G.R. Nos. L-32370 & 32767 April 20, 1983 SIERRA MADRE TRUST, petitioner, vs.

HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIRECTOR OF MINES, JUSAN TRUST MINING COMPANY, and J & S PARTNERSHIP, respondents. Lobruga Rondoz & Cardenas Law Offices for petitioner. Fortunato de Leon for respondents. 1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS; WEIGHT AND VALIDITY THEREOF; CASE AT BAR. The officers of the Executive Department tasked with administering the Mining Law have found that there is neither encroachment nor overlapping in respect of the claims involved. In his decision, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources said: "This Office is in conformity with the findings of the Director of Mines that the mining claims of the appellees were validly located, surveyed and registered.'' Such finding or interpretation by officers of laws which are entrusted to their administration is entitled to great respect. 2. REMEDIAL LAW; PETITION FOR REVIEW; QUESTIONS NOT RAISED BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY MAY NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT. A question not raised before the Director of Mines and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources cannot be raised for the first time on review by the Supreme Court. For this reason, even assuming that there is justifiable issue between the parties, this question cannot be passed upon. ABAD SANTOS, J.: This is a petition to review a decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources dated July 8, 1970, in DANR Cases Numbered 3502 and 3502-A. The decision affirmed a decision of the Director of Mines dated November 6, 1969. The appeal was made pursuant to Sec. 61 of the Mining Law (C.A. No. 137, as amended) which provides: "... Findings of facts in the decision or order of the Director of Mines when affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall be final and conclusive, and the aggrieved party or parties desiring to appeal from such decision or order shall file in the Supreme Court a petition for review wherein only questions of law may be raised." The factual background is given in the brief of the petitioner-appellant which has not been contradicted by the respondents-appellees and is as follows: On July 26, 1962, the Sierra Madre Trust filed with the Bureau of Mines an Adverse Claim against LLA No. V-7872 (Amd) of the Jusan Trust Mining Company over six (6) lode mineral claims, viz.: (1) Finland 2, (2) Finland 3, (3) Finland 5, (4) Finland 6, (5) Finland 8 and (6) Finland 9, all registered on December 11, 1964 with the office of the Mining Recorder of Nueva Vizcaya, and all situated in Sitio Maghanay, Barrio Abaca Municipality of Dupax, Province of Nueva Vizcaya. The adverse claim alleged that the aforementioned six (6) lode minerals claims covered by LLA No. V-7872 (Amd) encroached and overlapped the eleven (11) lode mineral claims of the herein petitioner Sierra Madre Trust, viz., (1) A-12, (2) H-12, (3) JC-11, (4) W-11, (5) JN-11, (6)WM-11, (7) F-10, (8) A-9, (9) N-9, (10) W-8, and (11) JN-8, all situated in Sitio Taduan Barrio of Abaca, Municipality of Dupax, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, and duly registered with the office of the Mining Recorder at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya on May 14, 1965. The adverse claim prayed for an order or decision declaring the above- mentioned six (6) lode mineral claims of respondent Jusan Trust Mining Company, null, void, and illegal; and denying lode lease application LLA No. V-7872 over said claims. Further, the adverse

claimant prayed for such other reliefs and remedies available in the premises. This adverse claim was docketed in the Bureau of Mines as Mines Administrative Case No. V-404, and on appeal to the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources as DANR Case No. 3502. Likewise, on the same date July 26, 1966, the same Sierra Madre Trust filed with the Bureau of Mines an Adverse Claim against LLA No. V-9028 of the J & S Partnership over six (6) lode mineral claims viz.: (1) A-19, (2) A-20, (3) A-24, (4) A-25, (5) A-29, and (6) A-30, all registered on March 30, 1965 and amended August 5, 1965, with the office of the Mining Recorder of Nueva Vizcaya, and situated in Sitio Gatid, Barrio of Abaca Municipality of Dupax, Province of Nueva Vizcaya. The adverse claim alleged that the aforementioned six (6) lode mineral claim covered by LLA No. V-9028, encroached and overlapped the thirteen (13) lode mineral claims of herein petitioner Sierra Madre Trust, viz.: (1) Wm-14, (2) F-14, (3) A-13, (4) H-12 (5) Jc12, (6) W-12, (7) Jn-11, (8) Wm-11, (9) F-11, (10) Wm-11, (11) F-11; (12) H-9 and (13) Jc-9, all situated in Sitio Taduan, Barrio of Abaca Municipality of Dupax, Province of Nueva Vizcaya and duly registered with the office of the Mining Recorder at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, on May 14,1965. The adverse claim prayed for an order or decision declaring the above- mentioned six (6) claims of respondent J & S Partnership, null void, and illegal; and denying lode lease application LLA No. V-9028 over the said claims. Further, the adverse claimant prayed for such other reliefs and remedies available in the premises. This adverse claim was docketed in the Bureau of Mines as Mines Administrative Case No. V-404, and on appeal to the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources as DANR Case No. 3502A. These two (2) adverse claims, MAC Nos. V-403 and V-404 were jointly heard in the Bureau of Mines, and also jointly considered in the appeal in the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The dispositive portion of the decision rendered by the Director of Mines reads: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Office believes and so holds that the respondents have the preferential right over their "Finland-2", "Finland- 3", "Finland-5", "Finland-6", "Finland-8", "Finland-9", "A19", "A-20", "A-24", "A-25", "A-29" and "A-30" mining claims. Accordingly, the protests (adverse claims) filed by protestant Sierra Madre Trust should be, as hereby they are, DISMISSED. And that of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reads: IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal interposed by the appellant, Sierra Madre Trust is hereby dismissed and the decision of the Director of Mines dated November 6, 1969, affirmed. " The adverse claims of Sierra Madre Trust against Jusan Trust Mining Company and J and S Partnership were based on the allegation that the lode lease applications (LLA) of the latter "encroached and overlapped" the former's mineral claims, However, acting on the adverse claims, the Director of Mines found that, "By sheer force of evidence, this Office is constrained to believe that there exists no conflict or overlapping between the protestant's and respondents' mining claims. " And this finding was affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources thus: "Anent the first allegation, this Office finds that the Director of Mines did not err when he found that the twelve (12) claims of respondents Jusan Trust Mining Company and J & S Partnership did not encroach and overlap the eighteen (18) lode mineral claims of the appellant Sierra Madre Trust. For this fact has been incotrovertibly proven by the records appertaining to the case." Page | 1

