A WRITTEN REPORT

ON THE
THEORY OF LEGAL FUNCTIONALISM

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW
Atty. Marlon Villanueva

Prepared by:
GROUP VI Section I-A-1
Adrian Catamora
Nicole Solomon
Miguel Blanco
Kim Mendoza Lapira
Fyrsed Alsad A. Alfad III

I. INTRODUCTION

Among the known sociological perspectives, Functionalism is more societal in

approach than individualistic.1 It confines society in a system of interconnectivity that
harmoniously maintain a sense of social equilibrium. 2 Functionalism gives more focus on the
greater welfare of societal substituents and believes that various organs in a society assume
a significant and indispensable function relative to serving that welfare. 3 It looks at social

1
Trueman, C. (2015, May 25). Functionalism. https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sociology/theories-in-
sociology/functionalism
2
Ibid.
3
Polger, T. W. (n.d.). Functionalism. https://www.iep.utm.edu/functism
structures as an instrument in shaping individual behavior which is vital to social order. 4 It
posits that individuals intentionally cooperate with each other towards a common goal. Such
cooperation is influenced by the aspects of Family, Religion, Education and Crime. 5
Family serves for the primary socialization of individuals. Behavioral interactions
have their roots and development in a family unit.
Religion builds conscience and awareness and the belief of a Higher Power positively
affects human.
Education instills upon the youth the values of achievement, competition and
equality of opportunity.
Crime allows the development of a social consensus which leads to the phenomenon
of societal discernment in picking the right from the wrong.6

II. FUNCTIONALIST PHILOSOPHERS

A. EMILE DURKHEIM (1858-1917)

Hailed as the founder of Functionalism, Emile Durkheim gives primacy to the society
over the individual – the former as the whole and the latter merely as a part to it. Durkheim
stands that a society is one that exhibits order, constraint, and control of its subjects. 7
Socialization plays a vital role in a dynamic society and social stability can only be assured if
the norms, rules, and values created through socialization will be inherited by the posterity. 8
Durkheim theorized societal and institutional interdependency as being crucial to
survival. He based Functionalism around a value consensus and social solidarity which is
achieved by socialization and social constraint. 9
One form of social solidarity is Mechanical Solidarity which speaks of people
involved in similar roles and commonly shared norms, values and beliefs contribute to these

4
Martin Mahner and Mario Bunge, ‘Function and Functionalism: A Synthetic Perspective’, Philosophy of Science.
5
Functionalism - An Introduction – ReviseSociology. (2017, July 03).
https://revisesociology.com/2016/09/01/functionalism-sociology/
6
Ibid.
7
Essays, UK. (November 2013). Functionalism, Emile Durkheim 1858-1917.
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/sociology/functionislm-emile-durkheim-1858-1917-sociologyessay.php?vref=1
8
Ibid.
9
Connections are drawn eg by Rudolf B. Schlesinger, Hans W. Baade, Peter E. Herzog, and Edward M. Wise,
Comparative Law
roles. These commonly shared norms are considered as a social agreement or a social
contract binding upon individuals to maintain social order.10
Another form is Organic Solidarity which points to division of labor. Durkheim
argued that as a society develops, division of labor transpires. Work and Home are
differentiated. Consequently, the State acts as parent, teacher, doctor and jury of the
society thereby organizing education, health care, housing, and criminal justice system. 11

DURKHEIM’S IDEOLOGIES ON CRIME:

a. A Necessity of Crime Limitation

Individual vulnerability towards influences and circumstances leads to difference in
collective sentiments. Even in a perfect world, deviance is inevitable. Durkheim contends
that all social change begins with some form of deviance and its nature is ever-changing.
Yesterday’s deviance becomes today’s norm.12

b. Crimes perform positive functions.

Three positive functions of crime:
1) Social Regulation. An arrest made by authorities on individuals performing
an unacceptable act solidifies the limits of acceptable behavior. There is an existence
of regulation.
2) Strong Social Integration or Cohesion. In the commission of heinous
crimes, the whole community unite in the outrage and thereby strengthening their
sense of belongingness.
3) Social Change. Criminal acts constantly test the boundaries of permitted
action. When the law is already in conflict with the consensus of the majority, legal
reform takes place. Criminals are instrumental in determining the interest of the
population and realizing social change.13

c. Too much crime leads to societal collapse.

10
Supra. Page 1. Note 4
11
Ibid.
12
Felix S. Cohen, ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Method’,
13
Supra. Page 2. Note 12
 Durkheim, in generic terms, claimed that crime has its uses but failed to make
distinctions between the types of crimes. He postulates that the criminal justice system is
beneficial for it punishes criminals and reinforces acceptable boundaries of behavior.14

B. TALCOTT PARSONS (1902-1979)

Talcott Parsons, a classical American sociologist, was best known for the theory of
social action and structural functionalism making him one of the most renowned 20th
century sociologists.15 He is notable for his translations and analyses of Max Weber’s work
as well as those of Emile Durkheim and Vilfredo Pareto. 16 He viewed voluntarist action
(voluntarism) as being constrained by cultural values and social structures since they
17
restrict individual choices and ultimately determine all social actions.
Parsons asserted that society must be seen as a system known as the Organic
Analogy composed of social structures which are interconnected and interdependent. He
thinks of institutions as analogous to anatomical organs which harmoniously perform
specific functions that are essential to the maintenance of the whole society. Society should
be understood with reference to what they have contributed to the maintenance of the
whole.18
For Functionalists, change is evolutionary. A change in one part of society will trigger
change on the other. Crimes and deviances negatively affect society and but they can also
be progressive to the other parts of the society. 19 According to Parsons, as society changes
it also develops and the pattern variables within it will become more complex. He supposed
that societies had certain functional prerequisites for survival. These are adaptation, goal
attainment, integration and latency.20 In advanced industrial society, these needs are
met through specialized sub-systems such as:
1) The Workplace – to produce goods and services
2) Schools – to achieve value consensus by teaching people discernment
3) Courts – in order to resolve differences of opinion, deal with conflict, and punish
deviants; and

14
Ibid.
15
Supra. Page 1.Note 5
16
The Social System. Talcott Parsons. Glencoe, Ill., Free Press [1951]
17
Ibid.
18
Sociological Theory and Modern Society.Talcott Parsons. New York : Free Press, [1967]
19
Felix S. Cohen, ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Method’
20
Supra. Same. Note 18
 4) The family – to reproduce and socialize the next generation society can carry
on.21

C. ROBERT MERTON (1910-2003)

Robert Merton was an American sociologist and a founding father of modern
sociology. He is known for his contributions to criminology where he established notable
concepts such as “unintended consequences”, the “reference group”, and “role strain”. 22
However, he is best known for the terms “role model”, and “self-fulfilling prophecy”.
Self-fulfilling prophecy is one where a belief or expectation affects the outcome of a
situation or the way a person or group will behave. Merton’s definition is that…“It is, in the
beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior, which makes the
originally false conception come true.”23
Merton's contribution to sociology is key in defining the functional perspective of
society. He viewed society as an organism with various parts wherein each has a specific
function – whether such functions were intentional or not, obvious, and not-so-obvious. 24
These functions are known as the manifest functions [which are the recognized and
intended functions] and latent functions and dysfunctions [the unrecognized and unintended
Functions].25 He added that in distinguishing between manifest and latent functions one
must dig to discover the latter. His example from his 1949 piece, "Manifest and Latent
Functions", was an analysis of political machines. Merton described the negative
consequences of political machines then demonstrated how the people in charge of the
machines, acting in their own interest, were meeting the social needs instead of the
government institutions.26
The Functionalist perspective is that society is a complex system whose parts work
together to promote the survival and stability of society. 27 The structures of society (i.e.
education system, criminal justice system, and economic system) all have a vital function
and their proper performance in unison ensures smooth societal operation, otherwise, it

21
Ibid.
22
Johnson, B. (n.d.). Robert K. Merton: Theories and Functionalism. https://study.com/academy/lesson/robert-
k-merton-theories-and-functionalism.html
23
Ibid.
24
Robert K. Merton, ‘Manifest and Latent Functions’, Social Theory and Social Structure
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
N. J. Demerath III and Richard A. Peterson (eds), System, Change, and Conflict: A Reader on Contemporary
Sociological Theory and the Debate over Functionalism
results to adverse reactions.28 This leads to Merton’s emphasis on the existence of
dysfunctions. He presents three postulates showcasing main issues or flaws with
functionalism,29 namely:
1) The postulate of the functional unity of society
It is a misunderstanding that all societies are functional and harmonious. Not
all societies are happy and well-integrated, where the people function well together
and all involved prosper. His examples are civil wars, the segregation of African-
Americans in the 1950s and South African blacks during the apartheid regime.
2) The postulate of universal functionalism
This disproves that not all ideals work for everyone in a society. Merton
believes that some things lead to consequences that are either generally or
selectively dysfunctional
3) The postulate of indispensability
This challenges the social function for customs, ideals, or institutions as a
whole. Merton questions and doubts whether every social institution performs a
specific function. Several institutions can provide the same function or none at all, so
it is impossible to decipher what functions are vital or not to a society.
Merton also developed a theory on social strain where social structures may pressure
citizens to crime commission.30 The strain may be structural, where the pressure is in the
processes at the societal level that filter down and affect how the individual perceives his or
her needs. It can also be individual, referring to the frictions and pains experienced by an
individual as he or she looks for ways to satisfy individual needs. These types of strain
insinuates upon social structures within society which can potentially pressure citizens to
resort to crimes.31
Merton proposed classification of deviant behavior to illustrate the possible
discrepancies between culturally defined goals and the institutionalized means available for
the achievement of such goals.32 In this case, He based it upon two criteria: (1) a person’s
motivations or her adherence to cultural goals; (2) a person’s belief in how to attain his
goals.33 According to Merton, there are five types of deviance based upon these criteria:
A. Conformity – It involves the acceptance of the cultural goals and means of
attaining those goals

28
Ibid
29
Supra. Same. Note 24
30
Supra. Page 4. Note 22
31
Ibid.
32
Supra. Page 5. Note 24
33
Ibid.
 B. Innovation – This involves the acceptance of the goals of a culture but the
rejection of the traditional and/or legitimate means of attaining
those goals.
C. Ritualism – This is the rejection of cultural goals but the routinized acceptance
of the means for achieving the goals
D. Retreatism – The rejection of both the cultural goals and the traditional means of
achieving those goals.
E. Rebellion – A special case wherein the individual rejects both the cultural goals
and traditional means of achieving them but actively attempts to
replace both elements of the society with different goals and
means.34
Merton’s classification or typology is so noteworthy because people can turn to
deviance in the pursuit of widely accepted social values and goals. Ergo, deviance can be
the result of accepting one norm, but breaking another in order to pursue the first. 35 In this
sense and employing social strain theory, social values actually produce deviance in two
ways. Primarily, an actor can reject social values and therefore become deviant.
Secondarily, an actor can accept social values but use deviant means to realize them. 36

PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE
SHOWCASING THE APPLICATION
OF THE
THEORY OF LEGAL FUNCTIONALISM

34
Ibid
35
Columbia LR; ‘The Problems of a Functional Jurisprudence’ Modern LR. Ernst Cassirer, Substanzbegriff und
Funktionsbegriff.
36
Martin Mahner and Mario Bunge, ‘Function and Functionalism: A Synthetic Perspective’, Philosophy of Science.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REPRESENTED BY ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, petitioner,
vs.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondent.
[G.R. No. 141369. April 9, 2003.]

LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY AND POVERTY (LAMP) consisting of

CEFERINO PADUA, Chairman, G. FULTON ACOSTA, GALILEO BRION,
ANATALIA BUENAVENTURA, PEDRO CASTILLO, NAPOLEON CORONADO,
ROMEO ECHAUZ, FERNANDO GAITE, ALFREDO DE GUZMAN, ROGELIO
KARAGDAG, JR., MA. LUZ ARZAGA-MENDOZA, ANSBERTO PAREDES,
AQUILINO PIMENTEL III, MARIO REYES, EMMANUEL SANTOS, RUDEGELIO
TACORDA, members, and ROLANDO ARZAGA, Secretary-General, JUSTICE
ABRAHAM SARMIENTO, SENATOR AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR. and
COMMISSIONER BARTOLOME FERNANDEZ, JR., Board of Consultants, and
Lawyer GENARO LUALHATI, petitioners, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY
(MERALCO), respondent.
FACTS:
On December 23, 1993, MERALCO file with ERB an application for revised rates with
the increase of P0.21 per kw/h in its distribution charge. On January 28, 1994, ERB granted
a provisional increase of P 0. 184 per kwh, provided that, If the MERALCO is entitled to a
lesser increase in rates, all excess amounts collected by MERALCO shall be refunded to its
customers or credited in their favor.
COA conducted an examination of book of accounts and records of MERALCO. The
commission recommended that income taxes paid by MERALCO should not be included as
part of MERALCO’s operating expense and the “net average investment method” or “number
of months used method” should be applied in determining the proportionate value of the
properties used by MERALCO during the test year.
On February 16, 1998, ERB adopted the recommendations of the COA and adopted a
rate adjustment of P.0.017 per kw/h to billing cycles beginning 1994.
The ERB further directed MERALCO to credit the excess average amount of P0.167 per
kwh to its customers to billing cycles beginning February 1994.
On November 15, 2002, the ruling of ERB was affirmed by the court. On December 5,
2002, MERALCO filed for Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the regulation of ERB as to the adjustment of rates of MERALCO is
valid.

2. Whether or not the “net average investment method” or “number of months used
method” should be applied in determining the proportionate value of the properties.

3. Whether or not income tax paid by should be used for operating expenses
RULING:

The Supreme Court denied with finality Meralco's motion for reconsideration.
According to the Court, rate regulation calls for a careful consideration of the totality of facts
and circumstances material to each application for an upward rate revision. In this case,
even if income tax is to be included as an operating expense and, hence, recoverable from
the consuming public, Meralco would still enjoy a rate of return that is above the authorized
rate of 12%.
Public utilities cannot be allowed to overcharge at the expense of the public, and
worse, they cannot complain that they are not overcharging enough.
The Court also found no reversible error on the part of COA and the ERB in adopting
the "net average investment method" or the "number of months use method" for property
valuation purposes.
Such matters are primarily entrusted to the said administrative or regulating
authorities, which the courts are ill equipped to enter. The Court ruled that the audit
procedures conducted in a rate application proceeding is to determine whether the rate
applied for will generate a reasonable return for public utility, which, in accordance with
settled laws and jurisprudence, is 12% on rate base or the present value of the assets used
in the operations of a public utility. Hence, the ERB decision ordering a refund to Meralco
customers should be given retroactive effect.
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED WITH FINALITY. IH

LEGAL FUNCTIONALISM: CAUSE and EFFECT

In the case of Republic of the Philippines represent by Energy Regulatory Board
(ERB) v. Meralco, the court sides with the welfare of the consumers. It gives emphasis on
the public interest rather than what could MERALCO benefit or use from the applied increase
of rates in electricity bill. Thus, as stated in the principles of legal functionalism, it gives
more focus on the greater welfare of societal substituents and believes that various organs
in a society assume a significant and indispensable function relative to serving that
welfare.37
As a public utility provider, it is imperative that the legal rules serve for the society
and the government. It also states that in legal functionalism change in one part of society
will trigger change on the other.38 Hence, the increase applied by MERALCO could either be
a burden to its consumers and profitable for the said provider. If the said increase rate was
approved by the court, adjustments may arise and it should be carefully considered by
lawmakers.

SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG KABATAAN (SPARK),* JOANNE ROSE SACE

LIM, JOHN ARVIN NAVARRO BUENAAGUA, RONEL BACCUTAN, MARK LEO DELOS
REYES, and CLARISSA JOYCE VILLEGAS, minor, for herself and as represented by
her father, JULIAN VILLEGAS, JR., Petitioners,

vs.

QUEZON CITY, as represented by MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA, CITY OF MANILA, as

represented by MAYOR JOSEPH ESTRADA, and NAVOTAS CITY, as represented by
MAYOR JOHN REY TIANGCO,, Respondents,

[G.R. No. 225442 August 8, 2017]

FACTS:

Following the drive of the President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, various local governments
in Metro Manila started the police operations of “Oplan Rody”, this is the implementation of
a nationwide curfew for minors. Several local governments started to strictly implement
their curfew ordinances on minors.
Those local governments that implemented curfew ordinances were respondents: (a)
Navotas City, through Pambayang Ordinansa Blg. 99- 02,4 dated August 26, 1999, entitled

37
Supra. Page 1. Note 3
38
Supra. Page 5. Note 19
"Nagtatakdang 'Curfew' ng mga Kabataan na Wala Pang Labing Walong (18) Taong Gulang
sa Bayan ng Navotas, Kalakhang Maynila," as amended by Pambayang Ordinansa Blg.
2002-13,5 dated June 6, 2002 (Navotas Ordinance); (b) City of Manila, through Ordinance
No. 80466 entitled "An Ordinance Declaring the Hours from 10:00 P.M. to 4:00 A.M. of the
Following Day as 'Barangay Curfew Hours' for Children and Youths Below Eighteen (18)
Years of Age; Prescribing Penalties Therefor; and for Other Purposes" dated October 14,
2002 (Manila Ordinance); and (c) Quezon City, through Ordinance No. SP- 2301,7 Series of
2014, entitled "An Ordinance Setting for a [sic] Disciplinary Hours in Quezon City for Minors
from 10:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M., Providing Penalties for Parent/Guardian, for Violation Thereof
and for Other Purposes" dated July 31, 2014 (Quezon City Ordinance; collectively, Curfew
Ordinances)
The petitioners, Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) which is an
association of young adults and minors that aims to a forward free society and just society-
association for the protection of the rights of and welfare of the youth and minors. The
petitioners filed the petition contending that the Curfew Ordinances are unconstitutional
because they: (a) result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, (b) suffer from over
extent by prescribing or impairing legitimate activities of minors during curfew hours; (c)
deprive minors of the right to liberty and the right to travel without substantive due
process; and (d) deprive parents of their natural and primary right in rearing the youth
without substantive due process. The curfew ordinances violate the Republic Act. No. 9344
or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.
The petitioners also emphasize that the Curfew Ordinances leads to arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement as there are no clear provisions of detailed standards and
procedures on how law enforcers should apprehend and determine the age of the violator.
They argue that the law enforcers depend only on physical assessment and it is subjective.
They also recognize the exemptions of the curfew ordinances but they oppose that the list
of exemptions do not cover the legitimate reasons as to why minors would be out at night
and impairs the legitimate activities of minors during curfew hours.
The respondents ask the dismissal of the petition questioning:(a) the propriety of
certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to assail the constitutionality
of the Curfew Ordinances; (b) petitioners' direct resort to the Court, contrary to the
hierarchy of courts doctrine; and (c) the lack of actual controversy and standing to warrant
judicial review
The petitioners of the case further beset the Constitutionality of the Curfew Ordinances
based on the minor’s right to travel. For they claim that the liberty to travel is a
fundamental right which is necessary to apply the Scrutiny test. Philippine jurisprudence
has developed three (3) tests of judicial scrutiny to determine the reasonableness of
classifications. The strict scrutiny test applies when a classification either (i) interferes with
the exercise of fundamental rights, including the basic liberties guaranteed under the
Constitution, or (ii) burdens suspect classes. The intermediate scrutiny test applies when a
classification does not involve suspect classes or fundamental rights, but requires
heightened scrutiny, such as in classifications based on gender and legitimacy. Lastly, the
rational basis test applies to all other subjects not covered by the first two tests.
The strict scrutiny test as applied to minors requires a consideration of the strange
circumstances of minors as enumerated in Bellotti vis-a-vis the State's duty as parens
patriae to protect and preserve their well-being with the compelling State interests
justifying the assailed government act. Under the strict scrutiny test, a legislative
classification that interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the
disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional.
 Thus, the government has the burden of proving that the classification (1) is necessary
to achieve a compelling State interest, and (2) is the least restrictive means to protect such
interest or the means chosen is narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest;
(1) Court has ruled that children's welfare and the State's mandate to protect
and care for them as parens patriae constitute compelling interests to justify
regulations by the State.
(2) Fundamental premises that citizens should not be hampered from
pursuing legitimate activities in the exercise of their constitutional rights. While
rights may be restricted, the restrictions must be minimal or only to the extent
necessary to achieve the purpose or to address the State's compelling interest. When
it is possible for governmental regulations to be more narrowly drawn to avoid
conflicts with constitutional rights, then they must be so narrowly drawn.
The test was applied for the three issued Curfew Ordinances and found out that
Quezon City ordinance was the only one who passed the test and considered constitutional.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the three Curfew Ordinances passed the levels of Scrutiny Test

