a period of one *ear fro' the date of the openin) of the
Col)ante Brid)e to traffic9 that the Chair'an of the National ,raffic
Co''ission, on 0ul* $/, $%@6 reco''ended to the Director of
Public Dor(s the adoption of the 'easure proposed in the resolution
afore'entioned, in pursuance of the provisions of Co''on+ealth
Act No. #@/ +hich authori8es said Director of Public Dor(s, +ith the
approval of the Secretar* of Public Dor(s and Co''unications, to
pro'ul)ate rules and re)ulations to re)ulate and control the use of
and traffic on national roads9 that on Au)ust 5, $%@6, the Director of
Public Dor(s, in his first indorse'ent to the Secretar* of Public
Dor(s and Co''unications, reco''ended to the latter the approval
of the reco''endation 'ade b* the Chair'an of the National ,raffic
Co''ission as aforesaid, +ith the 'odification that the closin) of
Ri8al Avenue to traffic to ani'al2dra+n vehicles be li'ited to the
portion thereof e1tendin) fro' the railroad crossin) at Antipolo Street
to A8carra)a Street9 that on Au)ust $6, $%@6, the Secretar* of Public
Dor(s and Co''unications, in his second indorse'ent addressed
to the Director of Public Dor(s, approved the reco''endation of the
latter that Rosario Street and Ri8al Avenue be closed to traffic of
ani'al2dra+n vehicles, bet+een the points and durin) the hours as
above indicated, for a period of one *ear fro' the date of the
openin) of the Col)ante Brid)e to traffic9 that the Ma*or of Manila
and the Actin) Chief of Police of Manila have enforced and caused to
be enforced the rules and re)ulations thus adopted9 that as a
conseAuence of such enforce'ent, all ani'al2dra+n vehicles are not
allo+ed to pass and pic( up passen)ers in the places above2
'entioned to the detri'ent not onl* of their o+ners but of the ridin)
public as +ell.
It is contended b* the petitioner that Co''on+ealth Act No. #@/ b*
+hich the Director of Public Dor(s, +ith the approval of the
Secretar* of Public Dor(s and Co''unications, is authori8ed to
pro'ul)ate rules and re)ulations for the re)ulation and control of the
use of and traffic on national roads and streets is unconstitutional
because it constitutes an undue dele)ation of le)islative po+er. ,his
contention is untenable. As +as observed b* this court in Rubi vs.
Provincial Board of Mindoro -3% Phil, ""6, &66., Q,he rule has
no+here been better stated than in the earl* hio case decided b*
0ud)e Ranne*, and since follo+ed in a 'ultitude of cases, na'el*4
R,he true distinction therefore is bet+een the dele)ation of po+er to
'a(e the la+, +hich necessaril* involves a discretion as to +hat it
shall be, and conferrin) an authorit* or discretion as to its e1ecution,
to be e1ercised under and in pursuance of the la+. ,he first cannot
be done9 to the latter no valid ob=ection can be 'ade.? -Cincinnati, D.
L P. R. Co. vs. Co''?rs. Clinton Count*, $ hio St., //.. Discretion,
as held b* Chief 0ustice Marshall in Da*'an vs. Southard -$6
Dheat., $. 'a* be co''itted b* the Ge)islature to an e1ecutive
depart'ent or official. ,he Ge)islature 'a* 'a(e decisions of
e1ecutive depart'ents or subordinate officials thereof, to +ho' it
has co''itted the e1ecution of certain acts, final on Auestions of
fact. -F.S. vs. <in(ead, 5@/ !ed., $@$.. ,he )ro+in) tendenc* in the
decisions is to )ive pro'inence to the Rnecessit*? of the case.S
Section $ of Co''on+ealth Act No. #@/ reads as follo+s4
QSEC,IN $. ,o pro'ote safe transit upon, and avoid
obstructions on, roads and streets desi)nated as national
25
roads b* acts of the National Asse'bl* or b* e1ecutive
orders of the President of the Philippines, the Director of
Public Dor(s, +ith the approval of the Secretar* of Public
Dor(s and Co''unications, shall pro'ul)ate the necessar*
rules and re)ulations to re)ulate and control the use of and
traffic on such roads and streets. Such rules and re)ulations,
+ith the approval of the President, 'a* contain provisions
controllin) or re)ulatin) the construction of buildin)s or other
structures +ithin a reasonable distance fro' alon) the
national roads. Such roads 'a* be te'poraril* closed to an*
or all classes of traffic b* the Director of Public Dor(s and
his dul* authori8ed representatives +henever the condition
of the road or the traffic thereon 'a(es such action
necessar* or advisable in the public convenience and
interest, or for a specified period, +ith the approval of the
Secretar* of Public Dor(s and Co''unications.S
,he above provisions of la+ do not confer le)islative po+er upon the
Director of Public Dor(s and the Secretar* of Public Dor(s and
Co''unications. ,he authorit* therein conferred upon the' and
In the case of People vs. Rosenthal and s'e7a, :.R. Nos. @"6&"
and @"6&&, pro'ul)ated 0une $5, $%3%, and in Pan)asinan
,ransportation vs. ,he Public Service Co''ission, :.R. No. @&6"#,
pro'ul)ated 0une 5", $%@6, this Court had occasion to observe that
the principle of separation of po+ers has been 'ade to adapt itself to
the co'ple1ities of 'odern )overn'ents, )ivin) rise to the adoption,
+ithin certain li'its, of the principle of Qsubordinate le)islation,S not
onl* in the Fnited States and En)land but in practicall* all 'odern
)overn'ents. Accordin)l*, +ith the )ro+in) co'ple1it* of 'odern
life, the 'ultiplication of the sub=ects of )overn'ental re)ulations,
and the increased difficult* of ad'inisterin) the la+s, the ri)idit* of
the theor* of separation of )overn'ental po+ers has, to a lar)e
e1tent, been rela1ed b* per'ittin) the dele)ation of )reater po+ers
b* the le)islative and vestin) a lar)er a'ount of discretion in
ad'inistrative and e1ecutive officials, not onl* in the e1ecution of the
la+s, but also in the pro'ul)ation of certain rules and re)ulations
calculated to pro'ote public interest.