It should be noted that according to the Director of Mines in his decision, "during the intervening period from the 31st day after the discovery [by the respondents] to the date of location nobody else located the area covered thereby. ... the protestant [petitioner herein] did not establish any intervening right as it is our findings that their mining claims do not overlap respondents' mining claims." After the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources had affirmed the factual findings of the Director of Mines to the effect that there was no overlapping of claims and which findings were final and conclusive, Sierra Madre Trust should have kept its peace for obviously it suffered no material injury and had no pecuniary interest to protect. But it was obstinate and raised this legal question before Us: "May there be a valid location of mining claims after the lapse of thirty (30) days from date of discovery, in contravention to the mandatory provision of Section 33 of the New Mining Law (Com. Act No. 137, as amended)?" It also raised ancillary questions. We see no reason why We have to answer the questions in this petition considering that there is no justiciable issue between the parties. The officers of the Executive Department tasked with administering the Mining Law have found that there is neither encroachment nor overlapping in respect of the claims involved. Accordingly, whatever may be the answers to the questions will not materially serve the interests of the petitioner. In closing it is useful to remind litigation prone individuals that the interpretation by officers of laws which are entrusted to their administration is entitled to great respect.' In his decision, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources said: "This Office is in conformity with the findings of the Director of Mines that the mining claims of the appellees were validly located, surveyed and registered." Finally, the petitioner also asks: "May an association and/or partnership registered with the Mining Recorder of a province, but not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, be vested with juridical personality to enable it to locate and then lease mining claims from the government?" Suffice it to state that this question was not raised before the Director of Mines and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. There is also nothing in the record to indicate whether or not the appellees are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. For these reasons, even assuming that there is a justiciable issue between the parties, this question cannot be passed upon. WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

Page | 2

G.R. No. L-50444 August 31, 1987 ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner, -versusTHE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, HON. G.V. TOBIAS, in his capacity as General Manager of the National Housing Authority, THE HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE, in his capacity as Presidential Executive Assistant and VIRGILIO A. YUSON, respondents. 1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES EXERCISE AND PERFORM ADJUDICATORY POWERS AND FUNCTIONS. It is by now commonplace learning that many administrative agencies exercise and perform adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a limited extent only. Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to administrative agencies (e.g., the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission) is well recognized in our jurisdiction, basically because the need for special competence and experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution of questions of complex or specialized character and because of a companion recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have remained crowded and clogged. (See Spouses Jose Abejo and Aurora Abejo, et al. vs. Hon. Rafael dela Cruz, etc., et al., G.R. No. 63558, May 19, 1987). 2. ID.; ID.; QUANTUM OF JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS DEFINED IN ITS ENABLING ACT. In general, the quantum of judicial or quasijudicial powers which an administrative agency may exercise is defined in the enabling act of such agency. In other words, the extent to which an administrative entity may exercise such powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency. 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY. The extent to which the NHA has been vested with quasi-judicial authority must be determined by referring to the terms of Presidential Decree No. 957, known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Decree." Section 3 of this statute provides as follows: "National Housing Authority. The National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with the provisions of this decree." 4. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; POWER TO RESCIND AVAILABLE ONLY TO INJURED PARTY; CASE AT BAR. Having failed to comply with its contractual obligation to complete certain specified improvements in the subdivision within the specified period of two years from the date of the execution of the Contract to Sell, petitioner was not entitled to exercise its options under Clause 7 of the Contract. Hence, petitioner could neither rescind the Contract to Sell nor treat the installment payments made by the private respondent as forfeited in its favor. Indeed, under the general Civil Law, in view of petitioner's breach of its contract with private respondent, it is the latter who is vested with the option either to rescind the contract and receive reimbursement of all installment payments (with legal interest) made for the purchase of the subdivision lot in question, or to suspend payment of further purchase installments until such time as the petitioner had fulfilled its obligations to the buyer. The NHA was therefore correct in holding that private respondent's prior installment payments could not be forfeited in favor of petitioner. 5. REMEDIAL LAW; MOTIONS; DUE PROCESS; PRINCIPLE NOT VIOLATED WHERE PARTY WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS SIDE AND TO BE HEARD. We turn to petitioner's assertion that it had been denied the right to due process. This assertion lacks substance. The record shows that a copy of the order denying the Motion to Dismiss and scheduling the hearing of the complaint for the morning of 6 March 1978, was duly served on counsel for petitioner, as evidenced by the annotation appearing at the bottom of said copy indicating that such service had been effected. But even if it be assumed, arguendo, that such notice had not been served on the petitioner, nevertheless the latter was not deprived of due process, for what the fundamental law abhors is not the absence of previous notice but rather the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. In the instant case, petitioner was given ample opportunity to present its side and to be heard on a motion for reconsideration as well, and not just on a motion to dismiss; the claim of denial of due process must hence sound even more hollow.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM BUYERS' DECREE (PD 957); SALE OF LOTS ON INSTALLMENT BASIS; ORIGINAL PERIOD OF PAYMENT DEEMED EXTENDED. To permit Antipolo Realty to collect the disputed amount in a lump sum after it had defaulted on its obligations to its lot buyers, would tend to defeat the purpose of the authorization to lot buyers to suspend installment payments. As the NHA resolution pointed out, "[s]uch must be the case, otherwise, there is no sense in suspending payments." Upon the other hand, to condone the entire amount that would have become due would be an excessively harsh penalty upon the petitioner and would result in the unjust enrichment of the private respondent at the expense of the petitioner. FELICIANO, J.: By virtue of a Contract to Sell dated 18 August 1970, Jose Hernando acquired prospective and beneficial ownership over Lot. No. 15, Block IV of the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision in Antipolo, Rizal, from the petitioner Antipolo Realty Corporation. On 28 August 1974, Mr. Hernando transferred his rights over Lot No. 15 to private respondent Virgilio Yuson. The transfer was embodied in a Deed of Assignment and Substitution of Obligor (Delegacion), executed with the consent of Antipolo Realty, in which Mr. Yuson assumed the performance of the vendee's obligations under the original contract, including payment of his predecessor's installments in arrears. However, for failure of Antipolo Realty to develop the subdivision project in accordance with its undertaking under Clause 17 of the Contract to Sell, Mr. Yuson paid only the arrearages pertaining to the period up to, and including, the month of August 1972 and stopped all monthly installment payments falling due thereafter Clause 17 reads: Clause 17. SUBDIVISION BEAUTIFICATION. To insure the beauty of the subdivision in line with the modern trend of urban development, the SELLER hereby obligates itself to provide the subdivision with: a) Concrete curbs and gutters b) Underground drainage system c) Asphalt paved roads d) Independent water system e) Electrical installation with concrete posts. f) Landscaping and concrete sidewall g) Developed park or amphi-theatre h) 24-hour security guard service. These improvements shall be complete within a period of two (2) years from date of this contract. Failure by the SELLER shall permit the BUYER to suspend his monthly installments without any penalties or interest charges until such time that such improvements shall have been completed. 1 On 14 October 1976, the president of Antipolo Realty sent a notice to private respondent Yuson advising that the required improvements in the subdivision had already been completed, and requesting resumption of payment of the monthly installments on Lot No. 15. For his part, Mr. Yuson replied that he would conform with the request as soon as he was able to verify the truth of the representation in the notice. In a second letter dated 27 November 1976, Antipolo Realty reiterated its request that Mr. Yuson resume payment of his monthly installments, citing the decision rendered by the National Housing Authority (NHA) on 25 October 1976 in Case No. 252 (entitled "Jose B. Viado Jr., complainant vs. Conrado S. Reyes, respondent") declaring Antipolo Realty to have "substantially complied with its commitment to the lot buyers pursuant to the Contract to Sell executed by and Page | 3

between the lot buyers and the respondent." In addition, a formal demand was made for full and immediate payment of the amount of P16,994.73, representing installments which, Antipolo Realty alleged, had accrued during the period while the improvements were being completed i.e., between September 1972 and October 1976. Mr. Yuson refused to pay the September 1972-October 1976 monthly installments but agreed to pay the post October 1976 installments. Antipolo Realty responded by rescinding the Contract to Sell, and claiming the forfeiture of all installment payments previously made by Mr. Yuson. Aggrieved by the rescission of the Contract to Sell, Mr. Yuson brought his dispute with Antipolo Realty before public respondent NHA through a lettercomplaint dated 10 May 1977 which complaint was docketed in NHA as Case No. 2123. Antipolo Realty filed a Motion to Dismiss which was heard on 2 September 1977. Antipolo Realty, without presenting any evidence, moved for the consolidation of Case No. 2123 with several other cases filed against it by other subdivision lot buyers, then pending before the NHA. In an Order issued on 7 February 1978, the NHA denied the motion to dismiss and scheduled Case No. 2123 for hearing. After hearing, the NHA rendered a decision on 9 March 1978 ordering the reinstatement of the Contract to Sell under the following conditions: l) Antipolo Realty Corporation shall sent [sic] to Virgilio Yuzon a statement of account for the monthly amortizations from November 1976 to the present; m) No penalty interest shall be charged for the period from November 1976 to the date of the statement of account; and n) Virgilio Yuzon shall be given sixty (60) days to pay the arrears 2 shown in the statement of account. Antipolo Realty filed a Motion for Reconsideration asserting: (a) that it had been denied due process of law since it had not been served with notice of the scheduled hearing; and (b) that the jurisdiction to hear and decide Mr. Yuson's complaint was lodged in the regular courts, not in the NHA, since that complaint involved the interpretation and application of the Contract to Sell. The motion for reconsideration was denied on 28 June 1978 by respondent NHA General Manager G.V. Tobias, who sustained the jurisdiction of the NHA to hear and decide the Yuson complaint. He also found that Antipolo Realty had in fact been served with notice of the date of the hearing, but that its counsel had 3 failed to attend the hearing. The case was submitted for decision, and eventually decided, solely on the evidence presented by the complainant. On 2 October 1978, Antipolo Realty came to this Court with a Petition for certiorari and Prohibition with Writ of Preliminary Injunction, which was docketed as G.R. No. L-49051. Once more, the jurisdiction of the NHA was assailed. Petitioner further asserted that, under Clause 7 of the Contract to Sell, it could validly terminate its agreement with Mr. Yuson and, as a consequence 4 thereof, retain all the prior installment payments made by the latter. This Court denied certiorari in a minute resolution issued on 11 December 1978, 5 "without prejudice to petitioner's pursuing the administrative remedy." A motion for reconsideration was denied on 29 January 1979. Thereafter, petitioner interposed an appeal from the NHA decision with the Office of the President which, on 9 March 1979, dismissed the same through 6 public respondent Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave. In the present petition, Antipolo Realty again asserts that, in hearing the complaint of private respondent Yuson and in ordering the reinstatement of the Contract to Sell between the parties, the NHA had not only acted on a matter beyond its competence, but had also, in effect, assumed the performance of

