Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967
HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROERT P. ROO!S, JOHN J. ROO!S "n# !ARL
EC!, petitioners,
vs.
HON. JOSE $. %IO!NO, &n '&( )"*")&+, "( SECRETARY O- JUSTICE. JOSE
LU!AN, &n '&( )"*")&+, "( A)+&n/ %&0e)+o0, N"+&on"1 u0e"u o2 In3e(+&/"+&on.
SPECIAL PROSECUTORS PE%RO %. CEN4ON, E-REN I. PLANA "n# MANUEL
5ILLAREAL, JR. "n# ASST. -ISCAL MANASES G. REYES. JU%GE AMA%O ROAN,
Mun&)&*"1 Cou0+ o2 M"n&1". JU%GE ROMAN CANSINO, Mun&)&*"1 Cou0+ o2 M"n&1".
JU%GE HERMOGENES CALUAG, Cou0+ o2 -&0(+ In(+"n)e o2 R&6"1-7ue6on C&+,
0"n)', "n# JU%GE %AMIAN JIMENE4, Mun&)&*"1 Cou0+ o2 7ue6on C&+,,
respondents.
Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno and Meer, Meer and Meer and Juan T. David
for petitioners.
Office of the Solicitor General rturo . lafriz, ssistant Solicitor General Pacifico P.
de Castro, ssistant Solicitor General !rine C. "aballero, Solicitor Ca#ilo D. $uiason
and Solicitor C. Padua for respondents.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Upon application of the officers of the government named on the margin

! hereinafter
referred to as Respondents"Prosecutors ! several #udges
$
! hereinafter referred to as
Respondents"%udges ! issued, on different dates,
&
a total of '$ search (arrants
against petitioners herein
'
and)or the corporations of (hich the* (ere officers,
+
directed
to the an* peace officer, to search the persons above"named and)or the premises of
their offices, (arehouses and)or residences, and to sei,e and ta-e possession of the
follo(ing personal propert* to (it.
Boo-s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts,
ledgers, #ournals, portfolios, credit #ournals, t*pe(riters, and other documents
and)or papers sho(ing all business transactions including disbursements
receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins /cigarette
(rappers0.
as 1the sub#ect of the offense2 stolen or embe,,led and proceeds or fruits of the
offense,1 or 1used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense,1
(hich is described in the applications adverted to above as 1violation of Central Ban-
3a(s, 4ariff and Customs 3a(s, 5nternal Revenue /Code0 and the Revised Penal
Code.1
Alleging that the aforementioned search (arrants are null and void, as contravening the
Constitution and the Rules of Court ! because, inter alia. /0 the* do not describe (ith
particularit* the documents, boo-s and things to be sei,ed2 /$0 cash mone*, not
mentioned in the (arrants, (ere actuall* sei,ed2 /&0 the (arrants (ere issued to fish
evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against
them2 /'0 the searches and sei,ures (ere made in an illegal manner2 and /+0 the
documents, papers and cash mone* sei,ed (ere not delivered to the courts that issued
the (arrants, to be disposed of in accordance (ith la( ! on March $6, 78$, said
petitioners filed (ith the 9upreme Court this original action for certiorari, prohibition,
#anda#us and in#unction, and pra*ed that, pending final disposition of the present
case, a (rit of preliminar* in#unction be issued restraining Respondents"Prosecutors,
their agents and )or representatives from using the effects sei,ed as aforementioned or
an* copies thereof, in the deportation cases alread* adverted to, and that, in due
course, thereafter, decision be rendered :uashing the contested search (arrants and
declaring the same null and void, and commanding the respondents, their agents or
representatives to return to petitioners herein, in accordance (ith 9ection &, Rule 8;, of
the Rules of Court, the documents, papers, things and cash mone*s sei,ed or
confiscated under the search (arrants in :uestion.
5n their ans(er, respondents"prosecutors alleged,
8
/0 that the contested search
(arrants are valid and have been issued in accordance (ith la(2 /$0 that the defects of
said (arrants, if an*, (ere cured b* petitioners< consent2 and /&0 that, in an* event, the
effects sei,ed are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the
alleged illegalit* of the aforementioned searches and sei,ures.
=n March $$, 78$, this Court issued the (rit of preliminar* in#unction pra*ed for in the
petition. >o(ever, b* resolution dated %une $7, 78$, the (rit (as partiall* lifted or
dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and things sei,ed from the offices of the
corporations above mentioned are concerned2 but, the in#unction (as maintained as
regards the papers, documents and things found and sei,ed in the residences of
petitioners herein.
;
4hus, the documents, papers, and things sei,ed under the alleged authorit* of the
(arrants in :uestion ma* be split into t(o /$0 ma#or groups, namel*. /a0 those found
and sei,ed in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and /b0 those found and
sei,ed in the residences of petitioners herein.
As regards the first group, (e hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to
assail the legalit* of the contested (arrants and of the sei,ures made in pursuance
thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities,
separate and distinct from the personalit* of herein petitioners, regardless of the
amount of shares of stoc- or of the interest of each of them in said corporations, and
(hatever the offices the* hold therein ma* be.
?
5ndeed, it is (ell settled that the legalit*
of a sei,ure can be contested onl% b* the part* (hose rights have been impaired
thereb*,
7
and that the ob#ection to an unla(ful search and sei,ure is purel% personal
and cannot be availed of b* third parties.
6
Conse:uentl*, petitioners herein ma* not
validl* ob#ect to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things
sei,ed from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the
1
right to ob#ect to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs e&clusivel% to the
corporations, to (hom the sei,ed effects belong, and ma* not be invo-ed b* the
corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacit*.

5ndeed, it
has been held.
. . . that the @overnment<s action in gaining possession of papers belonging to
the corporation did not relate to nor did it affect the personal defendants. 5f
these papers (ere unla(full* sei,ed and thereb* the constitutional rights of or
an* one (ere invaded, the* (ere the rights of the corporation and not the
rights of the other defendants. NeAt, it is clear that a :uestion of the la(fulness
of a sei,ure can be raised onl% b* one 'hose ri(hts have been invaded.
Certainl*, such a sei,ure, if unla(ful, could not affect the constitutional rights
of defendants 'hose propert% had not been seized or the privac% of 'hose
ho#es had not been disturbed2 nor could the* claim for themselves the
benefits of the Bourth Amendment, (hen its violation, if an*, (as (ith
reference to the rights of another. )e#us vs. *nited States /C.C.A.0$7 B.
+6, +. 5t follo(s, therefore, that the :uestion of the admissibilit* of the
evidence based on an alleged unla(ful search and sei,ure does not eAtend to
the personal defendants but embraces onl% the corporation (hose propert*
(as ta-en. . . . /A @uc-enheimer C Bros. Co. vs. United 9tates, D7$+E & B. $d.
;?8, ;?7, Emphasis supplied.0
Fith respect to the documents, papers and things sei,ed in the residences of
petitioners herein, the aforementioned resolution of %une $7, 78$, lifted the (rit of
preliminar* in#unction previousl* issued b* this Court,
$
thereb*, in effect, restraining
herein Respondents"Prosecutors from using them in evidence against petitioners
herein.
5n connection (ith said documents, papers and things, t(o /$0 important :uestions
need be settled, namel*. /0 (hether the search (arrants in :uestion, and the searches
and sei,ures made under the authorit* thereof, are valid or not, and /$0 if the ans(er to
the preceding :uestion is in the negative, (hether said documents, papers and things
ma* be used in evidence against petitioners herein.+,'ph-+../t
Petitioners maintain that the aforementioned search (arrants are in the nature of
general (arrants and that accordingl*, the sei,ures effected upon the authorit* there of
are null and void. 5n this connection, the Constitution
&
provides.
4he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and sei,ures shall not be violated, and
no (arrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined b* the
#udge after eAamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
(itnesses he ma* produce, and particularl* describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be sei,ed.
4(o points must be stressed in connection (ith this constitutional mandate, namel*. /0
that no (arrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined b* the #udge in
the manner set forth in said provision2 and /$0 that the (arrant shall particularl%
describe the things to be sei,ed.
None of these re:uirements has been complied (ith in the contested (arrants. 5ndeed,
the same (ere issued upon applications stating that the natural and #uridical person
therein named had committed a 1violation of Central Ban 3a(s, 4ariff and Customs
3a(s, 5nternal Revenue /Code0 and Revised Penal Code.1 5n other (ords, no specific
offense had been alleged in said applications. 4he averments thereof (ith respect to
the offense committed (ere abstract. As a conse:uence, it (as i#possible for the
#udges (ho issued the (arrants to have found the eAistence of probable cause, for the
same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the part* against (hom it is
sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given
provision of our criminal la(s. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case
do not allege an* specific acts performed b* herein petitioners. 5t (ould be the legal
heres*, of the highest order, to convict an*bod* of a 1violation of Central Ban- 3a(s,
4ariff and Customs 3a(s, 5nternal Revenue /Code0 and Revised Penal Code,1 ! as
alleged in the aforementioned applications ! (ithout reference to an* determinate
provision of said la(s or
4o uphold the validit* of the (arrants in :uestion (ould be to (ipe out completel* one
of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it (ould place the
sanctit* of the domicile and the privac* of communication and correspondence at the
merc* of the (hims caprice or passion of peace officers. 4his is precisel* the evil
sought to be remedied b* the constitutional provision above :uoted ! to outla( the so"
called general (arrants. 5t is not difficult to imagine (hat (ould happen, in times of
-een political strife, (hen the part* in po(er feels that the minorit* is li-el* to (rest it,
even though b* legal means.
9uch is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection (ith the disputed
search (arrants, that this Court deemed it fit to amend 9ection & of Rule $$ of the
former Rules of Court
'
b* providing in its counterpart, under the Revised Rules of
Court
+
that 1a search (arrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection
'ith one specific offense.1 Not satisfied (ith this :ualification, the Court added thereto a
paragraph, directing that 1no search (arrant shall issue for more than one specific
offense.1
4he grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search
(arrants (as compounded b* the description therein made of the effects to be
searched for and sei,ed, to (it.
Boo-s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, #ournals, correspondence,
receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit #ournals, t*pe(riters, and other documents
and)or papers sho(ing all business transactions including disbursement
receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements.
4hus, the (arrants authori,ed the search for and sei,ure of records pertaining to all
business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of (hether the transactions (ere
le(al or ille(al. 4he (arrants sanctioned the sei,ure of all records of the petitioners and
2
the aforementioned corporations, (hatever their nature, thus openl* contravening the
eAplicit command of our Bill of Rights ! that the things to be sei,ed be particularl%
described ! as (ell as tending to defeat its ma#or ob#ective. the elimination of (eneral
(arrants.
Rel*ing upon Moncado vs. People0s Court /?6 Phil. 0, Respondents"Prosecutors
maintain that, even if the searches and sei,ures under consideration (ere
unconstitutional, the documents, papers and things thus sei,ed are admissible in
evidence against petitioners herein. Upon mature deliberation, ho(ever, (e are
unanimousl* of the opinion that the position ta-en in the Moncado case must be
abandoned. 9aid position (as in line (ith the American common la( rule, that the
criminal should not be allo(ed to go free merel* 1because the constable has
blundered,1
8
upon the theor* that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable
searches and sei,ures is protected b* means other than the eAclusion of evidence
unla(full* obtained,
;
such as the common"la( action for damages against the
searching officer, against the part* (ho procured the issuance of the search (arrant
and against those assisting in the eAecution of an illegal search, their criminal
punishment, resistance, (ithout liabilit* to an unla(ful sei,ure, and such other legal
remedies as ma* be provided b* other la(s.
>o(ever, most common la( #urisdictions have alread* given up this approach and
eventuall* adopted the eAclusionar* rule, reali,ing that this is the onl% practical #eans
of enforcin( the constitutional in1unction against unreasonable searches and sei,ures.
5n the language of %udge 3earned >and.
As (e understand it, the reason for the eAclusion of evidence competent as
such, (hich has been unla(full* ac:uired, is that eAclusion is the onl*
practical (a* of enforcing the constitutional privilege. 5n earlier times the
action of trespass against the offending official ma* have been protection
enough2 but that is true no longer. =nl* in case the prosecution (hich itself
controls the sei,ing officials, -no(s that it cannot profit b% their 'ron( 'ill that
'ron( be repressed.
?
5n fact, over thirt* /&60 *ears before, the Bederal 9upreme Court had alread* declared.
5f letters and private documents can thus be sei,ed and held and used in
evidence against a citi,en accused of an offense, the protection of the 'th
Amendment, declaring his rights to be secure against such searches and
sei,ures, is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might
as (ell be stric-en from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their
officials to brin( the (uilt% to punish#ent, praise'orth% as the% are, are not to
be aided b% the sacrifice of those (reat principles established b% %ears of
endeavor and sufferin( 'hich have resulted in their e#bodi#ent in the
funda#ental la' of the land.
7
4his vie( (as, not onl* reiterated, but, also, broadened in subse:uent decisions on the
same Bederal Court.
$6
After revie(ing previous decisions thereon, said Court held, in
Mapp vs. Ohio /supra.0.
. . . 4oda* (e once again eAamine the Folf<s constitutional documentation of
the right of privac* free from unreasonable state intrusion, and after its do,en
*ears on our boo-s, are led b* it to close the onl* courtroom door remaining
open to evidence secured b* official la(lessness in flagrant abuse of that
basic right, reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that ver*
same unla(ful conduct. Fe hold that all evidence obtained b* searches and
sei,ures in violation of the Constitution is, b* that same authorit*, inadmissible
in a 9tate.
9ince the Bourth Amendment<s right of privac* has been declared enforceable
against the 9tates through the Gue Process Clause of the Bourteenth, it is
enforceable against them b* the same sanction of eAclusion as it used against
the Bederal @overnment. Fere it other(ise, then #ust as (ithout the Fee-s
rule the assurance against unreasonable federal searches and sei,ures (ould
be 1a form of (ords,1 valueless and underserving of mention in a perpetual
charter of inestimable human liberties, so too, 'ithout that rule the freedo#
fro# state invasions of privac% 'ould be so ephe#eral and so neatl% severed
fro# its conceptual ne&us 'ith the freedo# fro# all brutish #eans of coercin(
evidence as not to per#it this Court0s hi(h re(ard as a freedo# 1i#plicit in the
concept of ordered libert%.1 At the time that the Court held in Folf that the
amendment (as applicable to the 9tates through the Gue Process Clause, the
cases of this Court as (e have seen, had steadfastl* held that as to federal
officers the Bourth Amendment included the eAclusion of the evidence sei,ed
in violation of its provisions. Even Folf 1stoutl* adhered1 to that proposition.
4he right to (hen conceded operativel* enforceable against the 9tates, (as
not susceptible of destruction b* avulsion of the sanction upon (hich its
protection and en#o*ment had al(a*s been deemed dependent under the
Bo*d, Fee-s and 9ilverthorne Cases. 4herefore, in eAtending the substantive
protections of due process to all constitutionall* unreasonable searches !
state or federal ! it (as logicall* and constitutionall* necessaril* that the
eAclusion doctrine ! an essential part of the right to privac* ! be also
insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right ne(l* recogni,ed b* the
Folf Case. 5n short, the ad#ission of the ne' constitutional )i(ht b% 2olf
could not tolerate denial of its #ost i#portant constitutional privile(e, na#el%,
the e&clusion of the evidence 'hich an accused had been forced to (ive b%
reason of the unla'ful seizure. To hold other'ise is to (rant the ri(ht but in
realit% to 'ithhold its privile(e and en1o%#ent. =nl* last *ear the Court itself
recogni,ed that the purpose of the e&clusionar% rule to 1is to deter 3 to
co#pel respect for the constitutional (uarant% in the onl% effectivel% available
'a% 3 b% re#ovin( the incentive to disre(ard it1 . . . .
4he ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the 9tate tends to destro* the
entire s*stem of constitutional restraints on (hich the liberties of the people
rest. >aving once recogni,ed that the right to privac* embodied in the Bourth
Amendment is enforceable against the 9tates, and that the right to be secure
against rude invasions of privac* b* state officers is, therefore constitutional in
origin, 'e can no lon(er per#it that ri(ht to re#ain an e#pt% pro#ise.
Because it is enforceable in the same manner and to li-e effect as other basic
rights secured b* its Gue Process Clause, 'e can no lon(er per#it it to be
3
revocable at the 'hi# of an% police officer 'ho, in the na#e of la'
enforce#ent itself, chooses to suspend its en1o%#ent. Our decision, founded
on reason and truth, (ives to the individual no #ore than that 'hich the
Constitution (uarantees hi# to the police officer no less than that to 'hich
honest la' enforce#ent is entitled, and, to the courts, that 1udicial inte(rit% so
necessar% in the true ad#inistration of 1ustice. /emphasis ours.0
5ndeed, the non"eAclusionar* rule is contrar*, not onl* to the letter, but also, to the spirit
of the constitutional in#unction against unreasonable searches and sei,ures. 4o be sure,
if the applicant for a search (arrant has competent evidence to establish probable
cause of the commission of a given crime b* the part* against (hom the (arrant is
intended, then there is no reason (h* the applicant should not compl* (ith the
re:uirements of the fundamental la(. Upon the other hand, if he has no such
competent evidence, then it is not possible for the %udge to find that there is probable
cause, and, hence, no #ustification for the issuance of the (arrant. 4he onl* possible
eAplanation /not #ustification0 for its issuance is the necessit* of fishin( evidence of the
commission of a crime. But, then, this fishing eApedition is indicative of the absence of
evidence to establish a probable cause.
Moreover, the theor* that the criminal prosecution of those (ho secure an illegal search
(arrant and)or ma-e unreasonable searches or sei,ures (ould suffice to protect the
constitutional guarantee under consideration, overloo-s the fact that violations thereof
are, in general, committed B* agents of the part* in po(er, for, certainl*, those
belonging to the minorit* could not possibl* abuse a po(er the* do not have.
Regardless of the handicap under (hich the minorit* usuall* ! but, understandabl* !
finds itself in prosecuting agents of the ma#orit*, one must not lose sight of the fact that
the ps*chological and moral effect of the possibilit*
$
of securing their conviction, is
(atered do(n b* the pardoning po(er of the part* for (hose benefit the illegalit* had
been committed.
5n their Motion for Reconsideration and Amendment of the Resolution of this Court
dated %une $7, 78$, petitioners allege that Rooms Nos. ? and 7 of Carmen
Apartments, >ouse No. $66?, Ge(e* Boulevard, >ouse No. '&8, Colorado 9treet,
and Room No. &6' of the Arm*"Nav* Club, should be included among the premises
considered in said Resolution as residences of herein petitioners, >arr* 9. 9tonehill,
Robert P. Broo-, %ohn %. Broo-s and Harl Bec-, respectivel*, and that, furthermore, the
records, papers and other effects sei,ed in the offices of the corporations above
referred to include personal belongings of said petitioners and other effects under their
eAclusive possession and control, for the eAclusion of (hich the* have a standing
under the latest rulings of the federal courts of federal courts of the United 9tates.
$$
Fe note, ho(ever, that petitioners< theor*, regarding their alleged possession of and
control over the aforementioned records, papers and effects, and the alleged 1personal1
nature thereof, has Been Advanced, not in their petition or amended petition herein, but
in the Motion for Reconsideration and Amendment of the Resolution of %une $7, 78$.
5n other (ords, said theor* (ould appear to be read#ustment of that follo(ed in said
petitions, to suit the approach intimated in the Resolution sought to be reconsidered
and amended. 4hen, too, some of the affidavits or copies of alleged affidavits attached
to said motion for reconsideration, or submitted in support thereof, contain either
inconsistent allegations, or allegations inconsistent (ith the theor* no( advanced b*
petitioners herein.
Upon the other hand, (e are not satisfied that the allegations of said petitions said
motion for reconsideration, and the contents of the aforementioned affidavits and other
papers submitted in support of said motion, have sufficientl* established the facts or
conditions contemplated in the cases relied upon b* the petitioners2 to (arrant
application of the vie(s therein eApressed, should (e agree thereto. At an* rate, (e do
not deem it necessar* to eApress our opinion thereon, it being best to leave the matter
open for determination in appropriate cases in the future.
Fe hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case must be, as it is
hereb*, abandoned2 that the (arrants for the search of three /&0 residences of herein
petitioners, as specified in the Resolution of %une $7, 78$, are null and void2 that the
searches and sei,ures therein made are illegal2 that the (rit of preliminar* in#unction
heretofore issued, in connection (ith the documents, papers and other effects thus
sei,ed in said residences of herein petitioners is hereb* made permanent2 that the (rits
pra*ed for are granted, insofar as the documents, papers and other effects so sei,ed in
the aforementioned residences are concerned2 that the aforementioned motion for
Reconsideration and Amendment should be, as it is hereb*, denied2 and that the
petition herein is dismissed and the (rits pra*ed for denied, as regards the documents,
papers and other effects sei,ed in the t(ent*"nine /$70 places, offices and other
premises enumerated in the same Resolution, (ithout special pronouncement as to
costs.
5t is so ordered.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
4