,he petitioner further contends that the rules and re)ulations
pro'ul)ated b* the respondents pursuant to the provisions of
Co''on+ealth Act No. #@/ constitute an unla+ful interference +ith
le)iti'ate business or trade and abrid)e the ri)ht to personal libert*
and freedo' of loco'otion. Co''on+ealth Act No. #@/ +as passed
b* the National Asse'bl* in the e1ercise of the para'ount police
po+er of the state.
Said Act, b* virtue of +hich the rules and re)ulations co'plained of
+ere pro'ul)ated, ai's to pro'ote safe transit upon and avoid
obstructions on national roads, in the interest and convenience of the
public. In enactin) said la+, therefore, the National Asse'bl* +as
pro'pted b* considerations of public convenience and +elfare. It
+as inspired b* a desire to relieve con)estion of traffic. +hich is, to
sa* the least, a 'enace to public safet*. Public +elfare, then, lies at
the botto' of the enact'ent of said la+, and the state in order to
pro'ote the )eneral +elfare 'a* interfere +ith personal libert*, +ith
propert*, and +ith business and occupations. Persons and propert*
'a* be sub=ected to all (inds of restraints and burdens, in order to
secure the )eneral co'fort, health, and prosperit* of the state -F.S.
vs. :o'e8 0esus, 3$ Phil., 5$/.. ,o this funda'ental ai' of our
:overn'ent the ri)hts of the individual are subordinated. Gibert* is a
blessin) +ithout +hich life is a 'iser*, but libert* should not be 'ade
to prevail over authorit* because then societ* +ill fall into anarch*.
Neither should authorit* be 'ade to prevail over libert* because then
the individual +ill fall into slaver*. ,he citi8en should achieve the
reAuired balance of libert* and authorit* in his 'ind throu)h
education and personal discipline, so that there 'a* be established
the resultant eAuilibriu', +hich 'eans peace and order and
happiness for all. ,he 'o'ent )reater authorit* is conferred upon
the )overn'ent, lo)icall* so 'uch is +ithdra+n fro' the residuu' of
libert* +hich resides in the people. ,he parado1 lies in the fact that
the apparent curtail'ent of libert* is precisel* the ver* 'eans of
insurin) its preservation.
26
,he scope of police po+er (eeps e1pandin) as civili8ation advances.
As +as said in the case of Dobbins vs. Gos An)eles -$%# F.S. 553,
53/9 @% G. ed. $"%., Qthe ri)ht to e1ercise the police po+er is a
continuin) one, and a business la+ful toda* 'a* in the future,
because of the chan)ed situation, the )ro+th of population or other
causes, beco'e a 'enace to the public health and +elfare, and be
reAuired to *ield to the public )ood.S And in People vs. Po'ar -@"
Phil., @@6., it +as observed that Qadvancin) civili8ation is brin)in)
+ithin the police po+er of the state toda* thin)s +hich +ere not
thou)ht of as bein) +ithin such po+er *esterda*. ,he develop'ent
of civili8ation, the rapidl* increasin) population, the )ro+th of public
opinion, +ith an increasin) desire on the part of the 'asses and of
the )overn'ent to loo( after and care for the interests of the
individuals of the state, have brou)ht +ithin the police po+er 'an*
Auestions for re)ulation +hich for'erl* +ere not so considered.S
,he petitioner finall* avers that the rules and re)ulations co'plained
of infrin)e upon the constitutional precept re)ardin) the pro'otion of
social =ustice to insure the +ell2bein) and econo'ic securit* of all the
people. ,he pro'otion of social =ustice, ho+ever, is to be achieved
not throu)h a 'ista(en s*'path* to+ards an* )iven )roup. Social
=ustice is Qneither co''unis', nor despotis', nor ato'is', nor
anarch*,S but the hu'ani8ation of la+s and the eAuali8ation of social
and econo'ic forces b* the State so that =ustice in its rational and
ob=ectivel* secular conception 'a* at least be appro1i'ated. Social
=ustice 'eans the pro'otion of the +elfare of all the people, the
adoption b* the :overn'ent of 'easures calculated to insure
econo'ic stabilit* of all the co'petent ele'ents of societ*, throu)h
the 'aintenance of a proper econo'ic and social eAuilibriu' in the
interrelations of the 'e'bers of the co''unit*, constitutionall*,
throu)h the adoption of 'easures le)all* =ustifiable, or e1tra2
constitutionall*, throu)h the e1ercise of po+ers underl*in) the
e1istence of all )overn'ents on the ti'e2honored principle of salus
populi est suprema le0.
Social =ustice, therefore, 'ust be founded on the reco)nition of the
necessit* of interdependence a'on) divers and diverse units of a
societ* and of the protection that should be eAuall* and evenl*
e1tended to all )roups as a co'bined force in our social and
econo'ic life, consistent +ith the funda'ental and para'ount
ob=ective of the state of pro'otin) the health, co'fort, and Auiet of
all persons, and of brin)in) about Qthe )reatest )ood to the )reatest
nu'ber.S
!N V!EC OF THE FOREGO!NG, the Drit of Prohibition Pra*ed for is
hereb* denied, +ith costs a)ainst the petitioner.
So ordered.
A8,&1$I,, C.J., !-p$ri,l, #i,: ,&( Horrill$&o, JJ., 1o&10r.
27