judicial or quasi-judicial functions which the NHA was not authorized to perform. We find the petitioner's arguments lacking in merit. It is by now commonplace learning that many administrative agencies exercise and perform adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a limited extent only. Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to administrative agencies (e.g., the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor 7 Relations Commission) is well recognized in our jurisdiction, basically because the need for special competence and experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution of questions of complex or specialized character and because of a companion recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have remained crowded and clogged. In Spouses Jose Abejo and Aurora Abejo, et al. 8 vs. Hon. Rafael dela Cruz, etc., et al., the Court, through Mr. Chief Justice Teehankee, said: In the fifties, the Court taking cognizance of the move to vest jurisdiction in administrative commissions and boards the power to resolve specialized disputes in the field of labor (as in corporations, public transportation and public utilities) ruled that Congress in requiring the Industrial Court's intervention in the resolution of labor management controversies likely to cause strikes or lockouts meant such jurisdiction to be exclusive, although it did not so expressly state in the law. The Court held that under the "sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction . . . the courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered" (Pambujan Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., Inc., 94 Phil, 932, 941 [1954]). In this era of clogged court dockets, the need for specialized administrative boards or commissions with the special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical matters or essentially factual matters, subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion has become well nigh indispensable. Thus, in 1984, the Court noted that 'between the power lodged in an administrative body and a court, the unmistakeable trend has been to refer it to the former, "Increasingly, this Court has been committed to the view that unless the law speaks clearly and unequivocably, the choice should fall on fan administrative agency]" ' (NFL v. Eisma, 127 SCRA 419, 428, citing precedents). The Court in the earlier case of Ebon vs. De Guzman (113 SCRA 52, 56 [1982]), noted that the lawmaking authority, in restoring to the labor arbiters and the NLRC their jurisdiction to award all kinds of damages in labor cases, as against the previous P.D. amendment splitting their jurisdiction with the regular courts, "evidently, . . . had second thoughts about depriving the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC of the jurisdiction to award damages in labor cases because that setup would mean duplicity of suits, splitting the cause of action and possible conflicting findings and conclusions by two tribunals on one and the same claim." In an even more recent case, Tropical Homes, Inc. vs. National Housing 9 Authority, et al., Mr. Justice Gutierrez, speaking for the Court, observed that: There is no question that a statute may vest exclusive original jurisdiction in an administrative agency over certain disputes and controversies falling within the agency's special expertise. The very definition of an administrative agency includes its being vested with quasi-judicial powers. The ever increasing variety of powers and functions given to administrative agencies recognizes the need for the active intervention of administrative agencies in matters calling for technical knowledge and speed in countless controversies which cannot possibly be handled by regular courts. Page | 4

In general the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which an administrative agency may exercise is defined in the enabling act of such agency. In other words, the extent to which an administrative entity may exercise such powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency. 10 In the exercise of such powers, the agency concerned must commonly interpret and apply contracts and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. One thrust of the multiplication of administrative agencies is that the interpretation of contracts and the determination of private rights thereunder is no longer a uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by our regular courts. Thus, the extent to which the NHA has been vested with quasi-judicial authority must be determined by referring to the terms of Presidential Decree No. 957, known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Decree." 11 Section 3 of this statute provides as follows: National Housing Authority. The National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with the provisions of this decree (emphasis supplied) The need for and therefore the scope of the regulatory authority thus lodged in the NHA are indicated in the second and third preambular paragraphs of the statute which provide: WHEREAS, numerous reports reveal that many real estate subdivision owners, developers, operators, and/or sellers have reneged on their representations and obligations to provide and maintain properly subdivision roads, drainage, sewerage, water systems lighting systems and other similar basic requirements, thus endangering the health and safety of home and lot buyers; WHEREAS, reports of alarming magnitude also show cases of swindling and fraudulent manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and operators, such as failure to deliver titles to the buyers or titles free from liens and encumbrances, and to pay real estate taxes, and fraudulent sales of the same subdivision lots to different innocent purchasers for value . (emphasis supplied) Presidential Decree No. 1344 12 clarified and spelled out the quasi-judicial dimensions of the grant of regulatory authority to the NHA in the following quite specific terms: SECTION 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature: A. Unsound real estate business practices: B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by sub- division lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman. (emphasis supplied.) The substantive provisions being applied and enforced by the NHA in the instant case are found in Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 957 which reads: Sec. 23. Non-Forfeiture of Payments. No installment payment made by a buyer in a subdivision or condominium project for the lot or unit he contracted to buy shall be forfeited in favor of the owner or developer when the buyer, after due notice to the owner or

developer, desists from further payment due to the failure of the owner or developer to develop the subdivision or condominium project according to the approved plans and within the time limit for complying with the same. Such buyer may, at his option, be reimbursed the total amount paid including amortization and interests but excluding delinquency interests, with interest thereon at the legal rate. (emphasis supplied.) Having failed to comply with its contractual obligation to complete certain specified improvements in the subdivision within the specified period of two years from the date of the execution of the Contract to Sell, petitioner was not entitled to exercise its options under Clause 7 of the Contract. Hence, petitioner could neither rescind the Contract to Sell nor treat the installment payments made by the private respondent as forfeited in its favor. Indeed, under the general Civil Law, 13 in view of petitioner's breach of its contract with private respondent, it is the latter who is vested with the option either to rescind the contract and receive reimbursement of an installment payments (with legal interest) made for the purchase of the subdivision lot in question, or to suspend payment of further purchase installments until such time as the petitioner had fulfilled its obligations to the buyer. The NHA was therefore correct in holding that private respondent's prior installment payments could not be forfeited in favor of petitioner. Neither did the NHA commit any abuse, let alone a grave abuse of discretion or act in excess of its jurisdiction when it ordered the reinstatement of the Contract to Sell between the parties. Such reinstatement is no more than a logical consequence of the NHA's correct ruling, just noted, that the petitioner was not entitled to rescind the Contract to Sell. There is, in any case, no question that under Presidential Decree No. 957, the NHA was legally empowered to determine and protect the rights of contracting parties under the law administered by it and under the respective agreements, as well as to ensure that their obligations thereunder are faithfully performed. We turn to petitioner's assertion that it had been denied the right to due process. This assertion lacks substance. The record shows that a copy of the order denying the Motion to Dismiss and scheduling the hearing of the complaint for the morning of 6 March 1978, was duly served on counsel for petitioner, as evidenced by the annotation appearing at the bottom of said copy indicating that such service had been effected. 14 But even if it be assumed, arguendo, that such notice had not been served on the petitioner, nevertheless the latter was not deprived of due process, for what the fundamental law abhors is not the absence of previous notice but rather the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. 15 In the instant case, petitioner was given ample opportunity to present its side and to be heard on a motion for reconsideration as well, and not just on a motion to dismiss; the claim of denial of due process must hence sound even more hollow. 16 We turn finally to the question of the amount of P16,994.73 which petitioner insists had accrued during the period from September 1972 to October 1976, when private respondent had suspended payment of his monthly installments on his chosen subdivision lot. The NHA in its 9 March 1978 resolution ruled that the regular monthly installments under the Contract to Sell did not accrue during the September 1972 October 1976 period: [R]espondent allowed the complainant to suspend payment of his monthly installments until the improvements in the subdivision shall have been completed. Respondent informed complainant on November 1976 that the improvements have been completed. Monthly installments during the period of suspension of payment did not become due and demandable Neither did they accrue Such must be the case, otherwise, there is no sense in suspending payments. If the suspension is lifted the debtor shall resume payments but never did he incur any arrears. Such being the case, the demand of respondent for complainant to pay the arrears due during the period of suspension of payment is null and void. Consequently, the notice of cancellation based on the refusal to pay the s that were not due and demandable is also null and void. 17 Page | 5

The NHA resolution is probably too terse and in need of certification and amplification. The NHA correctly held that no installment payments should be considered as having accrued during the period of suspension of payments. Clearly, the critical issue is what happens to the installment payments which would have accrued and fallen due during the period of suspension had no default on the part of the petitioner intervened. To our mind, the NHA resolution is most appropriately read as directing that the original period of payment in the Contract to Sell must be deemed extended by a period of time equal to the period of suspension (i.e., by four (4) years and two (2) months) during which extended time (tacked on to the original contract period) private respondent buyer must continue to pay the monthly installment payments until the entire original contract price shall have been paid. We think that such is the intent of the NHA resolution which directed that "[i]f the suspension is lifted, the debtor shall resume payments" and that such is the most equitable and just reading that may be given to the NHA resolution. To permit Antipolo Realty to collect the disputed amount in a lump sum after it had defaulted on its obligations to its lot buyers, would tend to defeat the purpose of the authorization (under Sec. 23 of Presidential Decree No. 957, supra) to lot buyers to suspend installment payments. As the NHA resolution pointed out, [s]uch must be the case, otherwise, there is no sense in suspending payments." Upon the other hand, to condone the entire amount that would have become due would be an expressively harsh penalty upon the petitioner and would result in the unjust enrichment of the private respondent at the expense of the petitioner. It should be recalled that the latter had already fulfilled, albeit tardily, its obligations to its lot buyers under their Contracts to Sell. At the same time, the lot buyer should not be regarded as delinquent and as such charged penalty interest. The suspension of installment payments was attributable to the petitioner, not the private respondent. The tacking on of the period of suspension to the end of the original period precisely prevents default on the part of the lot buyer. In the words of the NHA resolution, "never would [the buyer] incur any arrears." WHEREFORE, the Petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The NHA decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED and clarified as providing for the lengthening of the original contract period for payment of installments under the Contract to Sell by four (4) years and two (2) months, during which extended time private respondent shall continue to pay the regular monthly installment payments until the entire original contract price shall have been paid. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Page | 6

G.R. No. 161811. April 12, 2006. THE CITY OF BAGUIO, MAURICIO DOMOGAN, and ORLANDO GENOVE, petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO NIO, JOSEFINA NIO, EMMANUEL NIO, and EURLIE OCAMPO, respondents. DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: The Bureau of Lands awarded on May 13, 1966 to Narcisa A. Placino (Narcisa) a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 10 (the lot) located at Saint Anthony Road, Dominican-Mirador Barangay, Baguio City. Francisco Nio (Nio), one of the herein respondents, who has been occupying the lot, contested the award by filing a Petition Protest on December 23, 1975 before the Bureau of Lands. The Director of Lands dismissed the Petition Protest by Order of November 11, 1976. Nio appealed the dismissal all the way to the Supreme Court but he did not succeed. The decision of the Director of Lands dated November 11, 1976 [1] having become final and executory, the then-Executive Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Cordillera Autonomous Region (DENR-CAR), on petition of Narcisa, issued an Order of Execution dated February 1, 1993 directing the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Officer to enforce the decision by ordering Petitioner Nio and those acting in his behalf to refrain from continuously occupying the area and [2] remove whatever improvements they may have introduced thereto. Attempts to enforce the Order of Execution failed, prompting Narcisa to file a complaint for ejectment before the Baguio City Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). The MTCC dismissed Narcisa s complaint, however, by [3] Order of August 7, 1996. Narcisa s counsel, Atty. Edilberto Claravall (Atty. Claravall), later petitioned the DENR-CAR for the issuance of a Special Order authorizing the City Sheriff of Baguio, the City Police Station, and the Demolition Team of the City Government to demolish or remove the improvements on the lot introduced by Nio. The DENR-CAR denied the petition, citing lack of jurisdiction over the City Sheriff of Baguio, the City Police Station, and the Demolition Team of the City Government. The DENR-CAR also invoked Section 14 (now Section 10 (d)) of [4] Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Atty. Claravall thereupon moved to have the Order of Execution previously issued by the DENR-CAR amended, which was granted. As amended, the Order of Execution addressed to the CENRO Officer read: WHEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1844 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Act No. 3077, you are hereby enjoined to enforce the aforementioned order, with the assistance upon request of the City Sheriff of Baguio City, the Demolition Team of Baguio City and the Baguio City Police Station, by Ordering Petitioner Nio and those acting in his behalf to refrain from continuously occupying the area and remove whatever improvements they may have introduced thereto. xxxx SO ORDERED. underscoring supplied)
[5]

On July 16, 1997, the Demolition Team of Baguio City headed by Engineer Orlando Genove and the Baguio City Police, on orders of then Baguio City Police Officer-In-Charge (OIC) Donato Bacquian, started demolishing the [7] houses of Nio and his herein co-respondents. The demolition was, however, temporarily stopped upon the instructions of DENR-CENR Officer Guillermo Fianza, who later advised Nio that the DENR-CENRO would implement the Amended Order of Execution [8] on August 4, 1997. Nio and his wife Josefina Nio thereupon filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City against Guillermo Fianza, Teofilo Olimpo of the DENR-CENRO, Mayor Mauricio Domogan (hereafter petitioner), Atty. Claravall, Engr. Orlando Genove (hereafter petitioner), Rolando Angara, and Police Officer Donato Bacquian challenging the Amended Order of Execution issued by the DENR-CENRO. The Nio spouses later filed an Amended Petition by impleading Emmanuel Nio and Eurlie Ocampo as therein co-petitioners and the City of Baguio(hereafter petitioner) and Narcisa as therein additional respondents, and further praying for damages. Branch 6 of the Baguio RTC dismissed the petition of Nio et al. [11] (hereafter respondents) for lack of merit. Respondents Motion for [13] [12] Reconsideration having been denied, they filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules before the Court of Appeals. By Decision of December 11, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted the Petition for Review, holding that Sec. 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules reading: SEC. 10. Execution of judgments for specific act. xxxx (d) Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. When the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court. (Underscoring supplied) applies. Thus disposed the appellate court: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED and the Orders dated September 24, 1997 and November 23, 1998 are hereby SET ASIDE. Public respondent City Mayor Mauricio Domogan thru the Demolition Team and City Engineer s Office are hereby ordered to cease and desist from enforcing the amended order of execution issued by Oscar N. Hamada, Regional Executive Director of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, concerning the demolition or removal of the structures made by petitioners until private respondent applied for a special order abovementioned with the proper court.
[14] [10] [9]

(Emphasis

and

The DENR-CENRO, together with the Demolition Team of Baguio City and the Baguio City police, desisted, however, in their earlier attempt to [6] enforce the Amended Order of Execution.

SO ORDERED.

[15]

(Underscoring supplied) Page | 7

Respondents filed before the appellate court an Ex-Parte Motion for [16] Reconsideration on January 9, 2003, alleging that some of the reliefs they [17] prayed for in their petition were left unacted upon. Petitioners too filed a [18] Motion for Reconsideration on January 28, 2003, raising the following grounds: 1. THE HONORABLE COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE CITY MAYOR HAS THE POWER TO ORDER THE DEMOLITION OF ILLEGALLY-BUILT STRUCTURES; THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION FOR REVIEW; THE HONORABLE COURT MISAPPLIED SEC. 10 (d), RULE 39 of the RULES OF [19] COURT. (Underscoring supplied)

In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which an administrative agency may exercise is defined in the enabling act of such agency. In other words, the extent to which an administrative entity may exercise such powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such [25] agency. (Underscoring supplied) There is, however, no explicit provision granting the Bureau of Lands (now the Land Management Bureau) or the DENR (which exercises control over the Land Management Bureau) the authority to issue an order of [26] demolition which the Amended Order of Execution, in substance, is. Indeed, [w]hile the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands is confined to the determination of the respective rights of rival claimants to public lands or to cases which involve the disposition of public lands, the power to determine who has the actual, physical possession or occupation or the better right of possession over public lands remains with the courts. The rationale is evident. The Bureau of Lands does not have the wherewithal to police public lands. Neither does it have the means to prevent disorders or breaches of peace among the occupants. Its power is clearly limited to disposition and alienation and while it may decide disputes over possession, this is but in aid of making the proper awards. The ultimate power to resolve conflicts of possession is recognized to be within the legal competence of the civil courts and its purpose is to extend protection to the actual possessors and occupants with a view to quell social [27] unrest. (Emphasis added) Consequently, this Court held:
[28]

2.

3.

In support of the first ground, petitioners raised before the appellate court, in their Motion for Reconsideration, for the first time, the power of the City Mayor to validly order the demolition of a structure constructed without a building permit pursuant to Sec. 455(b) 3(vi) of the Local Government Code of 1991 in relation to the National Building Code of the Philippines. Alleging that respondents built their house without the required entry and building permits, petitioners argued that the City Mayor may order [20] the demolition of a house without a special court order. The Court of Appeals denied both parties [21] reconsideration by Resolution of December 17, 2003. motions for

Hence, the present petition of the City of Baguio, Mayor Domogan (now a Congressman), and Orlando Genove, faulting the appellate court: 1. . . . IN RULING THAT A SPECIAL COURT ORDER IS NEEDED FOR THE DEMOLITION OF RESPONDENTS STRUCTURES; . . . IN APPLYING SEC. 10(d) RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT IN THIS CASE; . . . IN ENTERTAINING RESPONDENTS [22] PETITION FOR REVIEW. The petition fails. While it is noted that respondent s appeal to the Court of Appeals was erroneously brought under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, instead of under Rule 41, the RTC having rendered the questioned decision in the exercise of its original, not appellate, jurisdiction, this Court overlooks the error in view of the [23] merits of respondents case. Petitioners contention that the enforcement of the Amended Order of Execution does not need a hearing and court order which Sec. 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requires does not lie. That an administrative agency which is clothed with quasi-judicial functions issued the Amended Order of Execution is of no moment, since the requirement in Sec. 10 (d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court echoes the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be [24] denied the equal protection of the laws. Antipolo Realty Corporation v. National Housing Authority teaches:

2.

x x x the power to order the sheriff to remove improvements and turn over the possession of the land to the party adjudged entitled thereto, belongs only to the courts of justice and not to the Bureau of [29] Lands. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In fine, it is the court sheriff which is empowered to remove improvements introduced by respondents on, and turn over possession of, the lot to Narcisa. Petitioners invocation of the City Mayor s authority under Sec. 455(b) 3(vi) of the Local Government Code to order the demolition or removal of an illegally constructed house, building, or structure within the period prescribed by law or ordinance and their allegation that respondents structures [30] were constructed without building permits were not raised before the trial court. Petitioners having, for the first time, invoked said section of the Local Government Code and respondents lack of building entry permits in their Motion for Reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision, it was correctly [31] denied of merit, it being settled that matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the proceedings below will ordinarily not be considered by a [32] reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The questioned Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Page | 8

3.