G.R. No. 101089 Ju1, 90, 1999
JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO "n# JOSE AL-ONSO, "11 (u0n":e# OPOSA,
:&no0(, "n# 0e*0e(en+e# ;, +'e&0 *"0en+( ANTONIO "n# RI4ALINA OPOSA,
ROERTA NICOLE SA%IUA, :&no0, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, 'e0 *"0en+( CAL5IN "n#
ROERTA SA%IUA, CARLO, AMAN%A SALU% "n# PATRISHA, "11 (u0n":e#
-LORES, :&no0( "n# 0e*0e(en+e# ;, +'e&0 *"0en+( ENRICO "n# NI%A -LORES,
GIANINA %ITA R. -ORTUN, :&no0, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, 'e0 *"0en+( SIGRI% "n#
%OLORES -ORTUN, GEORGE II "n# MA. CONCEPCION, "11 (u0n":e# MISA,
:&no0( "n# 0e*0e(en+e# ;, +'e&0 *"0en+( GEORGE "n# MYRA MISA, ENJAMIN
ALAN 5. PESIGAN, :&no0, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, '&( *"0en+( ANTONIO "n# ALICE
PESIGAN, JO5IE MARIE AL-ARO, :&no0, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, 'e0 *"0en+( JOSE "n#
MARIA 5IOLETA AL-ARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, :&no0, 0e*0e(en+e#
;, 'e0 *"0en+( -RE%ENIL "n# JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA %ESAMPARA%O,
:&no0, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, 'e0 *"0en+( JOSE "n# ANGELA %ESAMPRA%O, CARLO
JOA7UIN T. NAR5ASA, :&no0, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, '&( *"0en+( GREGORIO II "n#
CRISTINE CHARITY NAR5ASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA
"n# MARIE GARIELLE, "11 (u0n":e# SAEN4, :&no0(, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, +'e&0
*"0en+( ROERTO "n# AURORA SAEN4, !RISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOL%A
MARTHE "n# %A5I% IAN, "11 (u0n":e# !ING, :&no0(, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, +'e&0
*"0en+( MARIO "n# HAY%EE !ING, %A5I%, -RANCISCO "n# THERESE
5ICTORIA, "11 (u0n":e# EN%RIGA, :&no0(, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, +'e&0 *"0en+(
ALTA4AR "n# TERESITA EN%RIGA, JOSE MA. "n# REGINA MA., "11 (u0n":e#
AAYA, :&no0(, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, +'e&0 *"0en+( ANTONIO "n# MARICA AAYA,
MARILIN, MARIO, JR. "n# MARIETTE, "11 (u0n":e# CAR%AMA, :&no0(,
0e*0e(en+e# ;, +'e&0 *"0en+( MARIO "n# LINA CAR%AMA, CLARISSA, ANN
MARIE, NAGEL, "n# IMEE LYN, "11 (u0n":e# OPOSA, :&no0( "n# 0e*0e(en+e# ;,
+'e&0 *"0en+( RICAR%O "n# MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN
"n# ISAIAH JAMES, "11 (u0n":e# 7UIPIT, :&no0(, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, +'e&0 *"0en+(
JOSE MA< "n# 5ILMI 7UIPIT, UGHA$ CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA, %ANIEL "n#
-RANCISCO, "11 (u0n":e# IAL, :&no0(, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, +'e&0 *"0en+(
-RANCISCO, JR. "n# MILAGROS IAL, "n# THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL
NET$OR!, INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORALE -ULGENCIO S. -ACTORAN, JR., &n '&( )"*")&+, "( +'e
Se)0e+"0, o2 +'e %e*"0+:en+ o2 En3&0on:en+ "n# N"+u0"1 Re(ou0)e(, "n# THE
HONORALE ERIERTO U. ROSARIO, P0e(&#&n/ Ju#/e o2 +'e RTC, M"="+&,
0"n)' 66, respondents.
Oposa 4a' Office for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

%A5I%E, JR., J.:
5n a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Bilipinos to a balanced and
healthful ecolog* (hich the petitioners dramaticall* associate (ith the t(in concepts of
1inter"generational responsibilit*1 and 1inter"generational #ustice.1 9pecificall*, it touches
on the issue of (hether the said petitioners have a cause of action to 1prevent the
misappropriation or impairment1 of Philippine rainforests and 1arrest the unabated
hemorrhage of the countr*<s vital life support s*stems and continued rape of Mother
Earth.1
4he controvers* has its genesis in Civil Case No. 76";; (hich (as filed before Branch
88 /Ma-ati, Metro Manila0 of the Regional 4rial Court /R4C0, National Capital %udicial
Region. 4he principal plaintiffs therein, no( the principal petitioners, are all minors dul*
represented and #oined b* their respective parents. 5mpleaded as an additional plaintiff
is the Philippine Ecological Net(or-, 5nc. /PEN50, a domestic, non"stoc- and non"profit
corporation organi,ed for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action
geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. 4he original
defendant (as the >onorable Bulgencio 9. Bactoran, %r., then 9ecretar* of the
Gepartment of Environment and Natural Resources /GENR0. >is substitution in this
petition b* the ne( 9ecretar*, the >onorable Angel C. Alcala, (as subse:uentl*
ordered upon proper motion b* the petitioners.
1
4he complaint
>
(as instituted as a
taApa*ers< class suit
9
and alleges that the plaintiffs 1are all citi,ens of the Republic of
the Philippines, taApa*ers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and en#o*ment of the
natural resource treasure that is the countr*<s virgin tropical forests.1 4he same (as
filed for themselves and others (ho are e:uall* concerned about the preservation of
said resource but are 1so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the
Court.1 4he minors further asseverate that the* 1represent their generation as (ell as
generations *et unborn.1
?
Conse:uentl*, it is pra*ed for that #udgment be rendered.
. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his
behalf to !
/0 Cancel all eAisting timber license agreements in the countr*2
/$0 Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, rene(ing or approving ne(
timber license agreements.
and granting the plaintiffs 1. . . such other reliefs #ust and e:uitable under the premises.1
5
4he complaint starts off (ith the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of
;,66 islands has a land area of thirt* million /&6,666,6660 hectares and is endo(ed
(ith rich, lush and verdant rainforests in (hich varied, rare and uni:ue species of flora
and fauna ma* be found2 these rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical
pool (hich is irreplaceable2 the* are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures
(hich have eAisted, endured and flourished since time immemorial2 scientific evidence
reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecolog*, the countr*<s land
area should be utili,ed on the basis of a ratio of fift*"four per cent /+'I0 for forest cover
and fort*"siA per cent /'8I0 for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and
other uses2 the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a conse:uence of
5
deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as /a0 (ater
shortages resulting from dr*ing up of the (ater table, other(ise -no(n as the 1a:uifer,1
as (ell as of rivers, broo-s and streams, /b0 salini,ation of the (ater table as a result of
the intrusion therein of salt (ater, incontrovertible eAamples of (hich ma* be found in
the island of Cebu and the Municipalit* of Bacoor, Cavite, /c0 massive erosion and the
conse:uential loss of soil fertilit* and agricultural productivit*, (ith the volume of soil
eroded estimated at one billion /,666,666,6660 cubic meters per annum !
approAimatel* the si,e of the entire island of Catanduanes, /d0 the endangering and
eAtinction of the countr*<s uni:ue, rare and varied flora and fauna, /e0 the disturbance
and dislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of the Bilipino<s
indigenous cultures, /f0 the siltation of rivers and seabeds and conse:uential
destruction of corals and other a:uatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine
resource productivit*, /g0 recurrent spells of drought as is presentl* eAperienced b* the
entire countr*, /h0 increasing velocit* of t*phoon (inds (hich result from the absence of
(indbrea-ers, /i0 the floodings of lo(lands and agricultural plains arising from the
absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, /#0 the siltation and shortening of the
lifespan of multi"billion peso dams constructed and operated for the purpose of
suppl*ing (ater for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric po(er, and
/-0 the reduction of the earth<s capacit* to process carbon dioAide gases (hich has led
to perpleAing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global
(arming, other(ise -no(n as the 1greenhouse effect.1
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental conse:uences of continued
and deforestation are so capable of un:uestionable demonstration that the same ma*
be submitted as a matter of #udicial notice. 4his not(ithstanding, the* eApressed their
intention to present eApert (itnesses as (ell as documentar*, photographic and film
evidence in the course of the trial.
As their cause of action, the* specificall* allege that.
C*S5 O! CT6ON
;. Plaintiffs replead b* reference the foregoing allegations.
?. 4(ent*"five /$+0 *ears ago, the Philippines had some siAteen /80 million hectares of
rainforests constituting roughl* +&I of the countr*<s land mass.
7. 9atellite images ta-en in 7?; reveal that there remained no more than .$ million
hectares of said rainforests or four per cent /'.6I0 of the countr*<s land area.
6. More recent surve*s reveal that a mere ?+6,666 hectares of virgin old"gro(th
rainforests are left, barel* $.?I of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago
and about &.6 million hectares of immature and uneconomical secondar* gro(th
forests.
. Public records reveal that the defendant<s, predecessors have granted timber
license agreements /<43A<s<0 to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of &.?7
million hectares for commercial logging purposes.
A cop* of the 43A holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto attached as
AnneA 1A1.
$. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about $66,666 hectares per annum or $+
hectares per hour ! nighttime, 9aturda*s, 9unda*s and holida*s included ! the
Philippines (ill be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not
earlier.
&. 4he adverse effects, disastrous conse:uences, serious in#ur* and irreparable
damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor<s generation and to
generations *et unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the
environmental damages enumerated in paragraph 8 hereof are alread* being felt,
eAperienced and suffered b* the generation of plaintiff adults.
'. 4he continued allo(ance b* defendant of 43A holders to cut and deforest the
remaining forest stands (ill (or- great damage and irreparable in#ur* to plaintiffs !
especiall* plaintiff minors and their successors ! (ho ma* never see, use, benefit
from and en#o* this rare and uni:ue natural resource treasure.
4his act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and)or impairment of the natural
resource propert* he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding
generations.
+. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecolog*
and are entitled to protection b* the 9tate in its capacit* as the parens patriae.
8. Plaintiff have eAhausted all administrative remedies (ith the defendant<s office. =n
March $, 776, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all logging
permits in the countr*.
A cop* of the plaintiffs< letter dated March , 776 is hereto attached as AnneA 1B1.
;. Gefendant, ho(ever, fails and refuses to cancel the eAisting 43A<s to the continuing
serious damage and eAtreme pre#udice of plaintiffs.
?. 4he continued failure and refusal b* defendant to cancel the 43A<s is an act
violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especiall* plaintiff minors (ho ma* be left (ith a
countr* that is desertified /sic0, bare, barren and devoid of the (onderful flora, fauna
and indigenous cultures (hich the Philippines had been abundantl* blessed (ith.
6
7. Gefendant<s refusal to cancel the aforementioned 43A<s is manifestl* contrar* to the
public polic* enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Polic* (hich, in pertinent part,
states that it is the polic* of the 9tate !
/a0 to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under (hich man and nature
can thrive in productive and en#o*able harmon* (ith each other2
/b0 to fulfill the social, economic and other re:uirements of present and future
generations of Bilipinos and2
/c0 to ensure the attainment of an environmental :ualit* that is conductive to a life of
dignit* and (ell"being. /P.G. +, 8 %une 7;;0
$6. Burthermore, defendant<s continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned 43A<s is
contradictor* to the Constitutional polic* of the 9tate to !
a. effect 1a more e:uitable distribution of opportunities, income and (ealth1 and 1ma-e
full and efficient use of natural resources /sic0.1 /9ection , Article J55 of the
Constitution02
b. 1protect the nation<s marine (ealth.1 /9ection $, ibid02
c. 1conserve and promote the nation<s cultural heritage and resources /sic01 /9ection
', Article J5K, id.02
d. 1protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog* in
accord (ith the rh*thm and harmon* of nature.1 /9ection 8, Article 55, id.0
$. Binall*, defendant<s act is contrar* to the highest la( of human-ind ! the natural
la( ! and violative of plaintiffs< right to self"preservation and perpetuation.
$$. 4here is no other plain, speed* and ade:uate remed* in la( other than the instant
action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the countr*<s vital life support s*stems and
continued rape of Mother Earth.
6
=n $$ %une 776, the original defendant, 9ecretar* Bactoran, %r., filed a Motion to
Gismiss the complaint based on t(o /$0 grounds, namel*. /0 the plaintiffs have no
cause of action against him and /$0 the issue raised b* the plaintiffs is a political
:uestion (hich properl* pertains to the legislative or eAecutive branches of
@overnment. 5n their $ %ul* 776 =pposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain
that /0 the complaint sho(s a clear and unmista-able cause of action, /$0 the motion is
dilator* and /&0 the action presents a #usticiable :uestion as it involves the defendant<s
abuse of discretion.
=n ? %ul* 77, respondent %udge issued an order granting the aforementioned
motion to dismiss.
7
5n the said order, not onl* (as the defendant<s claim ! that the
complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political :uestion !
sustained, the respondent %udge further ruled that the granting of the relief pra*ed for
(ould result in the impairment of contracts (hich is prohibited b* the fundamental la(
of the land.
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 8+ of the
Revised Rules of Court and as- this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order
on the ground that the respondent %udge gravel* abused his discretion in dismissing
the action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs"minors not onl* represent their children,
but have also #oined the latter in this case.
8
=n ' Ma* 77$, Fe resolved to give due course to the petition and re:uired the
parties to submit their respective Memoranda after the =ffice of the 9olicitor @eneral
/=9@0 filed a Comment in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners filed a repl*
thereto.
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearl* and unmista-abl* states a cause of
action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment
based on Articles 7, $6 and $ of the Civil Code />uman Relations0, 9ection ' of
EAecutive =rder /E.=.0 No. 7$ creating the GENR, 9ection & of Presidential Gecree
/P.G.0 No. + /Philippine Environmental Polic*0, 9ection 8, Article 55 of the 7?;
Constitution recogni,ing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog*, the
concept of generational genocide in Criminal 3a( and the concept of man<s inalienable
right to self"preservation and self"perpetuation embodied in natural la(. Petitioners
li-e(ise rel* on the respondent<s correlative obligation per 9ection ' of E.=. No. 7$, to
safeguard the people<s right to a healthful environment.
5t is further claimed that the issue of the respondent 9ecretar*<s alleged grave abuse of
discretion in granting 4imber 3icense Agreements /43As0 to cover more areas for
logging than (hat is available involves a #udicial :uestion.
Anent the invocation b* the respondent %udge of the Constitution<s non"impairment
clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not appl* in this case because 43As
are not contracts. 4he* li-e(ise submit that even if 43As ma* be considered protected
b* the said clause, it is (ell settled that the* ma* still be revo-ed b* the 9tate (hen the
public interest so re:uires.
=n the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their
complaint a specific legal right violated b* the respondent 9ecretar* for (hich an* relief
is provided b* la(. 4he* see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous
allegations concerning an 1environmental right1 (hich supposedl* entitles the
petitioners to the 1protection b* the state in its capacit* as parens patriae.1 9uch
allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. 4he* then reiterate
the theor* that the :uestion of (hether logging should be permitted in the countr* is a
political :uestion (hich should be properl* addressed to the eAecutive or legislative
branches of @overnment. 4he* therefore assert that the petitioners< resources is not to
7
file an action to court, but to lobb* before Congress for the passage of a bill that (ould
ban logging totall*.
As to the matter of the cancellation of the 43As, respondents submit that the same
cannot be done b* the 9tate (ithout due process of la(. =nce issued, a 43A remains
effective for a certain period of time ! usuall* for t(ent*"five /$+0 *ears. Guring its
effectivit*, the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been
found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms of the agreement or
other forestr* la(s and regulations. Petitioners< proposition to have all the 43As
indiscriminatel* cancelled (ithout the re:uisite hearing (ould be violative of the
re:uirements of due process.
Before going an* further, Fe must first focus on some procedural matters. Petitioners
instituted Civil Case No. 76";;; as a class suit. 4he original defendant and the present
respondents did not ta-e issue (ith this matter. Nevertheless, Fe hereb* rule that the
said civil case is indeed a class suit. 4he sub#ect matter of the complaint is of common
and general interest not #ust to several, but to all citi,ens of the Philippines.
Conse:uentl*, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not
totall* impossible, to bring all of them before the court. Fe li-e(ise declare that the
plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection
of all concerned interests. >ence, all the re:uisites for the filing of a valid class suit
under 9ection $, Rule & of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil
case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.
4his case, ho(ever, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that
the* represent their generation as (ell as generations *et unborn. Fe find no difficult*
in ruling that the* can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the
succeeding generations, file a class suit. 4heir personalit* to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can onl* be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibilit* insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog* is concerned.
9uch a right, as hereinafter eApounded, considers
the 1rh*thm and harmon* of nature.1 Nature means the created (orld in its entiret*.
9

9uch rh*thm and harmon* indispensabl* include, inter alia, the #udicious disposition,
utili,ation, management, rene(al and conservation of the countr*<s forest, mineral,
land, (aters, fisheries, (ildlife, off"shore areas and other natural resources to the end
that their eAploration, development and utili,ation be e:uitabl* accessible to the
present as (ell as future generations.
10
Needless to sa*, ever* generation has a
responsibilit* to the neAt to preserve that rh*thm and harmon* for the full en#o*ment of
a balanced and healthful ecolog*. Put a little differentl*, the minors< assertion of their
right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their
obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
4he locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, Fe shall no( proceed
to the merits of the petition.
After a careful perusal of the complaint in :uestion and a meticulous consideration and
evaluation of the issues raised and arguments adduced b* the parties, Fe do not
hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent %udge<s challenged
order for having been issued (ith grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac- of
#urisdiction. 4he pertinent portions of the said order reads as follo(s.
AAA AAA AAA
After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court cannot help but
agree (ith the defendant. Bor although (e believe that plaintiffs have but the noblest of
all intentions, it /sic0 fell short of alleging, (ith sufficient definiteness, a specific legal
right the* are see-ing to enforce and protect, or a specific legal (rong the* are see-ing
to prevent and redress /9ec. , Rule $, RRC0. Burthermore, the Court notes that the
Complaint is replete (ith vague assumptions and vague conclusions based on
unverified data. 5n fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action in its Complaint against
the herein defendant.
Burthermore, the Court firml* believes that the matter before it, being impressed (ith
political color and involving a matter of public polic*, ma* not be ta-en cogni,ance of b*
this Court (ithout doing violence to the sacred principle of 19eparation of Po(ers1 of
the three /&0 co"e:ual branches of the @overnment.
4he Court is li-e(ise of the impression that it cannot, no matter ho( (e stretch our
#urisdiction, grant the reliefs pra*ed for b* the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all eAisting timber
license agreements in the countr* and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, rene(ing or approving ne( timber license agreements. Bor to do other(ise
(ould amount to 1impairment of contracts1 abhored /sic0 b* the fundamental la(.
11
Fe do not agree (ith the trial court<s conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege (ith
sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal (rong committed,
and that the complaint is replete (ith vague assumptions and conclusions based on
unverified data. A reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions.
4he complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right ! the right to a
balanced and healthful ecolog* (hich, for the first time in our nation<s constitutional
histor*, is solemnl* incorporated in the fundamental la(. 9ection 8, Article 55 of the
7?; Constitution eAplicitl* provides.
9ec. 8. 4he 9tate shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecolog* in accord (ith the rh*thm and harmon* of nature.
4his right unites (ith the right to health (hich is provided for in the preceding section of
the same article.
9ec. +. 4he 9tate shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
Fhile the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog* is to be found under the Geclaration
of Principles and 9tate Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follo( that it
8
is less important than an* of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. 9uch
a right belongs to a different categor* of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less
than self"preservation and self"perpetuation ! aptl* and fittingl* stressed b* the
petitioners ! the advancement of (hich ma* even be said to predate all governments
and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be (ritten in the
Constitution for the* are assumed to eAist from the inception of human-ind. 5f the* are
no( eAplicitl* mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the (ell"founded
fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecolog* and to
health are mandated as state policies b* the Constitution itself, thereb* highlighting
their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to
preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the da* (ould not be too far
(hen all else (ould be lost not onl* for the present generation, but also for those to
come ! generations (hich stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of
sustaining life.
4he right to a balanced and healthful ecolog* carries (ith it the correlative dut* to
refrain from impairing the environment. Guring the debates on this right in one of the
plenar* sessions of the 7?8 Constitutional Commission, the follo(ing eAchange
transpired bet(een Commissioner Filfrido Killacorta and Commissioner Adolfo A,cuna
(ho sponsored the section in :uestion.
MR. K533AC=R4A.
Goes this section mandate the 9tate to provide sanctions against all forms of pollution
! air, (ater and noise pollutionL
MR. AMCUNA.
Nes, Madam President. 4he right to healthful /sic0 environment necessaril* carries (ith
it the correlative dut* of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctions ma* be
provided for impairment of environmental balance.
1>
4he said right implies, among man* other things, the #udicious management and
conservation of the countr*<s forests.
Fithout such forests, the ecological or environmental balance (ould be irreversib*
disrupted.
Conformabl* (ith the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecolog* and the right
to health, as (ell as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the
conservation, development and utili,ation of the countr*<s natural resources,
19
then
President Cora,on C. A:uino promulgated on 6 %une 7?; E.=. No. 7$,
1?
9ection '
of (hich eApressl* mandates that the Gepartment of Environment and Natural
Resources 1shall be the primar* government agenc* responsible for the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the countr*<s environment and natural
resources, specificall* forest and gra,ing lands, mineral, resources, including those in
reservation and (atershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as (ell as the
licensing and regulation of all natural resources as ma* be provided for b* la( in order
to ensure e:uitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the (elfare of the
present and future generations of Bilipinos.1 9ection & thereof ma-es the follo(ing
statement of polic*.
9ec. &. Declaration of Polic%. ! 5t is hereb* declared the polic* of the 9tate to ensure
the sustainable use, development, management, rene(al, and conservation of the
countr*<s forest, mineral, land, off"shore areas and other natural resources, including
the protection and enhancement of the :ualit* of the environment, and e:uitable
access of the different segments of the population to the development and the use of
the countr*<s natural resources, not onl* for the present generation but for future
generations as (ell. 5t is also the polic* of the state to recogni,e and appl* a true value
s*stem including social and environmental cost implications relative to their utili,ation,
development and conservation of our natural resources.
4his polic* declaration is substantiall* re"stated it 4itle J5K, Boo- 5K of the
Administrative Code of 7?;,
15
specificall* in 9ection thereof (hich reads.
9ec. . Declaration of Polic%. ! /0 4he 9tate shall ensure, for the benefit of the Bilipino
people, the full eAploration and development as (ell as the #udicious disposition,
utili,ation, management, rene(al and conservation of the countr*<s forest, mineral,
land, (aters, fisheries, (ildlife, off"shore areas and other natural resources, consistent
(ith the necessit* of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and
enhancing the :ualit* of the environment and the ob#ective of ma-ing the eAploration,
development and utili,ation of such natural resources e:uitabl* accessible to the
different segments of the present as (ell as future generations.
/$0 4he 9tate shall li-e(ise recogni,e and appl* a true value s*stem that ta-es into
account social and environmental cost implications relative to the utili,ation,
development and conservation of our natural resources.
4he above provision stresses 1the necessit* of maintaining a sound ecological balance
and protecting and enhancing the :ualit* of the environment.1 9ection $ of the same
4itle, on the other hand, specificall* spea-s of the mandate of the GENR2 ho(ever, it
ma-es particular reference to the fact of the agenc*<s being sub#ect to la( and higher
authorit*. 9aid section provides.
9ec. $. Mandate. ! /0 4he Gepartment of Environment and Natural Resources shall
be primaril* responsible for the implementation of the foregoing polic*.
/$0 5t shall, sub#ect to la( and higher authorit*, be in charge of carr*ing out the 9tate<s
constitutional mandate to control and supervise the eAploration, development,
utili,ation, and conservation of the countr*<s natural resources.
Both E.=. N=. 7$ and the Administrative Code of 7?; have set the ob#ectives (hich
(ill serve as the bases for polic* formulation, and have defined the po(ers and
functions of the GENR.
9
5t ma*, ho(ever, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 7?; Constitution,
specific statutes alread* paid special attention to the 1environmental right1 of the
present and future generations. =n 8 %une 7;;, P.G. No. + /Philippine
Environmental Polic*0 and P.G. No. +$ /Philippine Environment Code0 (ere issued.
4he former 1declared a continuing polic* of the 9tate /a0 to create, develop, maintain
and improve conditions under (hich man and nature can thrive in productive and
en#o*able harmon* (ith each other, /b0 to fulfill the social, economic and other
re:uirements of present and future generations of Bilipinos, and /c0 to insure the
attainment of an environmental :ualit* that is conducive to a life of dignit* and (ell"
being.1
16
As its goal, it spea-s of the 1responsibilities of each generation as trustee and
guardian of the environment for succeeding generations.1
17
4he latter statute, on the
other hand, gave flesh to the said polic*.
4hus, the right of the petitioners /and all those the* represent0 to a balanced and
healthful ecolog* is as clear as the GENR<s dut* ! under its mandate and b* virtue of
its po(ers and functions under E.=. No. 7$ and the Administrative Code of 7?; ! to
protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right b* the other (ho has the corelative dut* or obligation
to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that
the granting of the 43As, (hich the* claim (as done (ith grave abuse of discretion,
violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecolog*2 hence, the full protection
thereof re:uires that no further 43As should be rene(ed or granted.
A cause of action is defined as.
. . . an act or omission of one part* in violation of the legal right or rights of the other2
and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the
defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
18
5t is settled in this #urisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the
complaint fails to state a cause of action,
19
the :uestion submitted to the court for
resolution involves the sufficienc* of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. No other
matter should be considered2 furthermore, the truth of falsit* of the said allegations is
beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed h*potheticall* admitted. 4he onl* issue
to be resolved in such a case is. admitting such alleged facts to be true, ma* the court
render a valid #udgment in accordance (ith the pra*er in the complaintL
>0
5n Militante
vs. 5drosolano,
>1
this Court laid do(n the rule that the #udiciar* should 1eAercise the
utmost care and circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of
the absence thereof Dcause of actionE lest, b* its failure to manifest a correct
appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed h*potheticall* admitted, (hat the la(
grants or recogni,es is effectivel* nullified. 5f that happens, there is a blot on the legal
order. 4he la( itself stands in disrepute.1
After careful eAamination of the petitioners< complaint, Fe find the statements under
the introductor* affirmative allegations, as (ell as the specific averments under the sub"
heading CAU9E =B AC45=N, to be ade:uate enough to sho(, pri#a facie, the claimed
violation of their rights. =n the basis thereof, the* ma* thus be granted, (holl* or partl*,
the reliefs pra*ed for. 5t bears stressing, ho(ever, that insofar as the cancellation of the
43As is concerned, there is the need to implead, as part* defendants, the grantees
thereof for the* are indispensable parties.
4he foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 76";;; be said to raise a political :uestion.
Polic* formulation or determination b* the eAecutive or legislative branches of
@overnment is not s:uarel* put in issue. Fhat is principall* involved is the enforcement
of a right vis7a7vis policies alread* formulated and eApressed in legislation. 5t must,
nonetheless, be emphasi,ed that the political :uestion doctrine is no longer, the
insurmountable obstacle to the eAercise of #udicial po(er or the impenetrable shield
that protects eAecutive and legislative actions from #udicial in:uir* or revie(. 4he
second paragraph of section , Article K555 of the Constitution states that.
%udicial po(er includes the dut* of the courts of #ustice to settle actual controversies
involving rights (hich are legall* demandable and enforceable, and to determine
(hether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac- or eAcess
of #urisdiction on the part of an* branch or instrumentalit* of the @overnment.
Commenting on this provision in his boo-, Philippine Political 4a',
>>
Mr. %ustice 5sagani
A. Cru,, a distinguished member of this Court, sa*s.
4he first part of the authorit* represents the traditional concept of #udicial po(er,
involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred as la(. 4he second part of the
authorit* represents a broadening of #udicial po(er to enable the courts of #ustice to
revie( (hat (as before forbidden territor*, to (it, the discretion of the political
departments of the government.
As (orded, the ne( provision vests in the #udiciar*, and particularl* the 9upreme Court,
the po(er to rule upon even the (isdom of the decisions of the eAecutive and the
legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lac- or eAcess of #urisdiction because
tainted (ith grave abuse of discretion. 4he catch, of course, is the meaning of 1grave
abuse of discretion,1 (hich is a ver* elastic phrase that can eApand or contract
according to the disposition of the #udiciar*.
5n Daza vs. Sin(son,
>9
Mr. %ustice Cru,, no( spea-ing for this Court, noted.
5n the case no( before us, the #urisdictional ob#ection becomes even less tenable and
decisive. 4he reason is that, even if (e (ere to assume that the issue presented before
us (as political in nature, (e (ould still not be precluded from revolving it under the
eApanded #urisdiction conferred upon us that no( covers, in proper cases, even the
political :uestion. Article K55, 9ection , of the Constitution clearl* provides. . . .
4he last ground invo-ed b* the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non"
impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution. 4he court a 8uo declared that.
10
4he Court is li-e(ise of the impression that it cannot, no matter ho( (e stretch our
#urisdiction, grant the reliefs pra*ed for b* the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all eAisting timber
license agreements in the countr* and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, rene(ing or approving ne( timber license agreements. Bor to do other(ise
(ould amount to 1impairment of contracts1 abhored /sic0 b* the fundamental la(.
>?
Fe are not persuaded at all2 on the contrar*, Fe are ama,ed, if not shoc-ed, b* such a
s(eeping pronouncement. 5n the first place, the respondent 9ecretar* did not, for
obvious reasons, even invo-e in his motion to dismiss the non"impairment clause. 5f he
had done so, he (ould have acted (ith utmost infidelit* to the @overnment b* providing
undue and un(arranted benefits and advantages to the timber license holders because
he (ould have forever bound the @overnment to strictl* respect the said licenses
according to their terms and conditions regardless of changes in polic* and the
demands of public interest and (elfare. >e (as a(are that as correctl* pointed out b*
the petitioners, into ever* timber license must be read 9ection $6 of the Borestr*
Reform Code /P.G. No. ;6+0 (hich provides.
. . . Provided, 4hat (hen the national interest so re:uires, the President ma* amend,
modif*, replace or rescind an* contract, concession, permit, licenses or an* other form
of privilege granted herein . . .
Needless to sa*, all licenses ma* thus be revo-ed or rescinded b* eAecutive action. 5t is
not a contract, propert* or a propert* right protested b* the due process clause of the
Constitution. 5n Tan vs. Director of !orestr%,
>5
this Court held.
. . . A timber license is an instrument b* (hich the 9tate regulates the utili,ation and
disposition of forest resources to the end that public (elfare is promoted. A timber
license is not a contract (ithin the purvie( of the due process clause2 it is onl* a
license or privilege, (hich can be validl* (ithdra(n (henever dictated b* public interest
or public (elfare as in this case.
A license is merel* a permit or privilege to do (hat other(ise (ould be unla(ful, and is
not a contract bet(een the authorit*, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the
person to (hom it is granted2 neither is it propert* or a propert* right, nor does it create
a vested right2 nor is it taAation /&; C.%. 8?0. 4hus, this Court held that the granting of
license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it propert* or propert* rights
/People vs. =ng 4in, +' =.@. ;+;80.
Fe reiterated this pronouncement in !elipe 9s#ael, Jr. : Co., 6nc. vs. Deput%
5&ecutive Secretar%.
>6
. . . 4imber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments b*
(hich the 9tate regulates the utili,ation and disposition of forest resources to the end
that public (elfare is promoted. And it can hardl* be gainsaid that the* merel* evidence
a privilege granted b* the 9tate to :ualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a
permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest products
therein. 4he* ma* be validl* amended, modified, replaced or rescinded b* the Chief
EAecutive (hen national interests so re:uire. 4hus, the* are not deemed contracts
(ithin the purvie( of the due process of la( clause DSee 9ections &/ee0 and $6 of Pres.
Gecree No. ;6+, as amended. lso, 4an v. Girector of Borestr*, @.R. No. 3"$'+'?,
=ctober $;, 7?&, $+ 9CRA &6$E.
9ince timber licenses are not contracts, the non"impairment clause, (hich reads.
9ec. 6. No la( impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
>7
cannot be invo-ed.
5n the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant
case does not involve a la( or even an eAecutive issuance declaring the cancellation or
modification of eAisting timber licenses. >ence, the non"impairment clause cannot as
*et be invo-ed. Nevertheless, granting further that a la( has actuall* been passed
mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be stigmati,ed as a
violation of the non"impairment clause. 4his is because b* its ver* nature and purpose,
such as la( could have onl* been passed in the eAercise of the police po(er of the
state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecolog*, promoting their health and enhancing the general (elfare. 5n be vs. !oster
2heeler
Corp.
>8
this Court stated.
4he freedom of contract, under our s*stem of government, is not meant to be absolute.
4he same is understood to be sub#ect to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the
promotion of public health, moral, safet* and (elfare. 5n other (ords, the constitutional
guarant* of non"impairment of obligations of contract is limited b* the eAercise of the
police po(er of the 9tate, in the interest of public health, safet*, moral and general
(elfare.
4he reason for this is emphaticall* set forth in Nebia vs. Ne' 9or;,
>9
:uoted in
Philippine #erican 4ife 6nsurance Co. vs. uditor General,
90
to (it.
Under our form of government the use of propert* and the ma-ing of contracts are
normall* matters of private and not of public concern. 4he general rule is that both shall
be free of governmental interference. But neither propert* rights nor contract rights are
absolute2 for government cannot eAist if the citi,en ma* at (ill use his propert* to the
detriment of his fello(s, or eAercise his freedom of contract to (or- them harm. E:uall*
fundamental (ith the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common
interest.
5n short, the non"impairment clause must *ield to the police po(er of the state.
91
Binall*, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, ho( the non"impairment clause
could appl* (ith respect to the pra*er to en#oin the respondent 9ecretar* from
receiving, accepting, processing, rene(ing or approving ne( timber licenses for, save
11
in cases of rene'al, no contract (ould have as of *et eAisted in the other instances.
Moreover, (ith respect to rene(al, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.
F>EREB=RE, being impressed (ith merit, the instant Petition is hereb* @RAN4EG,
and the challenged =rder of respondent %udge of ? %ul* 77 dismissing Civil Case
No. 76";;; is hereb* set aside. 4he petitioners ma* therefore amend their complaint to
implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the :uestioned timber license
agreements.
No pronouncement as to costs.
9= =RGEREG.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
12

G.R. No. 100150 J"nu"0, 5, 199?
RIGI%O R. SIMON, JR., CARLOS 7UIMPO, CARLITO AELAR%O, AN%
GENEROSO OCAMPO, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RO7UE -ERMO, AN% OTHERS AS JOHN
%OES, respondents.
The Cit% ttorne% for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.

5ITUG, J.:
4he eAtent of the authorit* and po(er of the Commission on >uman Rights /1C>R10 is
again placed into focus in this petition for prohibition, (ith pra*er for a restraining order
and preliminar* in#unction. 4he petitioners as- us to prohibit public respondent C>R
from further hearing and investigating C>R Case No. 76"+?6, entitled 1Bermo, et al.
vs. Ouimpo, et al.1
4he case all started (hen a 1Gemolition Notice,1 dated 7 %ul* 776, signed b* Carlos
Ouimpo /one of the petitioners0 in his capacit* as an EAecutive =fficer of the Oue,on
Cit* 5ntegrated >a(-ers Management Council under the =ffice of the Cit* Ma*or, (as
sent to, and received b*, the private respondents /being the officers and members of
the North EG9A Kendors Association, 5ncorporated0. 5n said notice, the respondents
(ere given a grace"period of three /&0 da*s /up to $ %ul* 7760 (ithin (hich to vacate
the :uestioned premises of North EG9A.
1
Prior to their receipt of the demolition notice,
the private respondents (ere informed b* petitioner Ouimpo that their stalls should be
removed to give (a* to the 1People<s Par-1.
>
=n $ %ul* 776, the group, led b* their
President Ro:ue Bermo, filed a letter"complaint /Pina(7sa#an( Sinu#paan( Sala%sa%0
(ith the C>R against the petitioners, as-ing the late C>R Chairman Mar* Concepcion
Bautista for a letter to be addressed to then Ma*or Brigido 9imon, %r., of Oue,on Cit* to
stop the demolition of the private respondents< stalls, sari7sari stores, and carinderia
along North EG9A. 4he complaint (as doc-eted as C>R Case No. 76"+?6.
9
=n $&
%ul* 776, the C>R issued an =rder, directing the petitioners 1to desist from
demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EG9A pending resolution of the
vendors)s:uatters< complaint before the Commission1 and ordering said petitioners to
appear before the C>R.
?
=n the basis of the s(orn statements submitted b* the private respondents on & %ul*
776, as (ell as C>R<s o(n ocular inspection, and convinced that on $? %ul* 776 the
petitioners carried out the demolition of private respondents< stalls, sari7sari stores and
carinderia,
5
the C>R, in its resolution of August 776, ordered the disbursement of
financial assistance of not more than P$66,666.66 in favor of the private respondents to
purchase light housing materials and food under the Commission<s supervision and
again directed the petitioners to 1desist from further demolition, (ith the (arning that
violation of said order (ould lead to a citation for contempt and arrest.1
6
A motion to dismiss,
7
dated 6 9eptember 776, :uestioned C>R<s #urisdiction. 4he
motion also averred, among other things, that.
. this case came about due to the alleged violation b* the /petitioners0 of the 5nter"
Agenc* Memorandum of Agreement (hereb* Metro"Manila Ma*ors agreed on a
moratorium in the demolition of the d(ellings of poor d(ellers in Metro"Manila2
AAA AAA AAA
&. . . . , a perusal of the said Agreement /revealed0 that the moratorium referred to
therein refers to moratorium in the demolition of the structures of poor d(ellers2
'. that the complainants in this case /(ere0 not poor d(ellers but independent business
entrepreneurs even this >onorable =ffice admitted in its resolution of August 776
that the complainants are indeed, vendors2
+. that the complainants /(ere0 occup*ing government land, particularl* the side(al- of
EG9A corner North Avenue, Oue,on Cit*2 . . . and
8. that the Cit* Ma*or of Oue,on Cit* /had0 the sole and eAclusive discretion and
authorit* (hether or not a certain business establishment /should0 be allo(ed to
operate (ithin the #urisdiction of Oue,on Cit*, to revo-e or cancel a permit, if alread*
issued, upon grounds clearl* specified b* la( and ordinance.

Guring the $ 9eptember 776 hearing, the petitioners moved for postponement,
arguing that the motion to dismiss set for $ 9eptember 776 had *et to be resolved.
4he petitioners li-e(ise manifested that the* (ould bring the case to the courts.
=n ? 9eptember 776 a supplemental motion to dismiss (as filed b* the petitioners,
stating that the Commission<s authorit* should be understood as being confined onl* to
the investigation of violations of civil and political rights, and that 1the rights allegedl*
violated in this case /(ere0 not civil and political rights, /but0 their privilege to engage in
business.1
9
=n $ 9eptember 776, the motion to dismiss (as heard and submitted for resolution,
along (ith the contempt charge that had meantime been filed b* the private
respondents, albeit vigorousl* ob#ected to b* petitioners /on the ground that the motion
to dismiss (as still then unresolved0.
10
13
5n an =rder,
11
dated $+ 9eptember 776, the C>R cited the petitioners in contempt for
carr*ing out the demolition of the stalls, sari7sari stores and carinderia despite the
1order to desist1, and it imposed a fine of P+66.66 on each of them.
=n March 77,
1>
the C>R issued an =rder, den*ing petitioners< motion to dismiss
and supplemental motion to dismiss, in this (ise.
Clearl*, the Commission on >uman Rights under its constitutional mandate had
#urisdiction over the complaint filed b* the s:uatters"vendors (ho complained of the
gross violations of their human and constitutional rights. 4he motion to dismiss should
be and is hereb* GEN5EG for lac- of merit.
19
4he C>R opined that 1it (as not the intention of the /Constitutional0 Commission to
create onl* a paper tiger limited onl* to investigating civil and political rights, but it
/should0 be /considered0 a :uasi"#udicial bod* (ith the po(er to provide appropriate
legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons (ithin the Philippines . .
. .1 5t added.
4he right to earn a living is a right essential to one<s right to development, to life and to
dignit*. All these bra,enl* and violentl* ignored and trampled upon b* respondents (ith
little regard at the same time for the basic rights of (omen and children, and their
health, safet* and (elfare. 4heir actions have ps*chologicall* scarred and traumati,ed
the children, (ho (ere (itness and eAposed to such a violent demonstration of Man<s
inhumanit* to man.
5n an =rder,
1?
dated $+ April 77, petitioners< motion for reconsideration (as denied.
>ence, this recourse.
4he petition (as initiall* dismissed in our resolution
15
of $+ %une 772 it (as
subse:uentl* reinstated, ho(ever, in our resolution
16
of ? %une 77, in (hich (e also
issued a temporar* restraining order, directing the C>R to 1CEA9E and GE9594 from
further hearing C>R No. 76"+?6.1
17
4he petitioners pose the follo(ing.
Fhether or not the public respondent has #urisdiction.
a0 to investigate the alleged violations of the 1business rights1 of the private
respondents (hose stalls (ere demolished b* the petitioners at the instance and
authorit* given b* the Ma*or of Oue,on Cit*2
b0 to impose the fine of P+66.66 each on the petitioners2 and
c0 to disburse the amount of P$66,666.66 as financial aid to the vendors affected b* the
demolition.
5n the Court<s resolution of 6 =ctober 77, the 9olicitor"@eneral (as eAcused from
filing his comment for public respondent C>R. 4he latter thus filed its o(n comment,
18

through >on. 9amuel 9oriano, one of its Commissioners. 4he Court also resolved to
dispense (ith the comment of private respondent Ro:ue Bermo, (ho had since failed
to compl* (ith the resolution, dated ? %ul* 77, re:uiring such comment.
4he petition has merit.
4he Commission on >uman Rights (as created b* the 7?;
Constitution.
19
5t (as formall* constituted b* then President Cora,on A:uino via
EAecutive =rder No. 8&,
>0
issued on + Ma* 7?;, in the eAercise of her legislative
po(er at the time. 5t succeeded, but so superseded as (ell, the Presidential Committee
on >uman Rights.
>1
4he po(ers and functions
>>
of the Commission are defined b* the 7?; Constitution,
thus. to !
/0 5nvestigate, on its o(n or on complaint b* an* part*, all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights2
/$0 Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof in accordance (ith the Rules of Court2
/&0 Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons
(ithin the Philippines, as (ell as Bilipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged (hose human rights have been
violated or need protection2
/'0 EAercise visitorial po(ers over #ails, prisons, or detention facilities2
/+0 Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance
respect for the primac* of human rights2
/80 Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to
provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families2
/;0 Monitor the Philippine @overnment<s compliance (ith international treat* obligations
on human rights2
/?0 @rant immunit* from prosecution to an* person (hose testimon* or (hose
possession of documents or other evidence is necessar* or convenient to determine
the truth in an* investigation conducted b* it or under its authorit*2
14
/70 Re:uest the assistance of an* department, bureau, office, or agenc* in the
performance of its functions2
/60 Appoint its officers and emplo*ees in accordance (ith la(2 and
/0 Perform such other duties and functions as ma* be provided b* la(.
5n its =rder of March 77, den*ing petitioners< motion to dismiss, the C>R theori,es
that the intention of the members of the Constitutional Commission is to ma-e C>R a
:uasi"#udicial bod*.
>9
4his vie(, ho(ever, has not heretofore been shared b* this Court.
5n CariPo v. Commission on >uman Rights,
>?
the Court, through then Associate %ustice,
no( Chief %ustice Andres Narvasa, has observed that it is 1onl* the first of the
enumerated po(ers and functions that bears an* resemblance to ad#udication or
ad#udgment,1 but that resemblance can in no (a* be s*non*mous to the ad#udicator*
po(er itself. 4he Court eAplained.
. . . /40he Commission on >uman Rights . . . (as not meant b* the fundamental la( to
be another court or :uasi"#udicial agenc* in this countr*, or duplicate much less ta-e
over the functions of the latter.
4he most that ma* be conceded to the Commission in the (a* of ad#udicative po(er is
that it ma* investigate, i.e., receive evidence and ma-e findings of fact as regards
claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact finding is not
ad#udication, and cannot be li-ened to the #udicial function of a court of #ustice, or even
a :uasi"#udicial agenc* or official. 4he function of receiving evidence and ascertaining
therefrom the facts of a controvers* is not a #udicial function, properl* spea-ing. 4o be
considered such, the facult* of receiving evidence and ma-ing factual conclusions in a
controvers* must be accompanied b* the authorit* of appl*ing the la( to those factual
conclusions to the end that the controvers* ma* be decided or determined
authoritativel*, finall* and definitivel*, sub#ect to such appeals or modes of revie( as
ma* be provided b* la(. 4his function, to repeat, the Commission does not have.
After thus la*ing do(n at the outset the above rule, (e no( proceed to the other -ernel
of this controvers* and, its is, to determine the eAtent of C>R<s investigative po(er.
5t can hardl* be disputed that the phrase 1human rights1 is so generic a term that an*
attempt to define it, albeit not a fe( have tried, could at best be described as
inconclusive. 3et us observe. 5n a s*mposium on human rights in the Philippines,
sponsored b* the Universit* of the Philippines in 7;;, one of the :uestions that has
been propounded is 1/(0hat do *ou understand b* 1human rightsL1 4he participants,
representing different sectors of the societ*, have given the follo(ing varied ans(ers.
<u#an ri(hts are the basic rights (hich inhere in man b* virtue of his humanit*. 4he*
are the same in all parts of the (orld, (hether the Philippines or England, Hen*a or the
9oviet Union, the United 9tates or %apan, Hen*a or 5ndonesia . . . .
<u#an ri(hts include civil rights, such as the right to life, libert*, and propert*2 freedom
of speech, of the press, of religion, academic freedom, and the rights of the accused to
due process of la(2 political rights, such as the right to elect public officials, to be
elected to public office, and to form political associations and engage in politics2 and
social rights, such as the right to an education, emplo*ment, and social services.
>5
<u#an ri(hts are the entitlement that inhere in the individual person from the sheer fact
of his humanit*. . . . Because the* are inherent, human rights are not granted b* the
9tate but can onl* be recogni,ed and protected b* it.
>6
/<u#an ri(hts include all0 the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights
defined in the Universal Geclaration of >uman Rights.
>7
<u#an ri(hts are rights that pertain to man simpl* because he is human. 4he* are part
of his natural birth, right, innate and inalienable.
>8
4he Universal Geclaration of >uman Rights, as (ell as, or more specificall*, the
5nternational Covenant on Economic, 9ocial and Cultural Rights and 5nternational
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, suggests that the scope of human rights can be
understood to include those that relate to an individual<s social, economic, cultural,
political and civil relations. 5t thus seems to closel* identif* the term to the universall*
accepted traits and attributes of an individual, along (ith (hat is generall* considered
to be his inherent and inalienable rights, encompassing almost all aspects of life.
>ave these broad concepts been e:uall* contemplated b* the framers of our 7?8
Constitutional Commission in adopting the specific provisions on human rights and in
creating an independent commission to safeguard these rightsL 5t ma* of value to loo-
bac- at the countr*<s eAperience under the martial la( regime (hich ma* have, in fact,
impelled the inclusions of those provisions in our fundamental la(. Man* voices have
been heard. Among those voices, aptl* represented perhaps of the sentiments
eApressed b* others, comes from Mr. %ustice %.B.3. Re*es, a respected #urist and an
advocate of civil liberties, (ho, in his paper, entitled 1Present 9tate of >uman Rights in
the Philippines,1
>9
observes.
But (hile the Constitution of 7&+ and that of 7;& enshrined in their Bill of Rights most
of the human rights eApressed in the 5nternational Covenant, these rights became
unavailable upon the proclamation of Martial 3a( on $ 9eptember 7;$. Arbitrar*
action then became the rule. 5ndividuals b* the thousands became sub#ect to arrest
upon suspicion, and (ere detained and held for indefinite periods, sometimes for *ears,
(ithout charges, until ordered released b* the Commander"in"Chief or this
representative. 4he right to petition for the redress of grievances became useless,
since group actions (ere forbidden. 9o (ere stri-es. Press and other mass media (ere
sub#ected to censorship and short term licensing. Martial la( brought (ith it the
suspension of the (rit of habeas corpus, and #udges lost independence and securit* of
tenure, eAcept members of the 9upreme Court. 4he* (ere re:uired to submit letters of
resignation and (ere dismissed upon the acceptance thereof. 4orture to eAtort
confessions (ere practiced as declared b* international bodies li-e Amnest*
5nternational and the 5nternational Commission of %urists.
15
Converging our attention to the records of the Constitutional Commission, (e can see
the follo(ing discussions during its $8 August 7?8 deliberations.
MR. @ARC5A . . . , the primac* of its /C>R0 tas- must be made clear in vie( of the
importance of human rights and also because civil and political rights have been
determined b* man* international covenants and human rights legislations in the
Philippines, as (ell as the Constitution, specificall* the Bill of Rights and subse:uent
legislation. =ther(ise, if (e cover such a 'ide territor% in area, 'e #i(ht diffuse its
i#pact and the precise nature of its tas;, hence, its effectivit% 'ould also be curtailed.
So, it is i#portant to delienate the para#eters of its tas;s so that the co##ission can
be #ost effective.
MR. BEN@M=N. 4hat is precisel* m* difficult* because civil and political rights are ver*
broad. 4he Article on the Bill of Rights covers civil and political rights. Ever* single right
of an individual involves his civil right or his political right. 9o, (here do (e dra( the
lineL
MR. @ARC5A. Actuall*, these civil and political rights have been made clear in the
language of human rights advocates, as (ell as in the Universal Geclaration of >uman
Rights (hich addresses a number of articles on the right to life, the right against torture,
the right to fair and public hearing, and so on. 4hese are ver* specific rights that are
considered enshrined in man* international documents and legal instruments as
constituting civil and political rights, and these are precisel* (hat (e (ant to defend
here.
MR. BEN@M=N. 9o, (ould the commissioner sa* civil and political rights as defined in
the Universal Geclaration of >uman RightsL
MR. @ARC5A. Nes, and as 5 have mentioned, the 5nternational Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights distinguished this right against torture.
MR. BEN@M=N. 9o as to distinguish this from the other rights that (e haveL
MR. @ARC5A. Nes, because the other rights (ill encompass social and economic
rights, and there are other violations of rights of citi,ens (hich can be addressed to the
proper courts and authorities.
AAA AAA AAA
MR. BEN@M=N. 9o, (e (ill authori,e the commission to define its functions, and,
therefore, in doing that the commission (ill be authori,ed to ta-e under its (ings cases
(hich perhaps heretofore or at this moment are under the #urisdiction of the ordinar*
investigative and prosecutorial agencies of the government. Am 5 correctL
MR. @ARC5A. No. Fe have alread* mentioned earlier that (e (ould li-e to define the
specific parameters (hich cover civil and political rights as covered b* the international
standards governing the behavior of governments regarding the particular political and
civil rights of citi,ens, especiall* of political detainees or prisoners. 4his particular
aspect (e have eAperienced during martial la( (hich (e (ould no( li-e to safeguard.
MR. BEN@M=N. 4hen, 5 go bac- to that :uestion that 5 had. 4herefore, (hat (e are
reall* tr*ing to sa* is, perhaps, at the proper time (e could specif* all those rights
stated in the Universal Geclaration of >uman Rights and defined as human rights.
4hose are the rights that (e envision hereL
MR. @ARC5A. Nes. 5n fact, the* are also enshrined in the Bill of Rights of our
Constitution. 4he* are integral parts of that.
MR. BEN@M=N. Therefore, is the Gentle#an sa%in( that all the ri(hts under the =ill of
)i(hts covered b% hu#an ri(htsL
MR. @ARC5A. No, onl% those that pertain to civil and political ri(hts.
AAA AAA AAA
MR. RAMA. 6n connection 'ith the discussion on the scope of hu#an ri(hts, 6 'ould
li;e to state that in the past re(i#e, ever%ti#e 'e invo;e the violation of hu#an ri(hts,
the Marcos re(i#e ca#e out 'ith the defense that, as a #atter of fact, the% had
defended the ri(hts of people to decent livin(, food, decent housin( and a life
consistent 'ith hu#an di(nit%.
So, 6 thin; 'e should reall% li#it the definition of hu#an ri(hts to political ri(hts. 6s that
the sense of the co##ittee, so as not to confuse the issueL
MR. 9ARM5EN4=. 9es, Mada# President.
MR. @ARC5A. 5 (ould li-e to continue and respond also to repeated points raised b*
the previous spea-er.
There are actuall% si& areas 'here this Co##ission on <u#an )i(hts could act
effectivel%. +> protection of ri(hts of political detainees? @> treat#ent of prisoners and
the prevention of tortures? A> fair and public trials? B> cases of disappearances? C>
salva(in(s and ha#lettin(? and D> other cri#es co##itted a(ainst the reli(ious.
AAA AAA AAA
4he PRE95GEN4. Commissioner @uingona is recogni,ed.
MR. @U5N@=NA. 4han- Nou Madam President.
16
5 (ould li-e to start b* sa*ing that 5 agree (ith Commissioner @arcia that (e should, in
order to #a;e the proposed Co##ission #ore effective, deli#it as #uch as possible,
'ithout pre1udice to future e&pansion. The covera(e of the concept and 1urisdictional
area of the ter# 1hu#an ri(hts1. 5 (as actuall* disturbed this morning (hen the
reference (as made (ithout :ualification to the rights embodied in the universal
Geclaration of >uman Rights, although later on, this (as :ualified to refer to civil and
political rights contained therein.
5f 5 remember correctl*, Madam President, Commissioner @arcia, after mentioning the
Universal Geclaration of >uman Rights of 7'?, mentioned or lin-ed the concept of
human right (ith other human rights specified in other convention (hich 5 do not
remember. Am 5 correctL
MR. @ARC5A. 5s Commissioner @uingona referring to the Geclaration of 4orture of
7?+L
MR. @U5N@=NA. 5 do not -no(, but the commissioner mentioned another.
MR. @ARC5A. Madam President, the other one is the 5nternational Convention on Civil
and Political Rights of (hich (e are signator*.
MR. @U5N@=NA. 5 see. 4he onl* problem is that, although 5 have a cop* of the
Universal Geclaration of >uman Rights here, 5 do not have a cop* of the other
covenant mentioned. 5t is :uite possible that there are rights specified in that other
convention (hich ma* not be specified here. 5 (as (ondering (hether it (ould be (ise
to lin- our concept of human rights to general terms li-e 1convention,1 rather than
specif* the rights contained in the convention.
As far as the Universal Geclaration of >uman Rights is concerned, the Committee,
before the period of amendments, could specif* to us (hich of these articles in the
Geclaration (ill fall (ithin the concept of civil and political rights, not for the purpose of
including these in the proposed constitutional article, but to give the sense of the
Commission as to (hat human rights (ould be included, (ithout pre#udice to eApansion
later on, if the need arises. Bor eAample, there (as no definite repl* to the :uestion of
Commissioner Regalado as to (hether the right to marr* (ould be considered a civil or
a social right. 5t is not a civil rightL
MR. @ARC5A. Mada# President, 6 have to repeat the various specific civil and political
ri(hts that 'e felt #ust be envisioned initiall% b% this provision 3 freedo# fro# political
detention and arrest prevention of torture, ri(ht to fair and public trials, as 'ell as
cri#es involvin( disappearance, salva(in(s, ha#lettin(s and collective violations. So, it
is li#ited to politicall% related cri#es precisel% to protect the civil and political ri(hts of a
specific (roup of individuals, and therefore, 'e are not openin( it up to all of the definite
areas.
MR. @U5N@=NA. Correct. 4herefore, #ust for the record, the @entlemen is no longer
lin-ing his concept or the concept of the Committee on >uman Rights (ith the so"called
civil or political rights as contained in the Universal Geclaration of >uman Rights.
MR. @ARC5A. Fhen 5 mentioned earlier the Universal Geclaration of >uman Rights, 5
(as referring to an international instrument.
MR. @U5N@=NA. 5 -no(.
MR. @ARC5A. But it does not mean that (e (ill refer to each and ever* specific article
therein, but onl* to those that pertain to the civil and politicall* related, as (e
understand it in this Commission on >uman Rights.
MR. @U5N@=NA. Madam President, 5 am not even clear as to the distinction bet(een
civil and social rights.
MR. @ARC5A. 4here are t(o international covenants. the 5nternational Covenant and
Civil and Political Rights and the 5nternational Covenant on Economic, 9ocial and
Cultural Rights. 4he second covenant contains all the different rights"the rights of labor
to organi,e, the right to education, housing, shelter, et cetera.
MR. @U5N@=NA. 9o (e are #ust limiting at the moment the sense of the committee to
those that the @entlemen has specified.
MR. @ARC5A. Nes, to civil and political rights.
MR. @U5N@=NA. 4han- *ou.
AAA AAA AAA
9R. 4AN. Madam President, from the standpoint of the victims of human rights, 5
cannot stress more on ho( much (e need a Commission on >uman Rights. . . .
. . . human rights victims are usuall* penniless. 4he* cannot pa* and ver* fe( la(*ers
(ill accept clients (ho do not pa*. And so, the* are the ones more abused and
oppressed. nother reason is, the cases involved are ver% delicate 3 torture,
salva(in(, pic;in( up 'ithout an% 'arrant of arrest, #assacre ! and the persons (ho
are allegedl* guilt* are people in po(er li-e politicians, men in the militar* and big
shots. 4herefore, this >uman Rights Commission must be independent.
5 (ould li-e ver* much to emphasi,e ho( much (e need this commission, especiall*
for the little Bilipino, the little individual (ho needs this -ind of help and cannot get it.
nd 6 thin; 'e should concentrate onl% on civil and political violations because if 'e
open this to land, housin( and health, 'e 'ill have no place to (o a(ain and 'e 'ill not
receive an% response. . . .
90
/emphasis supplied0
17
4he final outcome, no( (ritten as 9ection ?, Article J555, of the 7?; Constitution, is a
provision empo(ering the Commission on >uman Rights to 1investigate, on its o(n or
on complaint b* an* part*, all forms of human rights violations involvin( civil and
political ri(hts1 /9ec. 0.
4he term 1civil rights,1
91
has been defined as referring !
/t0o those /rights0 that belong to ever* citi,en of the state or countr*, or, in (ider sense,
to all its inhabitants, and are not connected (ith the organi,ation or administration of
the government. 4he* include the rights of propert*, marriage, e:ual protection of the
la(s, freedom of contract, etc. =r, as other(ise defined civil rights are rights
appertaining to a person b* virtue of his citi,enship in a state or communit*. 9uch term
ma* also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in
a civil action.
Also :uite often mentioned are the guarantees against involuntar* servitude, religious
persecution, unreasonable searches and sei,ures, and imprisonment for debt.
9>
Political rights,
99
on the other hand, are said to refer to the right to participate, directl*
or indirectl*, in the establishment or administration of government, the right of suffrage,
the right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant
to citi,enship vis7a7vis the management of government.
9?
Recalling the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, afore:uoted, it is readil*
apparent that the delegates envisioned a Commission on >uman Rights that (ould
focus its attention to the more severe cases of human rights violations. Gelegate
@arcia, for instance, mentioned such areas as the 1/0 protection of rights of political
detainees, /$0 treatment of prisoners and the prevention of tortures, /&0 fair and public
trials, /'0 cases of disappearances, /+0 salvagings and hamletting, and /80 other crimes
committed against the religious.1 Fhile the enumeration has not li-el* been meant to
have an* preclusive effect, more than #ust eApressing a statement of priorit*, it is,
nonetheless, significant for the tone it has set. 5n an* event, the delegates did not
apparentl* ta-e comfort in peremptoril* ma-ing a conclusive delineation of the C>R<s
scope of investigatorial #urisdiction. 4he* have thus seen it fit to resolve, instead, that
1Congress ma* provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should fall
(ithin the authorit* of the Commission, ta-ing into account its recommendation.1
95
5n the particular case at hand, there is no cavil that (hat are sought to be demolished
are the stalls, sari7sari stores and carinderia, as (ell as temporar* shanties, erected b*
private respondents on a land (hich is planned to be developed into a 1People<s Par-1.
More than that, the land ad#oins the North EG9A of Oue,on Cit* (hich, this Court can
ta-e #udicial notice of, is a bus* national high(a*. 4he conse:uent danger to life and
limb is not thus to be li-e(ise simpl* ignored. 5t is indeed paradoAical that a right (hich
is claimed to have been violated is one that cannot, in the first place, even be invo-ed,
if it is, in fact, eAtant. Be that as it ma*, loo-ing at the standards hereinabove
discoursed vis7a7vis the circumstances obtaining in this instance, (e are not prepared
to conclude that the order for the demolition of the stalls, sari7sari stores and carinderia
of the private respondents can fall (ithin the compartment of 1human rights violations
involving civil and political rights1 intended b* the Constitution.
=n its contempt po(ers, the C>R is constitutionall* authori,ed to 1adopt its operational
guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in
accordance (ith the Rules of Court.1 Accordingl*, the C>R acted (ithin its authorit* in
providing in its revised rules, its po(er 1to cite or hold an* person in direct or indirect
contempt, and to impose the appropriate penalties in accordance (ith the procedure
and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court.1 4hat po(er to cite for contempt,
ho(ever, should be understood to appl* onl* to violations of its adopted operational
guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carr* out its investigatorial po(ers. 4o
eAemplif*, the po(er to cite for contempt could be eAercised against persons (ho
refuse to cooperate (ith the said bod*, or (ho undul* (ithhold relevant information, or
(ho decline to honor summons, and the li-e, in pursuing its investigative (or-. 4he
1order to desist1 /a semantic interpla* for a restraining order0 in the instance before us,
ho(ever, is not investigatorial in character but prescinds from an ad#udicative po(er
that it does not possess. 5n 5&port Processin( "one uthorit% vs. Co##ission on
<u#an )i(hts,
96
the Court, spea-ing through Madame %ustice Carolina @riPo"A:uino,
eAplained.
4he constitutional provision directing the C>R to 1provide for preventive measures and
legal aid services to the underprivileged (hose human rights have been violated or
need protection1 ma* not be construed to confer #urisdiction on the Commission to
issue a restraining order or (rit of in#unction for, it that (ere the intention, the
Constitution (ould have eApressl* said so. 1%urisdiction is conferred onl* b* the
Constitution or b* la(1. 5t is never derived b* implication.
Evidentl*, the 1preventive measures and legal aid services1 mentioned in the
Constitution refer to eAtra#udicial and #udicial remedies /including a (rit of preliminar*
in#unction0 (hich the C>R ma* see- from proper courts on behalf of the victims of
human rights violations. Not being a court of #ustice, the C>R itself has no #urisdiction
to issue the (rit, for a (rit of preliminar* in#unction ma* onl* be issued 1b* the #udge of
an* court in (hich the action is pending D(ithin his districtE, or b* a %ustice of the Court
of Appeals, or of the 9upreme Court. . . . A (rit of preliminar* in#unction is an ancillar*
remed*. 5t is available onl* in a pending principal action, for the preservation or
protection of the rights and interests of a part* thereto, and for no other purpose.1
/footnotes omitted0.
4he Commission does have legal standing to indorse, for appropriate action, its
findings and recommendations to an* appropriate agenc* of government.
97
4he challenge on the C>R<s disbursement of the amount of P$66,666.66 b* (a* of
financial aid to the vendors affected b* the demolition is not an appropriate issue in the
instant petition. Not onl* is there lac- of locus standi on the part of the petitioners to
:uestion the disbursement but, more importantl*, the matter lies (ith the appropriate
administrative agencies concerned to initiall* consider.
18
4he public respondent eAplains that this petition for prohibition filed b* the petitioners
has become moot and academic since the case before it /C>R Case No. 76"+?60 has
alread* been full* heard, and that the matter is merel* a(aiting final resolution. 5t is true
that prohibition is a preventive remed* to restrain the doing of an act about to be done,
and not intended to provide a remed* for an act alread* accomplished.
98
>ere,
ho(ever, said Commission admittedl* has *et to promulgate its resolution in C>R Case
No. 76"+?6. 4he instant petition has been intended, among other things, to also
prevent C>R from precisel* doing that.
99
F>EREB=RE, the (rit pra*ed for in this petition is @RAN4EG. 4he Commission on
>uman Rights is hereb* prohibited from further proceeding (ith C>R Case No. 76"
+?6 and from implementing the P+66.66 fine for contempt. 4he temporar* restraining
order heretofore issued b* this Court is made permanent. No costs.
9= =RGEREG.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

19
G.R. No. 117?7> June >5, 1996
PEOPLE O- THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff"appellee,
vs.
LEO ECHEGARAY , PILO, accused"appellant.

PER CURIAM@p
Amidst the endless debates on (hether or not the reimposition of the death penalt* is
indeed a deterrent as far as the commission of heinous crimes is concerned and (hile
the attendant details pertaining to the eAecution of a death sentence remain as *et
another burning issue, (e are tas-ed (ith providing a clear"cut resolution of (hether or
not the herein accused"appellant deserves to forfeit his place in human societ* for the
infliction of the primitive and bestial act of incestuous lust on his o(n blood.
Before us for automatic revie( is the #udgment of conviction, dated 9eptember ;, 77',
for the crime of Rape, rendered after marathon hearing b* the Regional 4rial Court of
Oue,on Cit*, Branch 6', the dispositive portion of (hich reads.
F>EREB=RE, #udgment is hereb* rendered finding accused 3E= EC>E@ARAN N
P53= guilt* be*ond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE as charged in the
complaint, aggravated b* the fact that the same (as commited b* the accused (ho is
the father)stepfather of the complainant, he is hereb* sentenced to suffer the penalt* of
GEA4>, as provided for under RA. No. ;8+7, to pa* the complainant Rodessa
Echegara* the sum
of P+6,666.66 as damages, plus all the accessor* penalties provided b* la(, (ithout
subsidiar* imprisonment in case of insolvenc*, and to pa* the costs.
1
Fe note, ho(ever, that the charge had been formulated in this manner.
C O M P 4 6 N T
4he undersigned accuses 3E= EC>E@ARAN N P53= of the crime of RAPE, committed
as follo(s.
4hat on or about the month of April 77', in Oue,on Cit*, Philippines, the above"named
accused, b* means of force and intimidation did then and there (ilfull*, unla(full* and
feloniousl* have carnal -no(ledge of the undersigned complainant, his daughter, a
minor, 6 *ears of age, all against her (ill and (ithout her consent, to her damage and
pre#udice.
C=N4RARN 4= 3AF
>
Upon being arraigned on August , 77', the accused"appellant, assisted b* his
counsel de oficio, entered the plea of 1not guilt*.1
4hese are the pertinent facts of the case as summari,ed b* the 9olicitor"@eneral in his
brief.
4his is a case of rape b* the father of his ten"*ear old daughter.
Complainant R=GE99A EC>E@ARAN is a ten"*ear old girl and a fifth"grader, born on
9eptember , 7?&. Rodessa is the eldest of five siblings. 9he has three brothers
aged 8, + and $, respectivel*, and a &"month old bab* sister. >er parents are Rosalie
and 3eo Echegara*, the latter being the accused"appellant himself. 4he victim lives (ith
her famil* in a small house located at No. 77 Bernande, 9t., Baranga* 9an Antonio,
9an Brancisco Gel Monte, Oue,on Cit* /pp. +"7, Aug. 7, 77', 49N0.
9ometime in the afternoon of April 77', (hile Rodessa (as loo-ing after her three
brothers in their house as her mother attended a gambling session in another place,
she heard her father, the accused"appellant in this case, order her brothers to go out of
the house /pp. 6", ibid0. As soon as her brothers left, accused"appellant 3eo
Echegara* approached Rodessa and suddenl* dragged her inside the room /p. $,
ibid0. Before she could :uestion the appellant, the latter immediatel*, removed her
pant* and made her lie on the floor /p. &, ibid0. 4hereafter, appellant li-e(ise removed
his under(ear and immediatel* placed himself on top of Rodessa. 9ubse:uentl*,
appellant forcefull* inserted his penis into Rodessa<s organ causing her to suffer
intense pain /pp. '"+, ibid0. Fhile appellant (as pumping on her, he even uttered.
1Masarap ba, masarap baL1 and to (hich Rodessa ans(ered. 14ama na Papa,
masa-it1 /p. 8, ibid0. Rodessa<s plea proved futile as appellant continued (ith his act.
After satisf*ing his bestial instinct, appellant threatened to -ill her mother if she (ould
divulge (hat had happened. 9cared that her mother (ould be -illed b* appellant,
Rodessa -ept to herself the ordeal she suffered. 9he (as ver* afraid of appellant
because the latter, most of the time, (as high on drugs /pp. ;"?, ibid.0. 4he same
seAual assault happened up to the fifth time and this usuall* too- place (hen her
mother (as out of the house /p. 7, ibid.0. >o(ever, after the fifth time, Rodessa
decided to inform her grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, (ho in turn told Rosalie,
Radessa<s mother. Rodessa and her mother proceeded to the Baranga* Captain (here
Rodessa confided the seAual assaults she suffered. 4hereafter, Rodessa (as brought
to the precinct (here she eAecuted an affidavit /p. $, ibid.0. Brom there, she (as
accompanied to the Philippine National Police Crime 3aborator* for medical
eAamination /p. $$, ibid.0.
Rodessa testified that the said seAual assaults happened onl* during the time (hen her
mother (as pregnant. Rodessa added that at first, her mother (as on her side.
>o(ever, (hen appellant (as detained, her mother -ept on telling her. 1Ha(a(a
naman ang 4ata* mo, na-a-ulong1 /pp. &7"'6, ibid.0.
Fhen Rodessa (as eAamined b* the medico"legal officer in the person of Gra. Ma.
Cristina B. Pre*na,
9
the complainant (as described as ph*sicall* on a non"virgin state,
20
as evidenced b* the presence of laceration of the h*men of said complainant /49N,
Aug. $$, 77+, pp. ?"70.
?
=n the other hand, the accused"appellant<s brief presents a different stor*.
. . . the defense presented its first (itness, Rosalie Echegara*. 9he asserted that the
RAPE charge against the accused (as onl* the figment of her mothers dirt* mind. 4hat
her daughter<s complaint (as forced upon her b* her grandma and the ans(ers in the
s(orn statement of Rodessa (ere coached. 4hat the accusation of RAPE (as
motivated b* Rodessa<s grandmother<s greed over the lot situated at the Madrigal
Estate"N>A Pro#ect, Baranga* 9an Antonio, 9an Brancisco del Monte, Oue,on Cit*,
(hich her grandmother<s paramour, Conrado Alfonso gave to the accused in order to
persuade the latter to admit that Rodessa eAecuted an affidavit of desistance after it
turned out that her complaint of attempted homicide (as substituted (ith the crime of
RAPE at the instance of her mother. 4hat (hen her mother came to -no( about the
affidavit of desistance, she placed her granddaughter under the custod* of the
Baranga* Captain. 4hat her mother (as never a real mother to her.
9he stated that her complaint against accused (as for attempted homicide as her
husband poured alcohol on her bod* and attempted to burn her. 9he identified the
certification issued b* the N>A and 4ag No. ?;"6&7& /EAh. $0. 4hat the Certification
based on the Masterlist /EAh. &0 indicates that the propert* is co"o(ned b* accused
and Conrado Alfonso. 4hat Rodessa is her daughter sired b* Conrado Alfonso, the
latter being the paramour of her mother. 4hat Conrado Alfonso (aived his right and
participation over the lot in favor of the accused in consideration of the latter<s
accepting the fact that he is the father of Rodessa to simulate the love triangle and to
conceal the nauseating seA orgies from Conrado Alfonso<s real (ife.
Accused testified in his behalf and stated that the grandmother of the complainant has
a ver* strong motive in implicating him to the crime of RAPE since she (as interested
to become the sole o(ner of a propert* a(arded to her live"in partner b* the Madrigal
Estate"N>A Pro#ect. 4hat he could not have committed the imputed crime because he
considers Rodessa as his o(n daughter. 4hat he is a painter"contractor and on the
date of the alleged commission of the crime, he (as painting the house of one Givina
Ang of Baranga* Kitalis, ParaPa:ue, Metro Manila /EAh. '0. 4he travel time bet(een his
(or- place to his residence is three /&0 hours considering the condition of traffic. 4hat
the painting contract is evidenced b* a document denominated 1Contract of 9ervices1
dul* accomplished /see submar-ings of EAh. '0. >e asserted that he has a big seAual
organ (hich (hen used to a girl *ears old li-e Rodessa, the said female organ (ill
be 1ma(a(ara-.1 4hat it is abnormal to report the imputed commission of the crime to
the grandmother of the victim.
Accused further stated that her /sic0 mother"in"la( trumped"up a charge of drug
pushing earlier and he pleaded guilt* to a lesser offense of using drugs. 4he decretal
portion of the #udgment of conviction ordering the accused to be confined at the Bicutan
Rehabilitation Center ir-ed the grandmother of Rodessa because it (as her (ish that
accused should be meted the death penalt*.
Accused remain steadfast in his testimon* perorating the strong motive of Rodessa<s
grandmother in implicating him in this heinous crime because of her greed to become
the sole o(ner of that piece of propert* at the National >ousing Authorit*"Madrigal
Pro#ect, situated at 9an Brancisco del Monte, Oue,on Cit*, not(ithstanding rigid cross"
eAamination. >e asserted that the imputed offense is far from his mind considering that
he treated Rodessa as his o(n daughter. >e categoricall* testified that he (as in his
painting #ob site on the date and time of the alleged commission of the crime.
Mrs. Pun,alan (as presented as third defense (itness. 9he said that she is the laundr*
(oman and part time bab* sitter of the famil* of accused. 4hat at one time, she sa(
Rodessa reading seA boo-s and the Bulgar ne(spaper. 4hat (hile hanging (ashed
clothes on the vacant lot, she sa( Rodessa masturbating b* tin-ering her private parts.
4he masturbation too- sometime.
4his seAual fling of Rodessa (ere corroborated b* 9ilvestra Echegara*, the fourth and
last (itness for the defense. 9he stated that she tried hard to correct the flirting
tendenc* of Rodessa and that she scolded her (hen she sa( Rodessa vie(ing an J"
rated tape. Rodessa according to her (as fond of going (ith friends of ill"repute. 4hat
/sic0 she corroborated the testimon* of Mrs. Pun,alan b* stating that she herself sa(
Rodessa masturbating inside the room of her house.
5
5n finding the accused"appellant guilt* be*ond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape,
the lo(er court dismissed the defense of alibi and lent credence to the straightfor(ard
testimon* of the ten"*ear old victim to (hom no ill motive to testif* falsel* against
accused"appellant can be attributed. 4he lo(er court li-e(ise regarded as
inconse:uential the defense of the accused"appellant that the eAtraordinar* si,e of his
penis could not have insinuated itself into the victim<s vagina and that the accused is
not the real father of the said victim.
4he accused"appellant no( reiterates his position in his attempt to see- a reversal of
the lo(er court<s verdict through the follo(ing assignment of errors.
. 4>E 3=FER C=UR4 BA53EG 4= APPREC5A4E 4>E 95N594ER M=45KE =B
PR5KA4E C=MP3A5NAN4<9 @RANGM=4>ERL 4>A4 PREC5P54A4EG 4>E B535N@
=B 4>E C>AR@E =B RAPE, >ENCE 54 ERREG 5N >=3G5N@ ACCU9EG @U534N A9
C>AR@EG.
$. 4>E C=UR4 BE3=F =KER3==HEG 4>E BAC4 4>A4 4>E >EA3EG
3ACERA45=N9 A4 & ANG ; =<C3=CH C=U3G N=4 >AKE BEEN GUE 4= 4>E
PUMP5N@ =B 4>E PEN59 =B ACCU9EG 4= 4>E KA@5NA =B PR5KA4E
C=MP3A5NAN4, >ENCE 54 ERREG 5N >=3G5N@ 4>A4 ACCU9EG C=MM544EG 4>E
CR5ME C>AR@EG, N=4F54>94ANG5N@ KE>EMEN4 GEN5A3.
&. 4>E C=UR4 $*O F>5M95CA33N 5@N=REG 4>E GEBEN9E =B A35B5 4>A4
ACCU9EG FA9 5N PARAQAOUE =N 4>E GA4E ANG 45ME =B 4>E 5MPU4EG
CR5ME >ENCE, 54 ERREG 5N >=3G5N@ 4>A4 A35B5 59 N=4 9U94A5NAB3E 5N 4>E
CA9E A4 BAR.
6
21
Considering that a rape charge, in the light of the reimposition of the death penalt*,
re:uires a thorough and #udicious eAamination of the circumstances relating thereto,
this Court remains guided b* the follo(ing principles in evaluating evidence in cases of
this nature. /a0 An accusation for rape can be made (ith facilit*2 it is difficult to prove
but more difficult for the accused though innocent to disprove2 /b0 5n vie( of the intrinsic
nature of the crime of rape (here onl* t(o persons are involved, the testimon* of the
complainant must be scrutini,ed (ith eAtreme caution2 and /c0 4he evidence for the
prosecution must stand and fall on its o(n merits, and cannot be allo(ed to dra(
strength from the (ea-ness of the evidence for the defense.
7
Anent the first assigned error, no amount of persuasion can convince this Court to tilt
the scales of #ustice in favor of the accused"appellant not(ithstanding that he cries foul
insisting that the rape charge (as merel* concocted and strongl* motivated b* greed
over a certain lot situated at the N>A"Madrigal Estate >ousing Pro#ect, Baranga* 9an
Antonio, 9an Brancisco del Monte, Oue,on Cit*. 4he accused"appellant theori,es that
prosecution (itness Asuncion Rivera, the maternal grandmother of the victim Rodessa,
concocted the charge of rape so that, in the event that the accused"appellant shall be
meted out a death sentence, title to the lot (ill be consolidated in her favor. 5ndeed, the
lot in :uestion is co"o(ned b* the accused"appellant and Conrado Alfonso, the live"in
partner of Asuncion Rivera, according to the records of the National >ousing Authorit*
/EAh. 1&10. 4he accused"appellant (ould (ant us to believe that the rape charge (as
fabricated b* Asuncion Rivera in order to eliminate the accused"appellant from being a
co"o(ner. 9o, the live"in partners (ould have the propert* for their o(n.
8
Fe believe, as did the 9olicitor"@eneral, that no grandmother (ould be so callous as to
instigate her 6"*ear old granddaughter to file a rape case against her o(n father
simpl* on account of her alleged interest over the disputed lot.
9
5t is a (ell"entrenched #urisprudential rule that the testimon* of a rape victim is credible
(here she has no motive to testif* against the accused.
10
Fe find no fla(s material enough to discredit the testimon* of the ten"*ear old Rodessa
(hich the trial court found convincing enough and unrebutted b* the defense. 4he trial
court not surprisingl* noted that Rodessa<s narration in detail of her father<s monstrous
acts had made her cr*.
11
=nce again, (e rule that.
. . . 4he testimon* of the victim (ho (as onl* $ *ears old at the time of the rape as to
the circumstances of the rape must be given (eight, for testimon* of *oung and
immature rape victims are credible /People v. @uibao, $; 9CRA 8' D77&E0. No
(oman especiall* one of tender age, practicall* onl* a girl, (ould concoct a stor* of
defloration, allo( an eAamination of her private parts and thereafter eApose herself to a
public trial, if she (ere not motivated solel* b* the desire to have the culprit
apprehended and punished /People v. @uibao, supra0.
1>
4he accused"appellant points out certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution (itnesses in his attempt to bolster his claim that the rape accusation
against him is malicious and baseless. Birstl*, Rodessa<s testimon* that the accused"
appellant (as alread* na-ed (hen he dragged her inside the room is inconsistent (ith
her subse:uent testimon* that the said accused"appellant (as still (earing short pants
(hen she (as dragged inside the room. 9econdl*, Rodessa<s s(orn statement before
the police investigator (hich indicated that, (hile the accused (as eAecuting pumping
acts, he uttered the (ords 1Masarap baL1, differ from her testimon* in court (herein
she related that, (hen the accused too- out his penis from her vagina, the accused
said 1Masarap, tapos na.1 4hirdl*, the victim<s grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, recounted
in her s(orn statement that it (as the accused (ho (ent to see her to apprise her of
the rape committed on her granddaughter. >o(ever, in her testimon* in court ,
Asuncion Rivera claimed that she (as the one (ho invited the accused"appellant to
see her in her house so as to tell her a secret.
19
4hese alleged discrepancies merel*
pertain to minor details (hich in no (a* pose serious doubt as to the credibilit* of the
prosecution (itnesses. Fhether or not the accused (as na-ed (hen he dragged
Rodessa inside the room (here he seAuall* assaulted her bears no significant effect on
Rodessa<s testimon* that she (as actuall* raped b* the accused"appellant. Moreover,
a conflicting account of (hatever (ords (ere uttered b* the accused"appellant after he
forcefull* inserted his penis into Rodessa<s private organ against her (ill cannot impair
the prosecution<s evidence as a (hole. A determination of (hich version earmar-s the
truth as to ho( the victim<s grandmother learned about the rape is inconse:uential to
the #udgment of conviction.
As (e have pronounced in the case of People v. Ja%#alin.
1?
4his Court has stated time and again that minor inconsistencies in the narration of the
(itness do not detract from its essential credibilit* as long as it is on the (hole coherent
and intrinsicall* believable. 5naccuracies ma* in fact suggest that the (itness is telling
the truth and has not been rehearsed as it is not to he eApected that he (ill be able to
remember ever* single detail of an incident (ith perfect or total recall.
After due deliberation, this Court finds that the trial #udge<s assessment of the credibilit*
of the prosecution (itnesses deserves our utmost respect in the absence of
arbitrariness.
Fith respect to the second assigned error, the records of the instant case are bereft of
clear and concrete proof of the accused"appellant<s claim as to the si,e of his penis and
that if that be the fact, it could not have merel* caused shallo( healed lacerations at
&.66 and ;.66 o<cloc-.
15
5n his testimon*, the accused"appellant stated that he could
not have raped Rodessa because of
the si,e of his penis (hich could have ruptured her vagina had he actuall* done so.
16

4his Court gives no probative value on the accused"appellant<s self"serving statement
in the light of our ruling in the case of People v. Melivo, supra,
1
7 that.
4he vaginal (all and the h*menal membrane are elastic organs capable of var*ing
degrees of distensibilit*. 4he degree of distensibilit* of the female reproductive organ is
normall* limited onl* b* the character and si,e of the pelvic inlet, other factors being
minor. 4he female reprodructive canal being capable of allo(ing passage of a regular
fetus, there ought to be no difficult* allo(ing the entr* of ob#ects of much lesser si,e,
including the male reproductive organ, (hich even in its largest dimensions, (ould still
be considerabl* smaller than the full"term fetus.
22
AAA AAA AAA
6n the case at bench, the presence of healed lacerations in various parts of he va(inal
'all, thou(h not as e&tensive as appellant #i(ht have e&pected the# to be, indicate
trau#atic in1ur% to the area 'ithin the period 'hen the incidents 'ere supposed to have
occurred. /At pp. &"', emphasis supplied0
5n rape cases, a bro-en h*men is not an essential element thereof.
18
A mere -noc-ing
at the doors of the pudenda, so to spea-, b* the accused<s penis suffices to constitute
the crime of rape as full entr* into the victim<s vagina is not re:uired to sustain a
conviction.
19
5n the case, Gr. Bre*ra, the medico"legal eAaminer, categoricall* testified
that the healed lacerations of Rodessa on her vagina (ere consistent (ith the date of
the commission of the rape as narrated b* the victim to have ta-en place in April, 77'.
>0
3astl*, the third assigned error deserves scant consideration. 4he accused"appellant
erroneousl* argues that the Contract of 9ervices /EAhibit '0 offered as evidence in
support of the accused"appellant<s defense of alibi need not be corroborated because
there is no la( eApressl* re:uiring so.
>1
5n vie( of our finding that the prosecution
(itnesses have no motive to falsel* testif* against the accused"appellant, the defense
of alibi, in this case, uncorroborated b* other (itnesses, should be completel*
disregarded.
>>
More importantl*, the defense of alibi (hich is inherentl* (ea- becomes
even (ea-er in the face of positive identification of the accused"appellant as
perpetrator of the crime of rape b* his victim, Rodessa.
>9
4he Contract of 9ervices (hereb* the accused"appellant obligated himself to do some
painting #ob at the house of one Givina Ang in ParaPa:ue, Metro Manila, (ithin $+ da*s
from April ', 77', is not proof of the (hereabouts of the accused"appellant at the time
of the commission of the offense.
4he accused"appellant in this case is charged (ith 9tatutor* Rape on the basis of the
complaint, dated %ul* ', 77'. 4he gravamen of the said offense, as stated in
paragraph &, Article &&+ of the Revised Penal Code, is the carnal -no(ledge of a
(oman belo( t(elve *ears old.
>?
Rodessa positivel* identified his father accused"
appellant, as the culprit of 9tatutor* Rape. >er account of ho( the accused"appellant
succeeded in consummating his grievous and odious seAual assault on her is free from
an* substantial self"contradiction. 5t is highl* inconceivable that it is rehearsed and
fabricated upon instructions from Rodessa<s maternal grandmother Asuncion Rivera as
asserted b* the accused"appellant. 4he (ords of Chief %ustice Enri:ue M. Bernando,
spea-ing for the Court, more than t(o decades ago, are relevant and (orth reiterating,
thus.
. . . it is manifest in the decisions of this Court that (here the offended parties are
*oung and immature girls li-e the victim in this case, /Cited cases omitted0 there is
mar-ed receptivit* on its, part to tend credence to their version of (hat transpired. 5t is
not to be (ondered at. 4he state, as parens patria, is under the obligation to minimi,e
the ris- of harm to those, (ho, because of their minorit*, are as *et unable to ta-e care
of themselves full*. 4hose of tender *ears deserve its utmost protection. Moreover, the
in#ur* in cases of rape is not inflicted on the unfortunate victim alone. 4he consternation
it causes her famil* must also be ta-en into account 5t ma* reflect a failure to abide b*
the announced concern in the fundamental la( for such institution 4here is all the more
reason then for the rigorous application of the penal la( (ith its severe penalt* for this
offense, (henever (arranted. 5t has been aptl* remar-ed that (ith the advance in
civili,ation, the disruption in public peace and order it represents defies eAplanation,
much more so in vie( of (hat currentl* appears to be a tendenc* for seAual
permissiveness. Fhere the prospects of relationship based on consent are hardl*
minimal, self"restraint should even be more mar-ed.
>5
Under 9ection of Republic Act No. ;8+7 often referred to as the Geath Penalt* 3a(,
Art. &&+ of the Revised Penal Code (as amended, to (it.
4he death penalt% shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed (ith an* of
the follo(ing attendant circumstances.
. Fhen the victi# is under ei(thteen E+F> %ears of a(e and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step"parent, guardian, relative b* consanguinit* or affinit* (ithin the third
civil degree, or the co##on7la' spouse of the parent of the victi#.
AAA AAA AAA
/Emphasis supplied0
Apparentl*, as a last glimpse of hope, the accused"appellant :uestions the penalt*
imposed b* the trial court b* declaring that he is neither a father, stepfather or
grandfather of Rodessa although he (as a confirmed lover of Rodessa<s mother.
>6
=n
direct eAamination, he admitted that before the charge of rape (as riled against him, he
had treated Rodessa as his real daughter and had provided for her food, clothing,
shelter and education.
>
7 4he Court notes that Rodessa uses the surname of the
accused"appellant, not Rivera /her mother<s maiden name0 nor Alfonso /her
grandmother<s live"in partner0. Moreover, Rodessa<s mother stated during the cross"
eAamination that she, the accused"appellant, and her five children, including Rodessa,
had been residing in one house onl*.
>8
At an* rate, even if he (ere not the father,
stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa, this disclaimer cannot save him from the ab*ss
(here perpetrators of heinous crimes ought to be, as mandated b* la(. Considering
that the accused"appellant is a confirmed lover of Rodessa<s mother,
>9
he falls
s:uarel* (ithin the afore:uoted portion of the Geath Penalt* 3a( under the term
1common"la( spouse of the parent of the victim.1
4he fact that the ten"*ear old Rodessa referred to the accused"appellant as 1Papa1 is
reason enough to conclude that accused"appellant is either the father or stepfather of
Rodessa. 4hus, the act of seAual assault perpetrated b* the accused on his *oung
victim has become all the more repulsive and perverse. 4he victim<s tender age and the
accused"appellant<s moral ascendanc* and influence over her are factors (hich forced
Rodessa to succumb to the accused<s selfish and bestial craving. 4he la( has made it
inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the accused"appellant face the
23
supreme penalt* of death. F>EREB=RE, (e ABB5RM the decision of the Regional
4rial Court of Oue,on Cit*, Branch 6'.
9= =RGEREG.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-51770 M"0)' >0, 1985
THE PEOPLE O- THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff"appellee,
vs.
-RANCISCO GALIT, defendant"appellant.

