Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

Gregorio Aglipay v.

Juan Ruiz

G.R. No. L-45459

Facts:

The Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church sought the issuance a writ of
prohibition against Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of
the Thirty- Third International Eucharistic Congress designed with a chalice at the center, with
grape vine and stalks if wheat as a border.

The Solicitor-General argues that such writ of prohibition was not the proper remedy and such
alleged act violative of the constitution was without or in excess of jurisdiction of the principle of
separation of church and state.

Issue:

W/N the issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty-third International
Eucharistic Congress is violative of the provisions of section 23, subsection 3, Article VI, of the
Constitution of the Philippines which states, ‘No public money or property shall ever be
appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,
church, denomination, secretarian, institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or
support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except
when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal
institution, orphanage, or leprosarium.’

Ruling:

No. The stamps were not issued and sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. Nor
were money derived from the sale of the stamps given to that church. The only purpose in
issuing and selling the stamps was to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists to this
country. The officials concerned merely, took advantage of an event considered of international
importance "to give publicity to the Philippines and its people according to a letter of the
Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications to the President of the Philippines, June 9,
1936; p. 3, in the petitioner's complaint.

1|Page
Engel v. Vitale

Facts:

A New York State law required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance
and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God.
The law allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found it objectionable. A
parent sued on behalf of his child, that such law was unconstitutional since the
nondenominational prayer was violative of the establishment clause of which states that the
congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.

Issue:

W/N the law which requires a nondenominational prayer considered violative of the constitution
in spite the fact that students are allowed to absent themselves from that certain activity

Ruling:

Yes. The Establishment Clause states that the congress shall make no laws respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus, any law, regardless if
an individual has an option to participate in that certain activity or not, is a violation thereof.

In the case at hand, the mere existence of the law which requires a school to have a
nondenominational prayer is already a violation of the establishment clause itself, regardless of
the fact that such law allows a student to absent themselves. The option allowing students to
absent themselves does not negate the violation of constitutionality.

2|Page
Alejandro Estrada v. Soldedad S. Escritor
A.M. No. P-02-1651

Facts:

Soldedad Escritor, a court interpreter in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Pinas has been
living with a man not her husband since her husband died a year before she entered into the
relationship. Quilapio, the man not her husband, was still legally married to another woman.

Because of such knowledge of what may seem illicit to the eyes of Alejandro Estrada, the
complainant, he requested the Judge to investigate Escritor since according to him, the acts of
Escritor, was prejudicial to the court as it was immoral and would degrade the image of the court
if such relationship or affair was tolerated.

Escritor explained that her affair with Quilapio is allowed in her religion.

Issue:

W/N free exercise of religion with regards to her conjugal arrangement with Quilapio is a valid
defense

Ruling:

Yes. The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom
of religion. The free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental
rights in our Constitution and her marital affair with Quilapio is not considered as a compelling
state interest and detrimental to the public welfare for her to be punished.

3|Page
Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc

G.R. No. 167614

Facts:

Antonio Serrano, a Filipino seafarer, the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10, Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8042, does not magnify the contributions of OFWs to national development, but
exacerbates the hardships borne by them by unduly limiting their entitlement in case of illegal
dismissal to their lump-sum salary either for the unexpired portion of their employment contract
“or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less”.

Petitioner claims that the last clause violates the OFWs’ constitutional rights in that it impairs the
terms of their contract, deprives them of equal protection and denies them due process.

Issue:

W/N the 5th paragraph of Section 10, RA 8042 violate the non-impairment of contract clause of
the Constitution

Ruling:

No since the prohibition is aligned with the general principle that laws newly enacted are
prospective, and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected.

However, as to laws already in existence, the provisions are read into contracts and deemed a
part thereof. Thus, the non-impairment clause under Section 10, Article II is limited in
application to laws about to be enacted that would in any way derogate from existing acts or
contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties thereto.

4|Page
Chavez vs Gonzales

G.R. No. 168338

Facts:

Disc audiotapes involving a wiretapped mobile phone conversation between former President
Gloria Arroyo and Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, respondent DOJ Secretary
Gonzales warned reporters that those who had copies of the CD and those broadcasting or
publishing its contents would be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act.

Further, respondent NTC warned TV and radio stations that their broadcast/airing of such false
information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be a just cause for the suspension, revocation
and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations issued to the said media establishments.