2. Whether or not the three Curfew Ordinances are considered Unconstitutional.

RULING:
The court declares the petition as PARTLY GRANTED.
The finds out that all three Curfew Ordinances have passed the first stage of the
strict scrutiny test as the State has appropriately shown a compelling interest to promote
juvenile safety and prevent juvenile crime.
On the second stage, only the Quezon City Ordinance has passed as it is only the
only issuance out of the three which provides for the least restrictive means to achieve this
interest. In particular the Quezon City Ordinance provides for adequate exceptions that
enable minors to freely exercise their fundamental rights during the prescribed curfew
hours, and therefore, narrowly drawn to achieve the State's purpose. Section 4 (a) of the
said ordinance, "those accompanied by their parents or guardian", has also been construed
to include parental permission as a constructive form of accompaniment and hence, an
allowable exception to the curfew measure; the manner of enforcement, however, is left to
the discretion of the local government unit.
The Court declared that the MANILA and NAVOTAS Curfew Ordinances are declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL and thus NULL and VOID. The Court has determined that the Manila
Ordinance's penal provisions imposing reprimand and fines/imprisonment on minors conflict
with Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended. Hence, following the rule that ordinances should
always conform to the law, these provisions must be struck down as invalid while the
QUEZON CITY Ordinance Curfew is declared CONSTITUTIONAL and VALID.

LEGAL FUNCTIONALISM: THE CONNECTION AND APPLICATION

Legal Functionalism serves the common interest and needs of the people. The
different sectors within a society are bound to promote the welfare of its subjects. 39

39
Supra. Page 1. Note 3.
Functionalism sees the society as a system of interconnected parts that work together to
maintain balance.40

In the instant case, the three local governments issued Curfew Ordinances for the
reason of protecting the minority from any harm brought by dangers of the environment at
night as the Doctrine of Parens Patriae allows them to do so. However, the curfew
ordinances forgot to consider instances where some of its provisions may suppress the
rights of the minors to liberty and mold them, not to penalize them, but to rehabilitate them
to become better members in the society. The three Curfew Ordinances factually sound
because it promotes to protect the minority, but it does not mean that the local government
is in the position to impose something [even if it is contrary to law] especially to promote
the common interest and welfare of the society. Legal Functionalism plays a very vital role
in this case to raise work balance of local governments and push for the good common ends
of the society.

MARIO JOSE E. SERENO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF

PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (APMP), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND RELATED MATTERS (CTRM) OF THE NATIONAL
ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA), COMPOSED OF THE
DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE NEDA SECRETARIAT, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
THE SECRETARIES OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, FINANCE, FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, AGRARIAN REFORM, THE GOVERNOR OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG
PILIPINAS AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TARIFF COMMISSION, AND BRENDA R.
MENDOZA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE TRADE, INDUSTRY & UTILITIES
STAFF, Respondents.
FACTS:
On October 16, 2006, the Association of Petrochemical Manufacturers of the
Philippines (APMP), petitioner, appeals the decision by Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
268, in Pasig city, dismissing the petition for mandamus he had filed in his capacity as a
citizen and as a stakeholder in the Philippine petrochemical industry to compel the
Committee on Tariff and Related Matters (CTRM), respondent, to provide a copy of the
minutes of its May 23, 2005 meeting, as well as to provide copies of all official records,