CONCEPCION, JR., J:
24
4he prisoner (as arrested for -illing the victim oil the occasion of a robber*. >e had
been detained and interrogated almost continuousl* for five da*s, to no avail. >e
consistentl* maintained his innocence. 4here (as no evidence to lin- him to the crime.
=bviousl*, something drastic had to be done. A confession (as absolutel* necessar*.
9o the investigating officers began to maul him and to torture him ph*sicall*. 9till the
prisoner insisted on his innocence. >is (ill had to be bro-en. A confession must be
obtained. 9o the* continued to maltreat and beat him. <4he* covered his face (ith a rag
and pushed his face into a toilet bo(l full of human (aste. 4he prisoner could not ta-e
an* more. >is bod* could no longer endure the pain inflicted on him and the indignities
he had to suffer. >is (ill had been bro-en. >e admitted (hat the investigating officers
(anted him to admit and he signed the confession the* prepared. 3ater, against his
(ill, he posed for pictures as directed b* his investigators, purporting it to be a
reenactment.
4his incident could have happened in a Russian gulag or in >itler<s @erman*. But no it
did not. 5t happened in the Philippines. 5n this case before Us.
4he Revised Penal Code punishes the maltreatment of prisoners as follo(s.
AR4. $&+. Maltreat#ent of prisoners. ! 4he penalt* of arresto #a%or in its medium
period to prision correccional in its minimum period, in addition to his liabilit* for the
ph*sical in#uries or damage caused, shall be imposed upon an* public officer or
emplo*ee (ho shall over do himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or
detention prisoner under his charge, b* the imposition of punishments in a cruel and
humiliating manner.
5f the purpose of the maltreatment is to eAtort a confession, or to obtain some
information from the prisoner, the offender shall be punished b* prision correccional in
its minimum period, temporar* special dis:ualification and a fine not eAceeding +66
pesos, in addition to his liabilit* for the ph*sical in#uries or damage caused.
4his Court in a long line of decisions over the *ears, the latest being the case of People
vs. Cabrera,
1
has consistentl* and strongl* condemned the practice of maltreating
prisoners to eAtort confessions from them as a grave and unforgivable violation of
human rights. But the practice persists. Bortunatel*, such instances constitute the
eAception rather than the general rule.
Before Us for mandator* revie( is the death sentence imposed upon the accused
Brancisco @alit b* the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Ri,al, in Crim. Case No. CCC"
K55"$+?7 of said court.
4he record sho(s that in the morning of August $&, 7;;, Mrs. Natividad Bernando, a
(ido(, (as found dead in the bedroom of her house located at Barrio @eronimo,
Montalban, Ri,al, as a result of seven /;0 (ounds inflicted upon different parts of her
bod* b* a blunt instrument.
>
More than t(o (ee-s thereafter, police authorities of
Montalban pic-ed up the herein accused, Brancisco @alit, an ordinar* construction
(or-er /pion0 living in Mari-ina, Ri,al, on suspicion of the murder. =n the follo(ing da*,
ho(ever, 9eptember ?, 7;;, the case (as referred to the National Bureau of
5nvestigation /NB50 for further investigation in vie( of the alleged limited facilities of the
Montalban police station. Accordingl*, the herein accused (as brought to the NB5
(here he (as investigated b* a team headed b* NB5 Agent Carlos Blores.
9
NB5 Agent
Blores conducted a preliminar* intervie( of the suspect (ho allegedl* gave evasive
ans(ers to his :uestions.
?
But the follo(ing da*, 9eptember 7, 7;;, Brancisco @alit
voluntaril* eAecuted a Sala%sa% admitting participation in the commission of the crime.
>e implicated %uling Gula* and Pabling Gula* as his companions in the crime.
5
As a
result, he (as charged (ith the crime of Robber* (ith >omicide, in an information filed
before the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Ri,al, committed as follo(s.
4hat on or about the $&rd da* of August 7;; in the municipalit* of Montalban,
province of Ri,al, Philippines, and (ithin the #urisdiction of this >onorable Court, the
above"named accused, conspiring and confederating together (ith %uling Goe and
Pabling Goe, (hose true 5dentities and present (hereabouts are still un-no(n and
three of them mutuall* helping and aiding one another, (ith intent of gain and b*
means of force, intimidation and violence upon the person of one Natividad Bernando
(hile in her d(elling, did, then and there (ilfull*, unla(full*, and feloniousl* ta-e, steal
and carr* a(a* from the person of said Natividad Bernando, cash mone* of an
undetermined amount, belonging to said Natividad Bernando, thereb* causing damage
and pre#udice to the latter in an undetermined amount2 that b* reason or on the
occasion of said robber*, and for purpose of enabling them /accused0 to ta-e, steal and
carr* a(a* the said cash mone* in pursuance of their conspirac* and for the purpose
of insuring the success of their criminal act, (ith intent to -ill, did, then and there
(ilfull*, unla(full*, and feloniousl* attac-, assault and stab (ith a dagger said Natividad
Bernando on the different parts of her bod*, thereb* inflicting multiple in#uries on the
head and eAtremities, (hich directl* caused her death, and the total amount of the loss
is P6,666.66 including valuables and cash.
4rial (as held, and on August , 7;?, immediatel* after the accused had terminated
the presentation of his evidence, the trial #udge dictated his decision on the case in
open court, finding the accused guilt* as charged and sentencing him to suffer the
death penalt*2 to indemnif* the heirs of the victim in the sum of P6,666.66, and to
pa* the costs. >ence, the present recourse.
4he incriminator* facts of the case, as found b* the trial court, are as follo(s.
Brom the evidence adduced in this case, it (as gathered that in the earl* morning of
August $&, 7;;, a ;6"*ear old (oman named Natividad Bernando, (ido(, in the
t(ilight of her life, (as robbed and then hac-ed to death b* the accused and t(o others
in her /victim<s0 o(n residence at Montalban, Ri,al.
Prosecution (itness Blorentino Kalentino testified that he heard accused Brancisco
@alit and his (ife having an argument in connection (ith the robber* and -illing of the
victim, Natividad Bernando. 5t appears that on August ?, 7;;, accused @alit and t(o
others, namel*, %uling Gula* and a certain 1Pabling1 accidentall* met each other at
Mari-ina, Ri,al, and in their conversation, the three agreed to rob Natividad Bernando2
that it (as further agreed among them to enter the premises of the victim<s house at the
25
bac- *ard b* climbing over the fence2 that once inside the premises, the* (ill search
ever* room, especiall* the aparador and filing cabinets, (ith the sole aim of loo-ing for
cash mone* and other valuables.
Fitness Kalentino further testified that on August $$, 7;;, at around 8.66 o<cloc- in the
afternoon, accused Brancisco @alit and his t(o companions, %uling Gula* and Pabling,
as per their previous agreement, met at the place (here the* formerl* sa( each other
in Mari:uina, Ri,al2 that the three conspirators too- a #eepne* for Montalban and upon
passing the Montalban Municipal Building, the* stopped and the* (aited at the side of
the road until the hour of midnight2 that at about $.66 o<cloc- that night, the three
repaired to the premises of the victim, Natividad Bernando2 that the* entered the said
premises through the bac- (all of the house2 that (hile entering the premises of said
house, %uling Gula* sa( a bolo, l*ing near the pigger* compound, (hich he pic-ed up
and used it to destro* the bac- portion of the (all of the house2 that it (as %uling Gula*
(ho first entered the house through the hole that the* made, follo(ed b* the accused
@alit and neAt to him (as 1Pabling1, that it (as alread* earl* da(n of August $&, 7;;
(hen the three (ere able to gain entrance into the house of the victim2 as the three
could not find an*thing valuable inside the first room that the* entered, %uling Gula*
destro*ed the screen of the door of the victim, Natividad Bernando2 that upon entering
the room of the victim, the three accused decided to -ill first the victim, Natividad
Bernando, before searching the room for valuables2 that %uling Gula*, (ho (as then
holding the bolo, began hac-ing the victim, (ho (as then sleeping, and accused @alit
heard a moaning sound from the victim2 that after the victim (as -illed, the three
accused began searching the room for valuables2 that the* helped each other in
opening the iron cabinet inside the room of the victim, (here the* found some mone*2
that (hen the three accused left the room of the victim, the* brought (ith them some
papers and pictures (hich the* thre( outside2 that after -illing and robbing the victim,
the three accused (ent out of the premises of the house, using the same (a* b* (hich
the* gained entrance, (hich (as through the bac- portion of the (all2 that the three
accused (al-ed to(ards the river ban- (here the* divided the loot that the* got from
the room of the victim2 that their respective shares amount to P;6.66 for each of them2
and that after receiving their shares of the loot, the three accused left and (ent home.
Fhen (itness Blorentino Kalentino (as in his room, (hich (as ad#oining that of
accused Brancisco @alit, he overheard accused @alit and his (ife :uarreling about the
intention of accused @alit to leave their residence immediatel*2 that he further stated
that he overheard accused @alit sa*ing that he and his other t(o companions robbed
and -illed Natividad Bernando.
As a result of the -illing, the victim, Natividad Bernando, suffered no less than seven
stab (ounds. 4here (as massive cerebral hemorrhage and the cause of death (as
due to shoc- and hemorrhage, as evidenced b* the Medico"3egal Necrops* Report
/EAhs. <C< and <C"$<0, and the pictures ta-en of the deceased victim /EAhs. <E<, <E"< and
<E"$<0.
4he accused, upon the other hand, denied participation in the commission of the crime.
>e claimed that he (as in his house in Mari-ina, Ri,al, (hen the crime (as committed
in Montalban, Ri,al. >e also assailed the admissibilit* of the eAtra"#udicial confession
eAtracted from him through torture, force and intimidation as described earlier, and
(ithout the benefit of counsel.
After a revie( of the records, Fe find that the evidence presented b* the prosecution
does not support a conviction. 5n fact, the findings of the trial court relative to the acts
attributed to the accused are not supported b* competent evidence. 4he principal
prosecution (itness, Blorentino Kalentino merel* testified that he and the accused (ere
living together in one house in Mari-ina, Ri,al, on August $&, 7;;, because the mother
of his (ife is the (ife of the accused2 that (hen he returned home at about '.66 o<cloc-
in the morning from the police station of Mari-ina, Ri,al, the accused and his (ife (ere
:uarreling /na(tatalo02 that he heard that the accused (as leaving the house because
he and his companions had robbed 1Aling Nene1, the o(ner of a poultr* farm and
pigger* in Montalban, Ri,al2 that the (ife of the accused (as imploring him not to
leave, but the latter (as insistent2 that he sa( the accused carr*ing a bag containing
about t(o handfuls /da;ot0 of coins (hich he had ta-en from Aling Nene2 that upon
learning of (hat the accused had done, he (ent to the Montalban police the neAt da*
and reported to the police chief about (hat he had heard2 and that a (ee- later,
Montalban policemen (ent to their house and arrested the accused.
6

4his Court, in the case of Morales vs. Ponce 5nrile,
7
laid do(n the correct procedure
for peace officers to follo( (hen ma-ing an arrest and in conducting a custodial
investigation, and (hich Fe reiterate.
At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the dut* of the arresting officer to inform him
of the reason for the arrest and he must be sho(n the (arrant of arrest, if an*. >e shall
be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that an*
statement he might ma-e could be used against him. 4he person arrested shall have
the right to communicate (ith his la(*er, a relative, or an*one he chooses b* the most
eApedient means ! b* telephone if possible ! or b* letter or messenger. 5t shall be
the responsibilit* of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No
custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel
engaged b* the person arrested, b* an* person on his behalf, or appointed b* the court
upon petition either of the detainee himself or b* an*one on his behalf. 4he right to
counsel ma* be (aived but the (aiver shall not be valid unless made (ith the
assistance of counsel. An* statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid
do(n, (hether eAculpator* or inculpator*, in (hole or in part, shall be inadmissible in
evidence.
4here (ere no e*e(itnesses, no propert* recovered from the accused, no state
(itnesses, and not even fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime. 4he onl*
evidence against the accused is his alleged confession. 5t behooves Us therefore to
give it a close scrutin*. 4he statement begins as follo(s.
4AN=N@. 5pinagbibiga*"alam -o sa in*o ang in*ong mga -arapatan sa ilalim ng 9aligang"Batas ng Pilipinas na
-ung in*ong nanaisin a* maaaring hindi -a*o magbiga* ng isang sala*sa*, na hindi rin -a*o maaaring pilitin o
sa-tan at panga-uan upang magbiga* ng naturang sala*sa*, na anuman ang in*ong sasabihin sa pagsisi*asat
na ito a* maaaring laban sa in*o sa anumang usapin na maaaring ilahad sa anumang hu-uman o tribunal dito sa
26
Pilipinas, na sa pagsisi*asat na ito a* maaaring -atulungin mo ang isang manananggol at -ung sa-aling hindi mo
-a*ang ba*aran ang isang manananggol a* maaaring big*an -a ng isa ng NB5. Nga*on at alam mo na ang mga
ito na-ahanda -a bang magbiga* ng isang -usang"loob na sala*sa* sa pagtatanong na itoL
9A@=4. =po.
9uch a long :uestion follo(ed b* a monos*llabic ans(er does not satisf* the
re:uirements of the la( that the accused be informed of his rights under the
Constitution and our la(s. 5nstead there should be several short and clear :uestions
and ever* right eAplained in simple (ords in a dialect or language -no(n to the person
under investigation. Accused is from 9amar and there is no sho(ing that he
understands 4agalog. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused (as not permitted to
communicate (ith his la(*er, a relative, or a friend. 5n fact, his sisters and other
relatives did not -no( that he had been brought to the NB5 for investigation and it (as
onl* about t(o (ee-s after he had eAecuted the sala%sa% that his relatives (ere
allo(ed to visit him. >is statement does not even contain an* (aiver of right to counsel
and *et during the investigation he (as not assisted b* one. At the supposed
reenactment, again accused (as not assisted b* counsel of his choice. 4hese
constitute gross violations of his rights.
4he alleged confession and the pictures of the supposed re"enactment are
inadmissible as evidence because the* (ere obtained in a manner contrar* to la(.
4rial courts are cautioned to loo- carefull* into the circumstances surrounding the
ta-ing of an* confession, especiall* (here the prisoner claims having been maltreated
into giving one. Fhere there is an* doubt as to its voluntariness, the same must be
re#ected in toto.
3et a cop* of this decision be furnished the Minister of %ustice for (hatever action he
ma* deem proper to ta-e against the investigating officers.
F>EREB=RE, the #udgment appealed from should be, as it is hereb*, 9E4 A95GE, and
another one entered ACOU5445N@ the accused Brancisco @alit of the crime charged.
3et him be released from custod* immediatel* unless held on other charges. Fith costs
de oficio.
9= =RGEREG.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 89988 Se*+e:;e0 >9, 1989
RICAR%O C. 5ALMONTE AN% UNION O- LA$YERS AN% A%5OCATES -OR
PEOPLEAS RIGHTS BULAPC, petitioners,
vs.
GEN. RENATO %E 5ILLA AN% NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION %ISTRICT
COMMAN%, respondents.
)icardo C. Gal#onte for hi#self and his co7petitioners.

PA%ILLA, J.:
4his is a petition for prohibition (ith preliminar* in#unction and)or temporar* restraining
order, see-ing the declaration of chec-points in Kalen,uela, Metro Manila or else(here,
as unconstitutional and the dismantling and banning of the same or, in the alternative,
to direct the respondents to formulate guidelines in the implementation of chec-points,
for the protection of the people.
Petitioner Ricardo C. Kalmonte sues in his capacit* as citi,en of the Republic, taApa*er,
member of the 5ntegrated Bar of the Philippines /5BP0, and resident of Kalen,uela,
27
Metro Manila2 (hile petitioner Union of 3a(*ers and Advocates for People<s Rights
/U3AP0 sues in its capacit* as an association (hose members are all members of the
5BP.
4he factual bac-ground of the case is as follo(s.
=n $6 %anuar* 7?;, the National Capital Region Gistrict Command /NCRGC0 (as
activated pursuant to 3etter of 5nstruction 6$)?; of the Philippine @eneral
>ead:uarters, ABP, (ith the mission of conducting securit* operations (ithin its area of
responsibilit* and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing an effective territorial
defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the
social, economic and political development of the National Capital Region.
1
As part of
its dut* to maintain peace and order, the NCRGC installed chec-points in various parts
of Kalen,uela, Metro Manila.
Petitioners aver that, because of the installation of said chec-points, the residents of
Kalen,uela are (orried of being harassed and of their safet* being placed at the
arbitrar*, capricious and (himsical disposition of the militar* manning the chec-points,
considering that their cars and vehicles are being sub#ected to regular searches and
chec-"ups, especiall* at night or at da(n, (ithout the benefit of a search (arrant and)or
court order. 4heir alleged fear for their safet* increased (hen, at da(n of 7 %ul* 7??,
Ben#amin Parpon, a suppl* officer of the Municipalit* of Kalen,uela, Bulacan, (as
gunned do(n allegedl* in cold blood b* the members of the NCRGC manning the
chec-point along McArthur >igh(a* at Malinta, Kalen,uela, for ignoring and)or refusing
to submit himself to the chec-point and for continuing to speed off inspire of (arning
shots fired in the air. Petitioner Kalmonte also claims that, on several occasions, he had
gone thru these chec-points (here he (as stopped and his car sub#ected to
search)chec-"up (ithout a court order or search (arrant.
Petitioners further contend that the said chec-points give the respondents a blan-et
authorit* to ma-e searches and)or sei,ures (ithout search (arrant or court order in
violation of the Constitution2
>
and, instances have occurred (here a citi,en, (hile not
-illed, had been harassed.
Petitioners< concern for their safet* and apprehension at being harassed b* the militar*
manning the chec-points are not sufficient grounds to declare the chec-points as per
se illegal. No proof has been presented before the Court to sho( that, in the course of
their routine chec-s, the militar* indeed committed specific violations of petitioners< right
against unla(ful search and sei,ure or other rights.
5n a case filed b* the same petitioner organi,ation, *nion of 4a'%ers and dvocates for
People0s )i(ht E*4P> vs. 6nte(rated National Police,
9
it (as held that individual
petitioners (ho do not allege that an* of their rights (ere violated are not :ualified to
bring the action, as real parties in interest.
4he constitutional right against unreasonable searches and sei,ures is a personal right
invocable onl* b* those (hose rights have been infringed,
?
or threatened to be
infringed. Fhat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and sei,ure in an*
particular case is purel* a #udicial :uestion, determinable from a consideration of the
circumstances involved.
5

Petitioner Kalmonte<s general allegation to the effect that he had been stopped and
searched (ithout a search (arrant b* the militar* manning the chec-points, (ithout
more, i.e., (ithout stating the details of the incidents (hich amount to a violation of his
right against unla(ful search and sei,ure, is not sufficient to enable the Court to
determine (hether there (as a violation of Kalmonte<s right against unla(ful search
and sei,ure. Not all searches and sei,ures are prohibited. 4hose (hich are reasonable
are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined b* an* fiAed formula but
is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.
6

Fhere, for eAample, the officer merel* dra(s aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle
(hich is par-ed on the public fair grounds,
7
or simpl* loo-s into a vehicle,
8
or flashes a
light therein,
9
these do not constitute unreasonable search.
4he setting up of the :uestioned chec-points in Kalen,uela /and probabl* in other
areas0 ma* be considered as a securit* measure to enable the NCRGC to pursue its
mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for
the benefit of the public. Chec-points ma* also be regarded as measures to th(art
plots to destabili,e the government, in the interest of public securit*. 5n this connection,
the Court ma* ta-e #udicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the
insurgenc* movement, so clearl* reflected in the increased -illings in cities of police
and militar* men b* NPA 1sparro( units,1 not to mention the abundance of unlicensed
firearms and the alarming rise in la(lessness and violence in such urban centers, not
all of (hich are reported in media, most li-el* brought about b* deteriorating economic
conditions ! (hich all sum up to (hat one can rightl* consider, at the ver* least, as
abnormal times. Bet(een the inherent right of the state to protect its eAistence and
promote public (elfare and an individual<s right against a (arrantless search (hich is
ho(ever reasonabl% conducted, the former should prevail.
4rue, the manning of chec-points b* the militar* is susceptible of abuse b* the men in
uniform, in the same manner that all governmental po(er is susceptible of abuse. But,
at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citi,en, the
chec-points during these abnormal times, (hen conducted (ithin reasonable limits, are
part of the price (e pa* for an orderl* societ* and a peaceful communit*.
Binall*, on ; %ul* 7??, militar* and police chec-points in Metro Manila (ere
temporaril* lifted and a revie( and refinement of the rules in the conduct of the police
and militar* manning the chec-points (as ordered b* the National Capital Regional
Command Chief and the Metropolitan Police Girector.
10

F>EREB=RE, the petition is G59M599EG.
9= =RGEREG.
28
!ernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio7<errera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, !eliciano, Ganca%co,
=idin, Cortes, Gri.o78uino, Medialdea and )e(alado, JJ., concur.
Se*"0"+e O*&n&on(
CRU4, J., dissenting.
5 dissent. 4he s(eeping statements in the ma#orit* opinion are as dangerous as the
chec-points it (ould sustain and fraught (ith serious threats to individual libert*. 4he
bland declaration that individual rights must *ield to the demands of national securit*
ignores the fact that the Bill of Rights (as intended precisel* to limit the authorit* of the
9tate even if asserted on the ground of national securit*. Fhat is (orse is that the
searches and sei,ures are peremptoril* pronounced to be reasonable even (ithout
proof of probable cause and much less the re:uired (arrant. 4he improbable eAcuse is
that the* are aimed at <establishing an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace
and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic and political
development of the National Capital Region.1 Bor these purposes, ever* individual ma*
be stopped and searched at random and at an* time simpl* because he eAcites the
suspicion, caprice, hostilit* or malice of the officers manning the chec-points, on pain of
arrest or (orse, even being shot to death, if he resists.
5 have no :uarrel (ith a policeman flashing a light inside a par-ed vehicle on a dar-
street as a routine measure of securit* and curiosit*. But the case at bar is different.
Militar* officers are s*stematicall* stationed at strategic chec-point to activel* ferret out
suspected criminals b* detaining and searching an* individual (ho in their opinion
might impair 1the social, economic and political development of the National Capital
Region.1 5t is incredible that (e can sustain such a measure. And (e are not even
under martial la(.
Unless (e are vigilant of our rights, (e ma* find ourselves bac- to the dar- era of the
truncheon and the barbed (ire, (ith the Court itself a captive of its o(n complaisance
and sitting at the death"bed of libert*.
SARMIENTO, J., dissenting.
5 #oin %ustice 5sagani Cru, in his dissent, delivered so staightfor(ardl* and elo:uentl*. 5
am agreed that the eAistence alone of chec-points ma-es search done therein,
unreasonable and hence, repugnant to the Constitution.
4he Charter sa*s that the people en#o* the right of securit* of person, home, and
effects. /C=N94., art. 555, sec. $.0 5t is also the bedroc- ! the right of the people to be
left alone ! on (hich the regime of la( and constitutionalism rest. 5t is not, as the
ma#orit* (ould put it, a matter of 1occasional inconveniences, discomfort and even
irritation.1 /Resolution, '.0 4o sa* that it is, is ! so 5 submit ! to triviali,e the plain
command of the Constitution.
Chec-points, 5 further submit, are things of martial rule, and things of the past. 4he*
first sa( the light of da* b* virtue of @eneral =rder No. 88 /AU4>=R5M5N@ 4>E C>5EB
=B C=N94ABU3ARN 4= E94AB359> C>ECHP=5N49, UPGA4E 35949 =B FAN4EG
PER9=N9 ANG C=NGUC4 GRA@NE4 =PERA45=N9 ANG B=R =4>ER
PURP=9E90, a martial la( issuance, as amended b* @eneral =rder No. 8;
/AMENG5N@ ANG AMP35BN5N@ PARA@RAP> ; =B @ENERA3 =RGER N=. 88
GA4EG 9EP4EMBER $, 7?60, *et another martial la( issuance. /9ee =.@. '$$'"
'$$82 '$$8"'$$; DAug., 7?&E.0 4he* are, so 5 strongl* submit, repressive measures,
the same measures against (hich (e had fought so painsta-ingl* in our :uest for
libert*, a :uest that ended at EG9A and a :uest that terminated a dictatorship. >o(
soon (e forget.
Fhile the right against unreasonable searches and sei,ures, as m* brethren advance,
is a right personal to the aggrieved part*, the petitioners, precisel*, have come to Court
because the* had been, or had felt, aggrieved. 5 submit that in that event, the burden is
the 9tate<s, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the search. 4he petitioners, Ricardo
Kalmonte in particular, need not, therefore, have illustrated the 1details of the incident1
/Resolution, supra, B0 in all their gore and gruesomeness.
5n an* event, the absence alone of a search (arrant, as 5 have averred, ma-es
chec-point searches unreasonable, and b* itself, sub#ect to constitutional challenges.
/9upra.0 As it is, 1chec-points1, have become 1search (arrants1 unto themselves a
roving one at that.
4hat 1DnEot all searches and sei,ures are prohibited,1 the ma#orit* points out, is fine. And
so is 1a reasonable search is not to be determined b* an* fiAed formula but is to be
resolved according to the facts of each case.1 /Supra0 But the :uestion, eAactl*, is. 5s
/are0 the search/es0 in this case reasonableL 5 submit that it /the*0 is /are0 not, for one
simple reason. No search (arrant has been issued b* a #udge.
5 li-e(ise do not find this case to be a simple matter of an 1officer merel* dra(/ing0
aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle ... or simpl* loo-/ing0 /supra0 there, 1or flash/ing0 a
light therein.1 /Supra0 Fhat (e have here is =r(ell<s Big Brother (atching ever* step
(e ta-e and ever* move (e ma-e.
As it also is, 1chec-points1 are apparentl*, 9tate polic*. 4he American cases the
ma#orit* refers to involve routine chec-s compelled b* 1probable cause1. Fhat (e have
here, ho(ever, is not simpl* a policeman on the beat but armed men, CAB@U or Alsa
Masa, (ho hold the po(er of life or death over the citi,enr*, (ho fire (ith no
provocation and (ithout batting an e*elash. 4he* li-e(ise shoot *ou simpl* because
the* do not li-e *our face. 5 have (itnessed actual incidents.
Fashington said that militia can not be made to dictate the terms for the nation. >e can
not be an*more correct here.
1Bet(een the inherent right of the state to protect its eAistence ... and on individual<s
right against a (arrantless search, (hich is reasonabl* conducted, 1so m* brethren go
29
on, the former shall prevail. /Supra0 Birst, this is the same lie that the hated despot
foisted on the Bilipino people. 5t is a serious mista-e to fall for it a second time around.
9econd, the chec-point searches herein are unreasonable. 4here (as no (arrant.
A final (ord. After t(ent* *ears of t*rann*, the da(n is upon us. 4he countr* is once
again the 1sho(case of democrac*1 in Asia. But if in man* cases, it has been 1paper
democrac*1, let this Court an*(a* bring to pass its stand, and ma-e libert* in the land,
a living realit*.
5 vote then, to grant the petition.
Se*"0"+e O*&n&on(
CRU4, J., dissenting.
5 dissent. 4he s(eeping statements in the ma#orit* opinion are as dangerous as the
chec-points it (ould sustain and fraught (ith serious threats to individual libert*. 4he
bland declaration that individual rights must *ield to the demands of national securit*
ignores the fact that the Bill of Rights (as intended precisel* to limit the authorit* of the
9tate even if asserted on the ground of national securit*. Fhat is (orse is that the
searches and sei,ures are peremptoril* pronounced to be reasonable even (ithout
proof of probable cause and much less the re:uired (arrant. 4he improbable eAcuse is
that the* are aimed at <establishing an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace
and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic and political
development of the National Capital Region.1 Bor these purposes, ever* individual ma*
be stopped and searched at random and at an* time simpl* because he eAcites the
suspicion, caprice, hostilit* or malice of the officers manning the chec-points, on pain of
arrest or (orse, even being shot to death, if he resists.
5 have no :uarrel (ith a policeman flashing a light inside a par-ed vehicle on a dar-
street as a routine measure of securit* and curiosit*. But the case at bar is different.
Militar* officers are s*stematicall* stationed at strategic chec-point to activel* ferret out
suspected criminals b* detaining and searching an* individual (ho in their opinion
might impair 1the social, economic and political development of the National Capital
Region.1 5t is incredible that (e can sustain such a measure. And (e are not even
under martial la(.
Unless (e are vigilant of our rights, (e ma* find ourselves bac- to the dar- era of the
truncheon and the barbed (ire, (ith the Court itself a captive of its o(n complaisance
and sitting at the death"bed of libert*.
SARMIENTO, J., dissenting.
5 #oin %ustice 5sagani Cru, in his dissent, delivered so staightfor(ardl* and elo:uentl*. 5
am agreed that the eAistence alone of chec-points ma-es search done therein,
unreasonable and hence, repugnant to the Constitution.
4he Charter sa*s that the people en#o* the right of securit* of person, home, and
effects. /C=N94., art. 555, sec. $.0 5t is also the bedroc- ! the right of the people to be
left alone ! on (hich the regime of la( and constitutionalism rest. 5t is not, as the
ma#orit* (ould put it, a matter of 1occasional inconveniences, discomfort and even
irritation.1 /Resolution, '.0 4o sa* that it is, is ! so 5 submit ! to triviali,e the plain
command of the Constitution.
Chec-points, 5 further submit, are things of martial rule, and things of the past. 4he*
first sa( the light of da* b* virtue of @eneral =rder No. 88 /AU4>=R5M5N@ 4>E C>5EB
=B C=N94ABU3ARN 4= E94AB359> C>ECHP=5N49, UPGA4E 35949 =B FAN4EG
PER9=N9 ANG C=NGUC4 GRA@NE4 =PERA45=N9 ANG B=R =4>ER
PURP=9E90, a martial la( issuance, as amended b* @eneral =rder No. 8;
/AMENG5N@ ANG AMP35BN5N@ PARA@RAP> ; =B @ENERA3 =RGER N=. 88
GA4EG 9EP4EMBER $, 7?60, *et another martial la( issuance. /9ee =.@. '$$'"
'$$82 '$$8"'$$; DAug., 7?&E.0 4he* are, so 5 strongl* submit, repressive measures,
the same measures against (hich (e had fought so painsta-ingl* in our :uest for
libert*, a :uest that ended at EG9A and a :uest that terminated a dictatorship. >o(
soon (e forget.
Fhile the right against unreasonable searches and sei,ures, as m* brethren advance,
is a right personal to the aggrieved part*, the petitioners, precisel*, have come to Court
because the* had been, or had felt, aggrieved. 5 submit that in that event, the burden is
the 9tate<s, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the search. 4he petitioners, Ricardo
Kalmonte in particular, need not, therefore, have illustrated the 1details of the incident1
/Resolution, supra, B0 in all their gore and gruesomeness.
5n an* event, the absence alone of a search (arrant, as 5 have averred, ma-es
chec-point searches unreasonable, and b* itself, sub#ect to constitutional challenges.
/9upra.0 As it is, 1chec-points1, have become 1search (arrants1 unto themselves a
roving one at that.
4hat 1DnEot all searches and sei,ures are prohibited,1 the ma#orit* points out, is fine. And
so is 1a reasonable search is not to be determined b* an* fiAed formula but is to be
resolved according to the facts of each case.1 /Supra0 But the :uestion, eAactl*, is. 5s
/are0 the search/es0 in this case reasonableL 5 submit that it /the*0 is /are0 not, for one
simple reason. No search (arrant has been issued b* a #udge.
5 li-e(ise do not find this case to be a simple matter of an 1officer merel* dra(/ing0
aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle ... or simpl* loo-/ing0 /supra0 there, 1or flash/ing0 a
light therein.1 /Supra0 Fhat (e have here is =r(ell<s Big Brother (atching ever* step
(e ta-e and ever* move (e ma-e.
As it also is, 1chec-points1 are apparentl*, 9tate polic*. 4he American cases the
ma#orit* refers to involve routine chec-s compelled b* 1probable cause1. Fhat (e have
here, ho(ever, is not simpl* a policeman on the beat but armed men, CAB@U or Alsa
Masa, (ho hold the po(er of life or death over the citi,enr*, (ho fire (ith no
provocation and (ithout batting an e*elash. 4he* li-e(ise shoot *ou simpl* because
the* do not li-e *our face. 5 have (itnessed actual incidents.
30
Fashington said that militia can not be made to dictate the terms for the nation. >e can
not be an*more correct here.
1Bet(een the inherent right of the state to protect its eAistence ... and on individual<s
right against a (arrantless search, (hich is reasonabl* conducted, 1so m* brethren go
on, the former shall prevail. /Supra0 Birst, this is the same lie that the hated despot
foisted on the Bilipino people. 5t is a serious mista-e to fall for it a second time around.
9econd, the chec-point searches herein are unreasonable. 4here (as no (arrant.
A final (ord. After t(ent* *ears of t*rann*, the da(n is upon us. 4he countr* is once
again the 1sho(case of democrac*1 in Asia. But if in man* cases, it has been 1paper
democrac*1, let this Court an*(a* bring to pass its stand, and ma-e libert* in the land,
a living realit*.
5 vote then, to grant the petition.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 88>11 Se*+e:;e0 15, 1989
-ER%INAN% E. MARCOS, IMEL%A R. MARCOS, -ER%INAN% R. MARCOS, JR.,
IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO
ARANETA, PACI-ICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YDIGUE4 "n# PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION BPHILCONSAC, 0e*0e(en+e# ;, &+( P0e(&#en+,
CONRA%O -. ESTRELLA, petitioners,
vs.
HONORALE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SE%-REY OR%ODE4,
MIRIAM %E-ENSOR SANTIAGO, -I%EL RAMOS, RENATO %E 5ILLA, &n +'e&0
)"*")&+, "( Se)0e+"0, o2 -o0e&/n A22"&0(, EEe)u+&3e Se)0e+"0,, Se)0e+"0, o2
Ju(+&)e, I::&/0"+&on Co::&((&one0, Se)0e+"0, o2 N"+&on"1 %e2en(e "n# C'&e2 o2
S+"22, 0e(*e)+&3e1,, respondents.