Issue:

W/N press statements of respondents DOJ Secretary and the NTC constitute a form of content-
based prior restraint

Ruling:

Yes, the mere press statements of respondents DOJ Secretary and the NTC constituted a form of
content-based prior restraint which has transgressed the Constitution. It is not decisive that the
press statements made by respondents were not reduced in or followed up with formal orders or
circulars. It is sufficient that the press statements were made by respondents while in the exercise
of their official functions. Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for and on behalf of the
government in an official capacity is covered by the rule on prior restraint.

5|Page
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 148560

Facts:

Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking official was to be prosecuted under RA
7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), as amended by RA 7659, wishes
to impress upon us that the assailed law is so defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but
distinct line which divides the valid from the constitutionally infirm. He questions the
constitutionality of the Plunder Law mainly because, according to him, (a) it suffers from the
vice of vagueness; (b) it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions;
and, (c) it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised
Penal Code, all of which are purportedly clear violations of the fundamental rights of the accused
to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Issue:

W/N RA No. 7080 is unconstitutional as it allegedly violates the due process clause for its
vagueness

Ruling:

No. The Plunder Law is constitutional. Congress is not restricted in the form of expression of its
will, and its inability to so define the words employed in a statute will not necessarily result in
the vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the legislative will is clear, or at least, can be
gathered from the whole act, which is distinctly expressed in the Plunder Law.

6|Page
MTRCB v ABS CBN

G.R. No. 155282

Facts:

ABS-CBN aired "Prosti-tuition," an episode of the television (TV) program "The Inside Story"
which depicted female students moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition
fees. The Philippine Women’s University (PWU) was named as the school of some of the
students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue, Manila conspicuously served
as the background of the episode.

The showing of "The Inside Story" caused uproar in the PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de
Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers Association
filed letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the episode
besmirched the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students.

The MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint with the MTRCB Investigating
Committee, alleging among others, that respondents (1) did not submit "The Inside Story" to
petitioner for its review and (2) exhibited the same without its permission, thus, violating Section
74 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 19865 and Section 3,6 Chapter III and Section 7,Chapter IV
of the MTRCB Rules and Regulations.

In their answer, respondents explained that the "The Inside Story" is a "public affairs program,
news documentary and socio-political editorial," the airing of which is protected by the
constitutional provision on freedom of expression and of the press. Accordingly, petitioner has
no power, authority and jurisdiction to impose any form of prior restraint upon respondents.

Issue:

W/N MTRCB has the power or authority to review the “Inside Story” prior its exhibition or
broadcast by TV.

Ruling:

Yes. According to Sec 3 of PD 1986 enumerates the powers, functions and duties of the board:
b) to screen, review and examine all motion pictures herein defined, TV programs, including
publicity materials which in the case at bar, is included as subject to review.

7|Page
GMA v. Bustos

G.R. No. 146848

Facts:

In August 1987, the Board of Medicine of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
conducted the physicians’ licensure examinations. Out of the total two thousand eight hundred
thirty-five (2,835) examinees who took the examinations, nine hundred forty-one (941) failed.
GMA assigned Vidal for the news coverage of said news which was aired on February 10, 1988.

On the same date, a certain Abello and over two hundred other unsuccessful examinees filed a
Petition for Mandamus before the RTC of Manila to compel the PRC and the board of medical
examiners to re-check and re-evaluate the test papers. As alleged, mistakes in the counting of the
total scores and erroneous checking of answers to test questions vitiated the results of the
examinations.

Petitioners filed a complaint against defendants Vidal and GMA Network, Inc., in reckless
disregard for the truth, defamed them by word of mouth and simultaneous visual presentation on
GMA Network, Inc.’s Channel 7. They added that, as a measure to make a forceful impact on
their audience, the defendants made use of an unrelated and old footage (showing physicians
wearing black armbands) to make it appear that other doctors were supporting and sympathizing
with the complaining unsuccessful examinees. According to the plaintiffs, the video footage in
question actually related to a 1982 demonstration staged by doctors and personnel of the
Philippine General Hospital (PGH) regarding wage and economic dispute with hospital
management.

Issue:

W/N GMA is guilty of libel since they allegedly acted with malice in airing said news footage
aired last February 10, 1988 regarding the drop of passers in the recently conducted Physicians
exam that year

Ruling:

No. The subject news report was clearly a fair and true report, a simple narration of the
allegations contained in and circumstances surrounding the filing by the unsuccessful examinees
of the petition for mandamus before the court, and made without malice.