40
Supra. Page 1. Note 1.
documents, papers and government research data used as basis for the issuance of
Executive Order No. 486.
Antecedents
• On May 23, 2005, recommended to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo the lifting of
the suspension of the tariff reduction schedule on petrochemicals and certain plastic
products, thereby reducing the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) rates on
products covered by E.O. No. 161 from 7% or 10% to 5% starting July 2005.
• On July 9, 2005, APMP requested a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on May
23, 2005. On June 20, 2005, Director Mendoza of the CTRM denied the request, instead
provided the APMP with a letter of the action taken.
• On August 31, 2005, a second letter was sent by the CTRM as a response to the
series of letter-requests from the APMP, stating that the CTRM is constrained (not) to
provide the said minutes to the APMP citing Section 3, Rule IV of the IRR.
• On October 27, 2005, the APMP reminded CTRM about the legal implications of the
refusal to furnish copies of the minutes as in violation of the petitioner’s Constitutional right
of access to information on matters of public concern.
• On December 12, 2005, and January 10, 2006, the APMP sent letters to the Office of
the President, stating the reasons why the recommendation of the CTRM should be rejected,
but the OP did not respond to the letters.
• On January 3, 2006, the petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Writ
of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.
• On January 26, 2006, the respondent filed its opposition and on February 16, 2006,
a Motion to Dismiss.
• On May 9, 2006, the RTC denied the Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction but directed the parties to file their respective
memorandums after noting that the controversy involved a pure question of law.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the meetings of the CTRM and the minutes thereof exempt
from the Constitutional right of access to information?
2. Whether or not the minutes of CTRM meetings are privileged or confidential,
is such privilege or confidentiality absolute?
3. Whether or not privilege or confidentiality be invoked to evade public
accountability, or worse, to cover up incompetence and malice?
RULING:
(1) Yes. The people’s right to information is not absolute. According to Legaspi v.
Civil Service Commission, the constitutional guarantee to information "does not open every
door to any and all information." 41 It is limited to matters of public concern, and is subject
to such limitations as may be provided by law. Likewise, the State’s policy of full public
disclosure is restricted to transactions involving public interest, and is further subject to
reasonable conditions prescribed by law.

41
(SCRA, GR L-72119, 1987)
 (2) Yes. The information requested must not be excluded by law from the
constitutional guarantee. In that regard, the Court has already declared that the
constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to information does not cover national security
matters and intelligence information, trade secrets and banking transactions and criminal
matters. Equally excluded from coverage of the constitutional guarantee are diplomatic
correspondence, closed-door Cabinet meeting and executive sessions of either house of
Congress, as well as the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.
(3) Yes. It is always necessary, given the highly important and complex powers
to fix tariff rates vested in the President, that the recommendations submitted for the
President’s consideration be well-thought out and well-deliberated. The Court has expressly
recognized in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority that "a frank exchange of exploratory ideas
and assessments, free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties, is
essential to protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise
Presidential, Legislative and Judicial power." 42 In Almonte v. Vasquez, the Court has
stressed the need for confidentiality and privacy, stating thusly: "A President and those who
assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making
decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately." 43
Without doubt, therefore, ensuring and promoting the free exchange of ideas among the
members of the committee tasked to give tariff recommendations to the President were
truly imperative.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; and AFFIRMS
the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Special Civil Action No. 2903, without
pronouncement on costs of suit.

APPLICATION OF LEGAL FUNCTIONALISM:

The theory of Legal Functionalism views society as a system with interconnected
parts working together for a harmonious effect. 44 It gives more focus on the greater welfare
of societal substituents.45
In this particular case, the concept of legal functionalism rung through when the
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The court decided to
protect the confidentiality of the meeting, in which there were decisions made for the
betterment of the society, at the expense of some private corporations. The Court further
explained that an exchange of ideas, free from the scrutiny of the public, is sometimes
necessary for an effective and independent decision-making for the branches of the
government.46 Furthermore, the court did not deny the rights of the people to information,

42
(SCRA, GR L-133250, 2002)
43
(SCRA, GR L-95367, 1995)
44
Supra. Page 1. Note 1
45
Supra. Page 1. Note 3
46
(SCRA, GR L-133250, 2002)
rather, it stated that such rights were not absolute. Taking a legal functionlist approach, the
Court gave more focus on the greater welfare of the society.