CORTES, J.:
Before the Court is a contrevers* of grave national importance. Fhile ostensibl* onl*
legal issues are involved, the Court<s decision in this case (ould undeniabl* have a
profound effect on the political, economic and other aspects of national life.
Fe recall that in Bebruar* 7?8, Berdinand E. Marcos (as deposed from the
presidenc* via the non"violent 1people po(er1 revolution and forced into eAile. 5n his
stead, Cora,on C. A:uino (as declared President of the Republic under a revolutionar*
31
government. >er ascension to and consilidation of po(er have not been unchallenged.
4he failed Manila >otel coup in 7?8 led b* political leaders of Mr. Marcos, the
ta-eover of television station Channel ; b* rebel troops led b* Col. Canlas (ith the
support of 1Marcos lo*alists1 and the unseccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to
surreptitiousl* return from >a(ii (ith mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered b* a
3ebanese arms dealer DManila Bulletin, %anuar* &6, 7?;E a(a-ened the nation to the
capacit* of the Marcoses to stir trouble even from afar and to the fanaticism and blind
lo*alt* of their follo(ers in the countr*. 4he ratification of the 7?; Constitution
enshrined the victor* of 1people po(er1 and also clearl* reinforced the constitutional
moorings of Mrs. A:uino<s presidenc*. 4his did not, ho(ever, stop blood* challenges to
the government. =n August $?, 7?;, Col. @regorio >onasan, one of the ma#or pla*ers
in the Bebruar* Revolution, led a failed coup that left scores of people, both combatants
and civilians, dead. 4here (ere several other armed sorties of lesser significance, but
the message the* conve*ed (as the same ! a split in the ran-s of the militar*
establishment that thraetened civilian supremac* over militar* and brought to the fore
the reali,ation that civilian government could be at the merc* of a fractious militar*.
But the armed threats to the @overnment (ere not onl* found in misguided elements
and among rabid follo(ers of Mr. Marcos. 4here are also the communist insurgenc*
and the seccessionist movement in Mindanao (hich gained ground during the rule of
Mr. Marcos, to the eAtent that the communists have set up a parallel government of
their o(n on the areas the* effectivel* control (hile the separatist are virtuall* free to
move about in armed bands. 4here has been no let up on this groups< determination to
(rest po(er from the govermnent. Not onl* through resort to arms but also to through
the use of propaganda have the* been successful in dreating chaos and destabili,ing
the countr*.
Nor are the (oes of the Republic purel* political. 4he accumulated foreign debt and the
plunder of the nation attributed to Mr. Marcos and his cronies left the econom*
devastated. 4he efforts at economic recover*, three *ears after Mrs. A:uino assumed
office, have *et to sho( concrete results in alleviating the povert* of the masses, (hile
the recover* of the ill"gotten (ealth of the Marcoses has remained elusive.
No(, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his (ish to return to the Philipppines to
die. But Mrs. A:uino, considering the dire conse:uences to the nation of his return at a
time (hen the stabilit* of government is threatened from various directions and the
econom* is #ust beginning to rise and move for(ard, has stood firml* on the decision to
bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his famil*.
The Petition
4his case is uni:ue. 5t should not create a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced
out of office and into eAile after causing t(ent* *ears of political, economic and social
havoc in the countr* and (ho (ithin the short space of three *ears see-s to return, is in
a class b* itself.
4his petition for #anda#us and prohibition as-s the Courts to order the respondents to
issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his famil* and to
en#oin the implementation of the President<s decision to bar their return to the
Philippines.
The 6ssue
4h issue is basicall* one of po(er. (hether or not, in the eAercise of the po(ers
granted b* the Constitution, the President ma* prohibit the Marcoses from returning to
the Philippines.
According to the petitioners, the resolution of the case (ould depend on the resolution
of the follo(ing issues.
. Goes the President have the po(er to bar the return of former President Marcos and
famil* to the PhilippinesL
a. 5s this a political :uestionL
$. Assuming that the President has the po(er to bar former President Marcos and his
famil* from returning to the Philippines, in the interest of 1national securit*, public safet*
or public health
a. >as the President made a finding that the return of former President Marcos and his
famil* to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national securit*, public safet*
or public healthL
b. Assuming that she has made that finding
/0 >ave the re:uirements of due process been complied (ith in ma-ing such findingL
/$0 >as there been prior notice to petitionersL
/&0 >as there been a hearingL
/'0 Assuming that notice and hearing ma* be dispensed (ith, has the President<s
decision, including the grounds upon (hich it (as based, been made -no(n to
petitioners so that the* ma* controvert the sameL
c. 5s the President<s determination that the return of former President Marcos and his
famil* to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national securit*, public safet*,
or public health a political :uestionL
d. Assuming that the Court ma* in:uire as to (hether the return of former President
Marcos and his famil* is a clear and present danger to national securit*, public safet*,
or public health, have respondents established such factL
32
&. >ave the respondents, therefore, in implementing the President<s decision to bar the
return of former President Marcos and his famil*, acted and (ould be acting (ithout
#urisdiction, or in eAcess of #urisdiction, or (ith grave abuse of discretion, in performing
an* act (hich (ould effectivel* bar the return of former President Marcos and his famil*
to the PhilippinesL DMemorandum for Petitioners, pp. +";2 Rollo, pp. $&'"$&8.
4he case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to
return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the follo(ing provisions of the Bill of
Rights, to (it.
9ection . No person shall be deprived of life, libert*, or propert* (ithout due process of
la(, nor shall an* person be denied the e:ual protection of the la(s.
AAA AAA AAA
9ection 8. 4he libert* of abode and of changing the same (ithin the limits prescribed b*
la( shall not be impaired eAcept upon la(ful order of the court. Neither shall the right to
travel be impaired eAcept in the interest of national securit*, public safet*, or public
health, as ma* be provided b* la(.
4he petitioners contend that the President is (ithout po(er to impair the libert* of
abode of the Marcoses because onl* a court ma* do so 1(ithin the limits prescribed b*
la(.1 Nor ma* the President impair their right to travel because no la( has authori,ed
her to do so. 4he* advance the vie( that before the right to travel ma* be impaired b*
an* authorit* or agenc* of the government, there must be legislation to that effect.
4he petitioners further assert that under international la(, the right of Mr. Marcos and
his famil* to return to the Philippines is guaranteed.
4he Universal Geclaration of >uman Rights provides.
Article &. /0 Ever*one has the right to freedom of movement and residence (ithin the
borders of each state.
/$0 Ever*one has the right to leave an* countr*, including his o(n, and to return to his
countr*.
3i-e(ise, the 5nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (hich had been
ratified b* the Philippines, provides.
Article $
0 Ever*one la(full* (ithin the territor* of a 9tate shall, (ithin that territor*, have the
right to libert* of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
$0 Ever*one shall be free to leave an* countr*, including his o(n.
&0 4he above"mentioned rights shall not be sub#ect to an* restrictions eAcept those
(hich are provided b* la(, are necessar* to protect national securit*, public order
/order public0, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are
consistent (ith the other rights recogni,ed in the present Covenant.
'0 No one shall be arbitraril* deprived of the right to enter his o(n countr*.
=n the other hand, the respondents< principal argument is that the issue in this case
involves a political :uestion (hich is non"#usticiable. According to the 9olicitor @eneral.
As petitioners couch it, the :uestion involved is simpl* (hether or not petitioners
Berdinand E. Marcos and his famil* have the right to travel and libert* of abode.
Petitioners invo-e these constitutional rights in vacuo (ithout reference to attendant
circumstances.
Respondents submit that in its proper formulation, the issue is (hether or not
petitioners Berdinand E. Marcos and famil* have the right to return to the Philippines
and reside here at this time in the face of the determination b* the President that such
return and residence (ill endanger national securit* and public safet*.
5t ma* be conceded that as formulated b* petitioners, the :uestion is not a political
:uestion as it involves merel* a determination of (hat the la( provides on the matter
and application thereof to petitioners Berdinand E. Marcos and famil*. But (hen the
:uestion is (hether the t(o rights claimed b* petitioners Berdinand E. Marcos and
famil* impinge on or collide (ith the more primordial and transcendental right of the
9tate to securit* and safet* of its nationals, the :uestion becomes political and this
>onorable Court can not consider it.
4here are thus gradations to the :uestion, to (it.
Go petitioners Berdinand E. Marcos and famil* have the right to return to the
Philippines and reestablish their residence hereL 4his is clearl* a #usticiable :uestion
(hich this >onorable Court can decide.
Go petitioners Berdinand E. Marcos and famil* have their right to return to the
Philippines and reestablish their residence here even if their return and residence here
(ill endanger national securit* and public safet*L this is still a #usticiable :uestion (hich
this >onorable Court can decide.
5s there danger to national securit* and public safet* if petitioners Berdinand E. Marcos
and famil* shall return to the Philippines and establish their residence hereL 4his is
no( a political :uestion (hich this >onorable Court can not decide for it falls (ithin the
eAclusive authorit* and competence of the President of the Philippines. DMemorandum
for Respondents, pp. 7"2 Rollo, pp. $7;"$77.E
33
Respondents argue for the primac* of the right of the 9tate to national securit* over
individual rights. 5n support thereof, the* cite Article 55 of the Constitution, to (it.
9ection '. 4he prime dut* of the @overnment is to serve and protect the people. 4he
@overnment ma* call upon the people to defend the 9tate and, in the fulfillment
thereof, all citi,ens ma* be re:uired, under conditions provided b* la(, to render
personal, militar*, or civil service.
9ection +. 4he maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, libert*, and
propert*, and the promotion of the general (elfare are essential for the en#o*ment b* all
the people of the blessings of democrac*.
Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr. Marcos and famil* from
returning to the Philippines for reasons of national securit* and public safet* has
international precedents. Rafael 4ru#illo of the Gominican Republic, Anastacio 9omo,a
%r. of Nicaragua, %orge Ubico of @uatemala, Bulgencio batista of Cuba, Hing Barou- of
Eg*pt, MaAimiliano >ernande, Martine, of El 9alvador, and Marcos Pere, %imene, of
Kene,uela (ere among the deposed dictators (hose return to their homelands (as
prevented b* their governments. D9ee 9tatement of Boreign Affairs 9ecretar* Raul 9.
Manglapus, :uoted in Memorandum for Respondents, pp. $8"&$2 Rollo, pp. &'"&7.E
4he parties are in agreement that the underl*ing issue is one of the scope of
presidential po(er and its limits. Fe, ho(ever, vie( this issue in a different light.
Although (e give due (eight to the parties< formulation of the issues, (e are not bound
b* its narro( confines in arriving at a solution to the controvers*.
At the outset, (e must state that it (ould not do to vie( the case (ithin the confines of
the right to travel and the import of the decisions of the U.9. 9upreme Court in the
leading cases of Hent v. Dulles D&+; U.9. 8, ;? 9Ct &, $ 3 Ed. $d $6'E and <ai(
v. (ee D'+& U.9. $?6, 6 9Ct $;88, 87 3 Ed. $d 8'60 (hich affirmed the right to travel
and recogni,ed eAceptions to the eAercise thereof, respectivel*.
5t must be emphasi,ed that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the
Philippines to other countries or (ithin the Philippines. 4hese are (hat the right to
travel (ould normall* connote. Essentiall*, the right involved is the right to return to
one<s countr*, a totall* distinct right under international la(, independent from although
related to the right to travel. 4hus, the Universal Geclaration of >umans Rights and the
5nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of
movement and abode (ithin the territor* of a state, the right to leave a countr*, and the
right to enter one<s countr* as separate and distinct rights. 4he Geclaration spea-s of
the 1right to freedom of movement and residence (ithin the borders of each state1 DArt.
&/l0E separatel* from the 1right to leave an* countr*, including his o(n, and to return to
his countr*.1 DArt. &/$0.E =n the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the 1right to
libert* of movement and freedom to choose his residence1 DArt. $/l0E and the right to
1be free to leave an* countr*, including his o(n.1 DArt. $/$0E (hich rights ma* be
restricted b* such la(s as 1are necessar* to protect national securit*, public order,
public health or morals or enter :::s o(n countr*1 of (hich one cannot be 1arbitraril*
deprived.1 DArt. $/'0.E 5t (ould therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to
the right to return to one<s countr* in the same conteAt as those pertaining to the libert*
of abode and the right to travel.
4he right to return to one<s countr* is not among the rights specificall* guaranteed in
the Bill of Rights, (hich treats onl* of the libert* of abode and the right to travel, but it is
our (ell"considered vie( that the right to return ma* be considered, as a generall*
accepted principle of international la( and, under our Constitution, is part of the la( of
the land DArt. 55, 9ec. $ of the Constitution.E >o(ever, it is distinct and separate from the
right to travel and en#o*s a different protection under the 5nternational Covenant of Civil
and Political Rights, i.e., against being 1arbitraril* deprived1 thereof DArt. $ /'0.E
4hus, the rulings in the cases Hent and <ai( (hich refer to the issuance of passports
for the purpose of effectivel* eAercising the right to travel are not determinative of this
case and are onl* tangentiall* material insofar as the* relate to a conflict bet(een
eAecutive action and the eAercise of a protected right. 4he issue before the Court is
novel and (ithout precedent in Philippine, and even in American #urisprudence.
Conse:uentl*, resolution b* the Court of the (ell"debated issue of (hether or not there
can be limitations on the right to travel in the absence of legislation to that effect is
rendered unnecessar*. An appropriate case for its resolution (ill have to be a(aited.
>aving clarified the substance of the legal issue, (e find no( a need to eAplain the
methodolog* for its resolution. =ur resolution of the issue (ill involve a t(o"tiered
approach. Fe shall first resolve (hether or not the President has the po(er under the
Constitution, to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. 4hen, (e shall
determine, pursuant to the eApress po(er of the Court under the Constitution in Article
K555, 9ection , (hether or not the President acted arbitraril* or (ith grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lac- or eAcess of #urisdiction (hen she determined that the
return of the Marcose<s to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and
(elfare and decided to bar their return.
5&ecutive Po'er
4he 7?; Constitution has full* restored the separation of po(ers of the three great
branches of government. 4o recall the (ords of %ustice 3aurel in n(ara v. 5lectoral
Co##ission D8& Phil. &7 /7&80E, 1the Constitution has bloc-ed but (ith deft stro-es
and in bold lines, allotment of po(er to the eAecutive, the legislative and the #udicial
departments of the government.1 DAt +;. 4hus, the 7?; Constitution eAplicitl*
provides that 1Dthe legislative po(er shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines1
Art K5, 9ec. , 1DtEhe eAecutive po(er shall bevested in the President of the
Philippines1 DArt. K55, 9ec. , and 1Dte #udicial po(er shall be vested in one 9upreme
Court and in such lo(er courts as ma* be established b* la(1 DArt. K555, 9ec. .E 4hese
provisions not onl* establish a separation of po(ers b* actual division DAngara v.
Electoral Commission, supraE but also confer plenar* legislative, eAecutive and #udicial
po(ers sub#ect onl* to limitations provided in the Constitution. Bor as the 9upreme
Court in Oca#po v. Caban(is D+ Phil. 8$8 /760E pointed out 1a grant of the
legislative po(er means a grant of all legislative po(er2 and a grant of the #udicial
po(er means a grant of all the #udicial po(er (hich ma* be eAercised under the
34
government.1 DAt 8&"8&$. 5f this can be said of the legislative po(er (hich is
eAercised b* t(o chambers (ith a combined membership of more than t(o hundred
members and of the #udicial po(er (hich is vested in a hierarch* of courts, it can
e:uall* be said of the eAecutive po(er (hich is vested in one official the President.
As stated above, the Constitution provides that 1DtEhe eAecutive po(er shall be vested
in the President of the Philippines.1 DArt. K55, 9ec. E. >o(ever, it does not define (hat
is meant b* eAecutive po(er1 although in the same article it touches on the eAercise of
certain po(ers b* the President, i.e., the po(er of control over all eAecutive
departments, bureaus and offices, the po(er to eAecute the la(s, the appointing po(er,
the po(ers under the commander"in"chief clause, the po(er to grant reprieves,
commutations and pardons, the po(er to grant amnest* (ith the concurrence of
Congress, the po(er to contract or guarantee foreign loans, the po(er to enter into
treaties or international agreements, the po(er to submit the budget to Congress, and
the po(er to address Congress DArt. K55, 9ec. '"$&E.
4he inevitable :uestion then arises. b* enumerating certain po(ers of the President did
the framers of the Constitution intend that the President shall eAercise those specific
po(ers and no otherL Are these se enumerated po(ers the breadth and scope of
1eAecutive po(er1L Petitioners advance the vie( that the President<s po(ers are limited
to those specificall* enumerated in the 7?; Constitution. 4hus, the* assert. 14he
President has enumerated po(ers, and (hat is not enumerated is impliedl* denied to
her. 6nclusion unius est e&clusio alteriusDMemorandum for Petitioners, p. '" Rollo p.
$&&. 4his argument brings to mind the institution of the U.9. Presidenc* after (hich
ours is legall* patterned.RR
Cor(in, in his monumental volume on the President of the United 9tates grappled (ith
the same problem. >e said.
Article 55 is the most loosel* dra(n chapter of the Constitution. 4o those (ho thin- that a
constitution ought to settle ever*thing beforehand it should be a nightmare2 b* the
same to-en, to those (ho thin- that constitution ma-ers ought to leave considerable
lee(a* for the future pla* of political forces, it should be a vision reali,ed.
Fe encounter this characteristic of Article in its opening (ords. 14he eAecutive
po(er shall be vested in a President of the United 9tates of America.1 . . .. DThe
PresidentI Office and Po'ers, +JFJ+KCJ, pp. A7B.E
Revie(ing ho( the po(ers of the U.9. President (ere eAercised b* the different
persons (ho held the office from Fashington to the earl* 766<s, and the s(ing from
the presidenc* b* commission to 3incoln<s dictatorship, he concluded that 1(hat the
presidenc* is at an* particular moment depends in important measure on (ho is
President.1 DAt &6.E
4his vie( is shared b* 9chlesinger (ho (rote in The 6#perial Presidenc%.
Bor the American Presidenc* (as a peculiarl* personal institution. it remained of
course, an agenc* of government sub#ect to unvar*ing demands and duties no
remained, of cas President. But, more than most agencies of government, it changed
shape, intensit* and ethos according to the man in charge. Each President<s distinctive
temperament and character, his values, standards, st*le, his habits, eApectations,
5dios*ncrasies, compulsions, phobias recast the Fhite>ouse and pervaded the entire
government. 4he eAecutive branch, said Clar- Clifford, (as a chameleon, ta-ing its
color from the character and personalit* of the President. 4he thrust of the office, its
impact on the constitutional order, therefore altered from President to President. Above
all, the (a* each President understood it as his personal obligation to inform and
involve the Congress, to earn and hold the confidence of the electorate and to render
an accounting to the nation and posterit* determined (hether he strengthened or
(ea-ened the constitutional order. DAt $$" $&.E
Fe do not sa* that the presidenc* is (hat Mrs. A:uino sa*s it is or (hat she does but,
rather, that the consideration of tradition and the development of presidential po(er
under the different constitutions are essential for a complete understanding of the
eAtent of and limitations to the President<s po(ers under the 7?; Constitution. 4he
7&+ Constitution created a strong President (ith eAplicitl* broader po(ers than the
U.9. President. 4he 7;& Constitution attempted to modif* the s*stem of government
into the parliamentar* t*pe, (ith the President as a mere figurehead, but through
numerous amendments, the President became even more po(erful, to the point that he
(as also the de facto 3egislature. 4he 7?; Constitution, ho(ever, brought bac- the
presidential s*stem of government and restored the separation of legislative, eAecutive
and #udicial po(ers b* their actual distribution among three distinct branches of
government (ith provision for chec-s and balances.
5t (ould not be accurate, ho(ever, to state that 1eAecutive po(er1 is the po(er to
enforce the la(s, for the President is head of state as (ell as head of government and
(hatever po(ers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution
itself (ithholds it. Burthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the eAecution of the
la(s is onl* one of the po(ers of the President. 5t also grants the President other
po(ers that do not involve the eAecution of an* provision of la(, e.(., his po(er over
the countr*<s foreign relations.
=n these premises, (e hold the vie( that although the 7?; Constitution imposes
limitations on the eAercise of specific po(ers of the President, it maintains intact (hat is
traditionall* considered as (ithin the scope of 1eAecutive po(er.1 Corollaril*, the po(ers
of the President cannot be said to be limited onl* to the specific po(ers enumerated in
the Constitution. 5n other (ords, eAecutive po(er is more than the sum of specific
po(ers so enumerated,
5t has been advanced that (hatever po(er inherent in the government that is neither
legislative nor #udicial has to be eAecutive. 4hus, in the landmar- decision of Sprin(er v.
Govern#ent of the Philippine 6slands, $;; U.9. ?7 /7$?0, on the issue of (ho
bet(een the @overnor"@eneral of the Philippines and the 3egislature ma* vote the
shares of stoc- held b* the @overnment to elect directors in the National Coal
35
Compan* and the Philippine National Ban-, the U.9. 9upreme Court, in upholding the
po(er of the @overnor"@eneral to do so, said.
...>ere the members of the legislature (ho constitute a ma#orit* of the 1board1 and
1committee1 respectivel*, are not charged (ith the performance of an* legislative
functions or (ith the doing of an*thing (hich is in aid of performance of an* such
functions b* the legislature. Putting aside for the moment the :uestion (hether the
duties devolved upon these members are vested b* the =rganic Act in the @overnor"
@eneral, it is clear that the* are not legislative in character, and still more clear that
the* are not #udicial. The fact that the% do not fall 'ithin the authorit% of either of these
t'o constitutes lo(ical (round for concludin( that the% do fall 'ithin that of the
re#ainin( one a#on( 'hich the po'ers of (overn#ent are divided ....DAt $6$"$6&2
Emphasis supplied.E
Fe are not unmindful of %ustice >olmes< strong dissent. But in his enduring (ords of
dissent (e find reinforcement for the vie( that it (ould indeed be a foll* to construe the
po(ers of a branch of government to embrace onl* (hat are specificall* mentioned in
the Constitution.
4he great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of blac- and
(hite. Even the more specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading
graduall* from one eAtreme to the other. ....
AAA AAA AAA
5t does not seem to need argument to sho( that ho(ever (e ma* disguise it b* veiling
(ords (e do not and cannot carr* out the distinction bet(een legislative and eAecutive
action (ith mathematical precision and divide the branches into (atertight
compartments, (ere it ever so desirable to do so, (hich 5 am far from believing that it
is, or that the Constitution re:uires. DAt $6" $.E
The Po'er 6nvolved
4he Constitution declares among the guiding principles that 1DtEhe prime dut* of
the@overnment is to serve and protect the people1 and that 1DtEhe maintenance of
peace and order,the protection of life, libert*, and propert*, and the promotion of the
general (elfare are essential for the en#o*ment b* all the people of the blessings of
democrac*.1 DArt. 55, 9ecs. ' and +.E
Admittedl*, service and protection of the people, the maintenance of peace and order,
the protection of life, libert* and propert*, and the promotion of the general (elfare are
essentiall* ideals to guide governmental action. But such does not mean that the* are
empt* (ords. 4hus, in the eAercise of presidential functions, in dra(ing a plan of
government, and in directing implementing action for these plans, or from another point
of vie(, in ma-ing an* decision as President of the Republic, the President has to
consider these principles, among other things, and adhere to them.
Baced (ith the problem of (hether or not the time is right to allo( the Marcoses to
return to the Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to
consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. More than that, having s(orn to
defend and uphold the Constitution, the President has the obligation under the
Constitution to protect the people, promote their (elfare and advance the national
interest. 5t must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of
po(er is also a social contract (hereb* the people have surrendered their sovereign
po(ers to the 9tate for the common good. >ence, lest the officers of the @overnment
eAercising the po(ers delegated b* the people forget and the servants of the people
become rulers, the Constitution reminds ever*one that 1DsEovereignt* resides in the
people and all government authorit* emanates from them.1 DArt. 55, 9ec. .E
4he resolution of the problem is made difficult because the persons (ho see- to return
to the countr* are the deposed dictator and his famil* at (hose door the travails of the
countr* are laid and from (hom billions of dollars believed to be ill"gotten (ealth are
sought to be recovered. 4he constitutional guarantees the* invo-e are neither absolute
nor infleAible. Bor the eAercise of even the preferred freedoms of speech and
ofeApression, although couched in absolute terms, admits of limits and must be
ad#usted to the re:uirements of e:uall* important public interests DMaldivar v.
9andiganba*an, @.R. Nos. ;7876";6;, =ctober ;, 7?.E
4o the President, the problem is one of balancing the general (elfare and the common
good against the eAercise of rights of certain individuals. 4he po(er involved is the
President<s residual po(er to protect the general (elfare of the people. 5t is founded on
the dut* of the President, as ste(ard of the people. 4o paraphrase 4heodore
Roosevelt, it is not onl* the po(er of the President but also his dut* to do an*thing not
forbidden b* the Constitution or the la(s that the needs of the nation demand D9ee
Cor(in, supra, at +&E. 5t is a po(er borne b* the President<s dut* to preserve and
defend the Constitution. 5t also ma* be vie(ed as a po(er implicit in the President<s
dut* to ta-e care that the la(s are faithfull* eAecuted Dsee >*man, The #erican
President, (here the author advances the vie( that an allo(ance of discretionar*
po(er is unavoidable in an* government and is best lodged in the PresidentE.
More particularl*, this case calls for the eAercise of the President<s po(ers as protector
of the peace. Rossiter The #erican Presidenc%E.4he po(er of the President to -eep
the peace is not limited merel* to eAercising the commander"in"chief po(ers in times of
emergenc* or to leading the 9tate against eAternal and internal threats to its eAistence.
4he President is not onl* clothed (ith eAtraordinar* po(ers in times of emergenc*, but
is also tas-ed (ith attending to the da*"to"da* problems of maintaining peace and
order and ensuring domestic tran:uilit* in times (hen no foreign foe appears on the
hori,on. Fide discretion, (ithin the bounds of la(, in fulfilling presidential duties in
times of peace is not in an* (a* diminished b* the relative (ant of an emergenc*
specified in the commander"in"chief provision. Bor in ma-ing the President
commander"in"chief the enumeration of po(ers that follo( cannot be said to eAclude
the President<s eAercising as Commander"in" Chief po(ers short of the calling of the
armed forces, or suspending the privilege of the (rit of habeas corpus or declaring
martial la(, in order to -eep the peace, and maintain public order and securit*.
36
4hat the President has the po(er under the Constitution to bar the Marcose<s from
returning has been recogni,ed b* memembers of the 3egislature, and is manifested b*
the Resolution proposed in the >ouse of Representatives and signed b* 6& of its
members urging the President to allo( Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines 1as a
genuine unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation and as irrevocable proof of our
collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the
Constitution and our la(s.1 D>ouse Resolution No. &'$, Rollo, p. &$. 4he Resolution
does not :uestion the President<s po(er to bar the Marcoses from returning to the
Philippines, rather, it appeals to the President<s sense of compassion to allo( a man to
come home to die in his countr*.
Fhat (e are sa*ing in effect is that the re:uest or demand of the Marcoses to be
allo(ed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solel* of the
constitutional provisions guaranteeing libert* of abode and the right to travel, sub#ect to
certain eAceptions, or of case la( (hich clearl* never contemplated situations even
remotel* similar to the present one. 5t must be treated as a matter that is appropriatel*
addressed to those residual unstated po(ers of the President (hich are implicit in and
correlative to the paramount dut* residing in that office to safeguard and protect
general (elfare. 5n that conteAt, such re:uest or demand should submit to the eAercise
of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine (hether it must be
granted or denied.
The 5&tent of )evie'
Under the Constitution, #udicial po(er includes the dut* to determine (hether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac- or eAcess of #urisdiction
on the part of an* branch or instrumentalit* of the @overnment.1 DArt. K555, 9ec. E @iven
this (ording, (e cannot agree (ith the 9olicitor @eneral that the issue constitutes a
political :uestion (hich is be*ond the #urisdiction of the Court to decide.
4he present Constitution limits resort to the political :uestion doctrine and broadens the
scope of #udicial in:uir* into areas (hich the Court, under previous constitutions, (ould
have normall* left to the political departments to decide. But nonetheless there remain
issues be*ond the Court<s #urisdiction the determination of (hich is eAclusivel* for the
President, for Congress or for the people themselves through a plebiscite or
referendum. Fe cannot, for eAample, :uestion the President<s recognition of a foreign
government, no matter ho( premature or improvident such action ma* appear. Fe
cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it ma* appear to us that the beneficiar*
is totall* undeserving of the grant. Nor can (e amend the Constitution under the guise
of resolving a dispute brought before us because the po(er is reserved to the people.
4here is nothing in the case before us that precludes our determination thereof on the
political :uestion doctrine. 4he deliberations of the Constitutional Commission cited b*
petitioners sho( that the framers intended to (iden the scope of #udicial revie( but the*
did not intend courts of #ustice to settle all actual controversies before them. Fhen
political :uestions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination to (hether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac- or eAcess of
#urisdiction on the part of the official (hose action is being :uestioned. 5f grave abuse is
not established, the Court (ill not substitute its #udgment for that of the official
concerned and decide a matter (hich b* its nature or b* la( is for the latter alone to
decide. 5n this light, it (ould appear clear that the second paragraph of Article K555,
9ection of the Constitution, defining 1#udicial po(er,1 (hich specificall* empo(ers the
courts to determine (hether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the
part of an* branch or instrumentalit* of the government, incorporates in the
fundamental la( the ruling in 4ansan( v. Garcia D@.R. No. 3"&&78', Gecember ,
7;, '$ 9CRA ''? that.E
Article K55 of the D7&+E Constitution vests in the EAecutive the po(er to suspend the
privilege of the (rit of habeas corpus under specified conditions. Pursuant to the
principle of separation of po(ers underl*ing our s*stem of government, the EAecutive is
supreme (ithin his o(n sphere. >o(ever, the separation of po(ers, under the
Constitution, is not absolute. Fhat is more, it goes hand in hand (ith the s*stem of
chec-s and balances, under (hich the EAecutive is supreme, as regards the
suspension of the privilege, but onl* if and (hen he acts (ithin the sphere alloted to
him b* the Basic 3a(, and the authorit* to determine (hether or not he has so acted is
vested in the %udicial Gepartment, (hich, in this respect, is, in turn, constitutionall*
supreme. 5n the eAercise of such authorit*, the function of the Court is merel* to chec-
! not to supplant the EAecutive, or to ascertain merel* (hether he has gone be*ond
the constitutional limits of his #urisdiction, not to eAercise the po(er vested in him or to
determine the (isdom of his act DAt ';7"'?6.E
Accordingl*, the :uestion for the Court to determine is (hether or not there eAist factual
bases for the President to conclude that it (as in the national interest to bar the return
of the Marcoses to the Philippines. 5f such postulates do eAist, it cannot be said that
she has acted, or acts, arbitraril* or that she has gravel* abused her discretion in
deciding to bar their return.
Fe find that from the pleadings filed b* the parties, from their oral arguments, and the
facts revealed during the briefing in chambers b* the Chief of 9taff of the Armed Borces
of the Philippines and the National 9ecurit* Adviser, (herein petitioners and
respondents (ere represented, there eAist factual bases for the President<s decision..
4he Court cannot close its e*es to present realities and pretend that the countr* is not
besieged from (ithin b* a (ell"organi,ed communist insurgenc*, a separatist
movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab po(er, urban terrorism, the
murder (ith impunit* of militar* men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention
onl* a fe(. 4he documented histor* of the efforts of the Marcose<s and their follo(ers to
destabili,e the countr*, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that
the return of the Marcoses at this time (ould onl* eAacerbate and intensif* the violence
directed against the 9tate and instigate more chaos.
As divergent and discordant forces, the enemies of the 9tate ma* be contained. 4he
militar* establishment has given assurances that it could handle the threats posed b*
particular groups. But it is the catal%tic effect of the return of the Marcoses that ma*
prove to be the proverbial final stra( that (ould brea- the camel<s bac-. Fith these
before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitraril* and capriciousl* and
37
(himsicall* in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the
national interest and (elfare and in prohibiting their return.
5t (ill not do to argue that if the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines (ill cause the
escalation of violence against the 9tate, that (ould be the time for the President to step
in and eAercise the commander"in"chief po(ers granted her b* the Constitution to
suppress or stamp out such violence. 4he 9tate, acting through the @overnment, is not
precluded from ta-ing pre" emptive action against threats to its eAistence if, though still
nascent the* are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. Protection of the
people is the essence of the dut* of government. 4he preservation of the 9tate the
fruition of the people<s sovereignt* is an obligation in the highest order. 4he President,
s(orn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful eAecution the
la(s, cannot shir- from that responsibilit*.
Fe cannot also lose sight of the fact that the countr* is onl* no( beginning to recover
from the hardships brought about b* the plunder of the econom* attributed to the
Marcoses and their close associates and relatives, man* of (hom are still here in the
Philippines in a position to destabili,e the countr*, (hile the @overnment has barel*
scratched the surface, so to spea-, in its efforts to recover the enormous (ealth
stashed a(a* b* the Marcoses in foreign #urisdictions. 4hen, Fe cannot ignore the
continuall* increasing burden imposed on the econom* b* the eAcessive foreign
borro(ing during the Marcos regime, (hich stifles and stagnates development and is
one of the root causes of (idespread povert* and all its attendant ills. 4he resulting
precarious state of our econom* is of common -no(ledge and is easil* (ithin the ambit
of #udicial notice.
4he President has determined that the destabili,ation caused b* the return of the
Marcoses (ould (ipe a(a* the gains achieved during the past fe( *ears and lead to
total economic collapse. @iven (hat is (ithin our individual and common -no(ledge of
the state of the econom*, (e cannot argue (ith that determination.
F>EREB=RE, and it being our (ell"considered opinion that the President did not act
arbitraril* or (ith grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former
President Marcos and his famil* at the present time and under present circumstances
poses a serious threat to national interest and (elfare and in prohibiting their return to
the Philippines, the instant petition is hereb* G59M599EG.
9= =RGEREG.
38