Actual malice, as a concept in libel, cannot plausibly be deduced from the fact of petitioners
having dubbed in their February 10, 1988 telecast an old unrelated video footage. As it were,
nothing in the said footage, be it taken in isolation or in relation to the narrated Vidal report, can
be viewed as reputation impeaching; it did not contain an attack, let alone a false one, on the
honesty, character or integrity or like personal qualities of any of the respondents, who were not

8|Page
even named or specifically identified in the telecast. It has been said that if the matter is not per
se libellous, malice cannot be inferred from the mere fact of publication.

9|Page
Sanidad v. COMELEC

G.R. NO. L-44640

Facts:

On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991
calling for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays")
to resolve, among other things, the issues of martial law, the I . assembly, its replacement, the
powers of such replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for tile exercise
by the President of his present powers.1

Twenty days after or on September 22, 1976, the President issued another related decree,
Presidential Decree No. 1031, amending the previous Presidential Decree No. 991, by declaring
the provisions of presidential Decree No. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of
votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of
October 16, 1976. Quite relevantly, Presidential Decree No. 1031 repealed Section 4, of
Presidential Decree No. 991, the full text of which (Section 4) is quoted in the footnote below.2

On the same date of September 22, 1976, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 1033,
stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16,
1976. The Decree recites in its "whereas" clauses that the people's continued opposition to the
convening of the National Assembly evinces their desire to have such body abolished and
replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a legislative body, which will be
submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16.

On September 27, 1976, Pablo and Pablito Sanidad, father and son, commenced L-44640 for
Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections from
holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without force and
effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the
Constitution, as well as Presidential Decree No. 1031, insofar as it directs the Commission on
Elections to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on
October 16, 1976.

Issues:

W/N the issue poses a justiciable question

Ruling:

Yes. The Court did not agree with the Solicitor General’s contention that the issue is a political
one. This is because the 1973 Constitution expressly provided that the power to propose
amendments to the constitution resides in the interim National Assembly in the period of
transition.

10 | P a g e
After that transition period, and when the regular National Assembly is in its active session, the
power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular National
Assembly. The normal course has not been followed.

Rather than calling the National Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent assembly, the
president undertook the proposal of amendments through Presidential Decree 1033 and in effect,
through a Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. Unavoidably, the irregularity of the amendment
procedure raises a contestable issue.

11 | P a g e
Borjal v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 126466

Facts:

Petitioners Arturo Borjal and Maximo Soliven are among the incorporators of Philippines Today,
Inc. (PTI), now PhilSTAR Daily, Inc., owner of The Philippine Star, a daily newspaper. At the
time the complaint was filed, petitioner Borjal was its President while Soliven was Publisher and
Chairman of its Editorial Board. Among the regular writers of The Philippine Star is Borjal who
runs the column Jaywalker.

During the congressional hearings on the transport crisis sometime in September 1988
undertaken by the House Sub-Committee on Industrial Policy, those who attended agreed to
organize the First National Conference on Land Transportation (FNCLT) to be participated in by
the private sector in the transport industry and government agencies concerned in order to find
ways and means to solve the transportation crisis. More importantly, the objective of the FNCLT
was to draft an omnibus bill that would embody a long-term land transportation policy for
presentation to Congress. The conference which, according to private respondent, was estimated
to cost around P1,815,000.00 would be funded through solicitations from various sponsors such
as government agencies, private organizations, transport firms, and individual delegates or
participants.

At the organizational meeting of the FNCLT, private respondent Francisco Wenceslao was
elected Executive Director. As such, he wrote numerous solicitation letters to the business
community for the support of the conference.

A series of articles written by petitioner Borjal was published on different dates in his column
Jaywalker. The articles dealt with the alleged anomalous activities of an organizer of a
conference without naming or identifying private respondent. Neither did it refer to the FNCLT
as the conference therein mentioned. Quoted hereunder are excerpts from the articles of
petitioner together with the dates they were published.

Private respondent reacted to the articles. He sent a letter to The Philippine Star insisting that he
was the "organizer" eluded to in petitioner Borjal's columns. 4 In a subsequent letter to The
Philippine Star, private respondent refuted the matters contained in petitioner Borjal's columns
and openly challenged him.

Private respondent filed for damages against petitioners for the series of articles written by the
latter in a newspaper column, which dealt with alleged anomalous activities without naming or
identifying private respondent. Petitioners contend that the right to free press is a privilege
communication.

12 | P a g e
Issue:

W/N commentaries on matters of public interest are privilege

Ruling:

Yes. No culpability could be imputed to petitioners for the alleged offending publication without
doing violence to the concept of privileged communications implicit in the freedom of the press.

13 | P a g e
Binay v. Secretary of Justice

G.R. No. 170643

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

14 | P a g e

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi