Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

People vs Cabalquinto Issue

Whether or not the identity of the aggrieved

 party should not be disclosed in line with the
ABC testified that she is the common-law
wife of Cabalquinto and that they have four right to privacy for rape cases
children, namely: BBB, CCC, the child-
victim AAA, and DDD. At around 8:45 p.m.
of November 13, 1998, she was on her way YES. The position of the OSG in its
home. Since there is a half-inch gap between Comment is noteworthy. The OSG submits
the door and the wall, she peeped through the that the posting of the full text of decisions in
gap and saw Cabalquinto lying face down cases involving child abuse on the Supreme
making pumping motions on their daughter, Court Web Page violates the right to privacy
AAA, who was lying underneath him with of the aggrieved parties. In order to determine
her panties pulled down. When she heard whether the subject matter upon which the
Cabalquinto tell AAA to open her legs (ibuka right to privacy being invoked falls within the
mo), she kicked and pounded the door. constitutionally-protected zone of privacy, it
Cabalquinto immediately lay down. AAA must be shown that the person’s expectation
then stood up and opened the door. ABC of privacy is reasonable.
entered the room and confronted Cabalquinto
who only denied her accusation. ABC further The reasonableness of such expectancy
testified that during the police investigation depends on a two part test:
on November 14, 1998, AAA revealed to the
(1) whether by his conduct, the individual has
police that a similar incident happened to her
exhibited an expectation of privacy; and
on November 8, 1998, the day of her friend’s
birthday celebration. RTC found the accused (2) whether this expectation is one that
guilty of the crime of rape. society recognizes as reasonable.

The mother submitted that confidentiality and Sec. 29 of RA 7610 provides:

the best interest of the child must prevail over
public access to information and pleaded that Sec. 29. the instance of the
her daughters case, as well as those of a offended party, his name may be withheld
similar nature, be excluded from the Web from the public until the court acquires
Page. jurisdiction over the case.

It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher,

and reporter or columnist in case of printed
materials, announcer or producer in the case
of television and radio broadcasting, producer concern and subject to such limitations as
and director in the case of the movie industry, may be provided by law.
to cause undue and sensationalized publicity
The Court, nonetheless, conceded that the
of any case of a violation of this Act which CPA Board Exams are matters of public
results in the moral degradation and suffering concern. The examinees in particular, would
of the offended party. understandably be interested in the fair and
competent administration of these exams in
Antolin v Domondon order to ensure that only those qualified are
admitted into the accounting profession.
Hazel Antolin, the petitioner, took the 1997 On the issue of mootness, the Court held that
CPA Board Exams but failed, receiving the petitioner’s belated passing of the Board
failing grades from four out of seven subjects. Exams does not automatically mean that her
interest in the examination papers has become
Convinced that she deserved to pass, she
wrote to respondent Abelardo Domondon, mere superfluity.
Acting Chairman of the Board of
Accountancy, and requested that her answer Grisworld v Connecticut
sheets be re-corrected.
Her answer sheets were shown but these
In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that
consisted merely of shaded marks. She banned the use of any drug, medical device,
requested for copies of the questionnaire, or other instrument in furthering
their respective answer keys, and an contraception.
explanation of the grading system used in
each subject. Respondent denied the request. A gynecologist at the Yale School of
Medicine, C. Lee Buxton, opened a birth
Issue control clinic in New Haven in conjunction
Whether or not Antolin has a right to obtain with Estelle Griswold, who was the head of
copies of the examination papers. Planned Parenthood in Connecticut.

Ruling They were arrested and convicted of violating

 the law, and their convictions were affirmed
YES. The Court rules in favor of the by higher state courts. Their plan was to use
petitioner. Section 28, Article 2 of the the clinic to challenge the constitutionality of
Constitution provides that the State may the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment
before the Supreme Court. 
adopt policies in the disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest while
Section 7, Article 3 provides the right of the
people to information on matters of public
interest. It is clear that the people’s right to
information is limited to matters of public
Issues membership fee and suspension for failure to
pay the same.
Does the Constitution protect the right of
marital privacy against state restrictions on a It is the contention of Atty. Edillon that the
couple's ability to be counseled in the use of stated provisions constitute a violation of his
contraceptives? constitutional rights in the sense that he is
being compelled as a pre-condition to
maintain his status as a lawyer in good
standing, to be a member of the IBP and to
Yes. The Court ruled that the Constitution did pay the corresponding dues, and that as a
in fact protect the right of marital privacy consequence of this compelled financial
against state restrictions on contraception. support of the said organization to which he is
While the Court explained that the admitted personally antagonistic, he is being
Constitution does not explicitly protect a deprived of the rights to liberty and properly
general right to privacy, the various guaranteed to him by the Constitution.
guarantees within the Bill of Rights create
penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to Thus, the respondent concludes that the above
privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP
and Ninth Amendments create the right to By-Laws are void.
privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut
statute conflicted with the exercise of this Issues
right and was therefore held null and void.
(1) Whether or not the provisions of the Rule
A right to privacy can be inferred from
of Court 139-A and the provisions of par.
several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and
this right prevents states from making the use 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-
of contraception by married couples illegal.  Laws violates certain constitutional rights
of Atty. Edillon?
In Re Atty. Marcial A. Edillon (2) Can the court compel Atty. Edillion to
pay his membership fee to the IBP? 

The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly
licensed practicing Attorney in the 1. No. All the provisions assailed by Atty.
Philippines. Edillon are constitutional, and the
validity of Bar integration in the
The IBP Board of Governors recommended to
the Court the removal of the name of the Philippines is explicit in unequivocal
respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for grant of precise power to the Supreme
stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues Court by Section 5 (5) of Article X of
assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court the 1973 Constitution of the
139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section Philippines. As to his contention that
24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining his property rights are violated, it must
to the organization of IBP, payment of
be remembered that the practice of law SSS Employees Association v CA
is not a property right, but rather a
privilege. Facts
On June 11, 1987, the SSS filed with the
2. Yes. The Integrated Bar is a State- Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a
complaint for damages with a prayer for a
organized Bar, which every lawyer
writ of preliminary injunction against
must be a member of as distinguished
petitioners, alleging that on June 9, 1987, the
from bar associations in which officers and members of SSSEA staged an
membership is merely optional and illegal strike and baricaded the entrances to
voluntary. All lawyers are subject to the SSS Building, preventing non-striking
comply with the rules prescribed for employees from reporting for work and SSS
the governance of the Bar including members from transacting business with the
payment a reasonable annual fees as SSS; that the strike was reported to the Public
Sector Labor - Management Council, which
one of the requirements.
ordered the strikers to return to work; that the
strikers refused to return to work; and that the
The Rules of Court only compels him
SSS suffered damages as a result of the strike.
to pay his annual dues and it is not in
violation of his constitutional freedom The complaint prayed that a writ of
to associate. Bar integration does not preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin the
compel the lawyer to associate with strike and that the strikers be ordered to return
anyone. He is free to attend or not the to work; that the defendants (petitioners
meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter herein) be ordered to pay damages; and that
the strike be declared illegal.
or vote or refuse to vote in its election
as he chooses. It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after
the SSS failed to act on the union's demands,
The only compulsion to which he is which included: implementation of the
subjected is the payment of annual provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA collective
dues. The Supreme Court in order to bargaining agreement (CBA) on check-off of
further the State’s legitimate interest in union dues; payment of accrued overtime pay,
elevating the quality of professional 
 night differential pay and holiday pay;
conversion of temporary or contractual
employees with six (6) months or more of
service into regular and permanent employees
and their entitlement to the same salaries,
allowances and benefits given to other regular
employees of the SSS; and payment of the
children's allowance of P30.00, and after the
SSS deducted certain amounts from the
salaries of the employees and allegedly
committed acts of discrimination and unfair Commission's memorandum prohibiting
labor practices. strikes.

Issues This being the case, the strike staged by the

employees of the SSS was illegal.
Whether or not employees of the Social
Security System (SSS) have the right to strike Bank of the Philippine Islands v BPI
E m p l o y e e s U n i o n - D a v a o C h a p t e r-
Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank
NO. The 1987 Constitution, in the Article on
Social Justice and Human Rights, provides Facts
that the State "shall guarantee the rights of all
workers to self-organization, collective In 2000, Far East Bank and trust Company
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful (FEBTC) merged with Bank of the Philippine
concerted activities, including the right to Islands. Petitioner had a Union Shop
strike in accordance with law" [Art. XIII, Sec. agreement with respondent BPI Employees
31]. Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions
in BPI Unibank (the Union).Pursuant to the
Resort to the intent of the framers of the merger, respondent requested BPI to
organic law becomes helpful in understanding terminate the employment of those new
the meaning of these provisions. A reading of employees from FEBTC who did not join the
the proceedings of the Constitutional union.
Commission that drafted the 1987
Constitution would show that in recognizing BPI refused to undertake such action and
the right of government employees to brought the controversy before a voluntary
organize, the commissioners intended to limit arbitrator. Although BPI won the initial battle
the right to the formation of unions or at the Voluntary Arbitrator level, BPIs
associations only, without including the right position was rejected by the Court of Appeals
to strike. which ruled that the Voluntary Arbitrators
interpretation of the Union Shop Clause was
Considering that under the 1987 Constitution at war with the spirit and rationale why the
"the civil service embraces all branches, Labor Code allows the existence of such
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies provision.
of the Government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations with This was followed and affirmation by the
original charters" [Art. IX(B), Sec.2(l) where Supreme Court of the CA decision holding
the employees in the civil service are that former employees of the Far East Bank
denominated as "government employees"] and Trust Company (FEBTC) "absorbed" by
and that the SSS is one such government- BPI pursuant to the two banks merger. The
controlled corporation with an original absorbed employees were covered by the
charter, having been created under R.A. No. Union Shop Clause in the then existing
1161, its employees are part of the civil collective bargaining agreement (CBA)of BPI
service and are covered by the Civil Service with respondent BPI Employees Union-
Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the
Unibank (the Union). Petitioners, despite the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination
August 2010 decision moved for a Motion for on the basis of sexual orientation in places of
reconsideration of the decision. public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a
private, not-for-profit organization, asserted
Issues that homosexual conduct was inconsistent
with the values it was attempting to instill in
Whether or not the former FEBTC young people.
employees that were absorbed by petitioner
upon the merger between FEBTC and BPI The New Jersey Superior Court held that New
should be covered by the Union Shop Clause Jersey's public accommodations law was
found in the existing CBA between petitioner inapplicable because the Boy Scouts was not
and respondent Union. a place of public accommodation.

Ruling The court also concluded that the Boy Scouts'

First Amendment freedom of expressive
All employees in the bargaining unit covered association prevented the government from
by a Union Shop Clause in their CBA with forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an
management are subject to its terms. adult leader.
However, under law and jurisprudence, the
following kinds of employees are exempted
from its coverage, namely, employees who at The court's Appellate Division held that New
the time the union shop agreement takes Jersey's public accommodations law applied
effect are bona fide members of a religious to the Boy Scouts because of its broad-based
organization which prohibits its members membership solicitation and its connections
from joining labor unions on religious with various public entities, and that the Boy
grounds; employees already in the service and Scouts violated it by revoking Dale's
already members of a union other than the membership based on his homosexuality.
majority at the time the union shop agreement
took effect; confidential employees who are The court rejected the Boy Scouts' federal
excluded from the rank and file bargaining constitutional claims. The New Jersey
unit; and employees excluded from the union Supreme Court affirmed.
shop by express terms of the agreement.
The court held that application of New
Boy Scouts of America v Dale Jersey's public accommodations law did not
violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment
Facts right of expressive association because Dale's
The Boy Scouts of America revoked former inclusion would not significantly affect
Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James members' abilities to carry out their purpose.
Dale's adult membership when the Furthermore, the court concluded that
organization discovered that Dale was a reinstating Dale did not compel the Boy
homosexual and a gay rights activist. In 1992, Scouts to express any message.
Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts,

Does the application of New Jersey's

public accommodations law violate the Boy
Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive
association to bar homosexuals from serving
as troop leaders?


YES. The Court held that "applying New

Jersey's public accommodations law to
require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates
the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of
expressive association." In effect, the ruling
gives the Boy Scouts of America a
constitutional right to bar homosexuals from
serving as troop leaders. Chief Justice
Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy
Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is
inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill,"
and that a gay troop leader's presence "would,
at the very least, force the organization to
send a message, both to the young members
and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts
homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of