G.R. No. 162070. October 19, 2005. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by SECRETARY JOSE MARI B. PONCE (OIC), petitioner, vs. DELIA T. SUTTON, ELLA T. SUTTON-SOLIMAN and HARRY T. SUTTON, respondents. PUNO, J.: This is a petition for review filed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated September 19, 2003 and February 4, 2004, respectively, which declared DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 9, series of 1993, null and void for being violative of the Constitution. The case at bar involves a land in Aroroy, Masbate, inherited by respondents which has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding. On October 26, 1987, pursuant to the then existing agrarian reform program of the [1] government, respondents made a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) their landholdings to petitioner DAR to avail of certain incentives under the law. On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, took effect. It included in its coverage farms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine. On December 4, 1990, in an en banc decision in the case of Luz [2] Farms v. Secretary of DAR, this Court ruled that lands devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land. Hence, we declared as unconstitutional certain provisions of the CARL insofar as they included livestock farms in the coverage of agrarian reform. In view of the Luz Farms ruling, respondents filed with petitioner DAR a formal request to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and thus exempted from the coverage of the [3] CARL. On December 21, 1992, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Aroroy, Masbate, inspected respondents land and found that it was devoted solely to cattle-raising and breeding. He recommended to the DAR Secretary that it be exempted from the coverage of the CARL. On April 27, 1993, respondents reiterated to petitioner DAR the withdrawal of their VOS and requested the return of the supporting papers they [4] submitted in connection therewith. Petitioner ignored their request. On December 27, 1993, DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series of [5] 1993, which provided that only portions of private agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock, poultry and swine as of June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of the CARL. In determining the area of land to be excluded, the A.O. fixed the following retention limits, viz: 1:1 animal-land ratio (i.e., 1 hectare of land per 1 head of animal shall be retained by the landowner), and a ratio of 1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure for every 21 heads of cattle shall likewise be excluded from the operations of the CARL. On February 4, 1994, respondents wrote the DAR Secretary and advised him to consider as final and irrevocable the withdrawal of their VOS as, under [6] the Luz Farms doctrine, their entire landholding is exempted from the CARL. On September 14, 1995, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao issued an [7] Order partially granting the application of respondents for exemption from the coverage of CARL. Applying the retention limits outlined in the DAR A.O. No. 9, petitioner exempted 1,209 hectares of respondents land for grazing purposes, and a maximum of 102.5635 hectares for infrastructure. Petitioner ordered the rest of respondents landholding to be segregated and placed under Compulsory Acquisition. Respondents moved for reconsideration. They contend that their entire landholding should be exempted as it is devoted exclusively to cattle-

raising. Their motion was denied. They filed a notice of appeal with the Office of the President assailing: (1) the reasonableness and validity of DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, which provided for a ratio between land and livestock in determining the land area qualified for exclusion from the CARL, and (2) the constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, in view of the Luz Farms case which declared cattle-raising lands excluded from the coverage of agrarian reform. On October 9, 2001, the Office of the President affirmed the impugned [10] Order of petitioner DAR. It ruled that DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, does not run counter to the Luz Farms case as the A.O. provided the guidelines to determine whether a certain parcel of land is being used for cattle-raising. However, the issue on the constitutionality of the assailed A.O. was left for the determination of the courts as the sole arbiters of such issue. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents. It declared DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, void for being contrary to the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the land reform program of the government. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1993 is hereby DECLARED null and void. The assailed order of the Office of the President dated 09 October 2001 in so far as it affirmed the Department of Agrarian Reform s ruling that petitioners landholding is covered by the agrarian reform program of the government is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. Hence, this petition. The main issue in the case at bar is the constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which prescribes a maximum retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising. Invoking its rule-making power under Section 49 of the CARL, petitioner submits that it issued DAR A.O. No. 9 to limit the area of livestock farm that may be retained by a landowner pursuant to its mandate to place all public and private agricultural lands under the coverage of agrarian reform. Petitioner also contends that the A.O. seeks to remedy reports that some unscrupulous landowners have converted their agricultural farms to livestock farms in order to evade their coverage in the agrarian reform program. Petitioner s arguments fail to impress. Administrative agencies are endowed with powers legislative in nature, i.e., the power to make rules and regulations. They have been granted by Congress with the authority to issue rules to regulate the implementation of a law entrusted to them. Delegated rule-making has become a practical necessity in modern governance due to the increasing complexity and variety of public functions. However, while administrative rules and regulations have the [12] They may force and effect of law, they are not immune from judicial review. be properly challenged before the courts to ensure that they do not violate the Constitution and no grave abuse of administrative discretion is committed by the administrative body concerned. The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid, administrative rules and regulations must be issued by authority of a law [13] The ruleand must not contravene the provisions of the Constitution. making power of an administrative agency may not be used to abridge the authority given to it by Congress or by the Constitution. Nor can it be used to enlarge the power of the administrative agency beyond the scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative agencies [14] and the scope of their regulations. In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms Page | 9
[11]

[8]

[9]

by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry- raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of agriculture or agricultural activity. The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, antipollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and [15] other technological appurtenances. Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O. The subsequent case of Natalia Realty, Inc. v. DAR reiterated our ruling in the Luz Farms case. In Natalia Realty, the Court held that industrial, [17] We stressed commercial and residential lands are not covered by the CARL. anew that while Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the CARL shall cover all public and private agricultural lands, the term agricultural land does not include lands classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial. Thus, in Natalia Realty, even portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision, which are arable yet still undeveloped, could not be considered as agricultural lands subject to agrarian reform as these lots were already classified as residential lands. A similar logical deduction should be followed in the case at bar. Lands devoted to raising of livestock, poultry and swine have been classified as industrial, not agricultural, lands and thus exempt from agrarian reform. Petitioner DAR argues that, in issuing the impugned A.O., it was seeking to address the reports it has received that some unscrupulous landowners have been converting their agricultural lands to livestock farms to avoid their coverage by the agrarian reform. Again, we find neither merit nor logic in this contention. The undesirable scenario which petitioner seeks to prevent with the issuance of the A.O. clearly does not apply in this case. Respondents family acquired their landholdings as early as 1948. They have long been in the business of breeding cattle in Masbate which is popularly [18] known as the cattle-breeding capital of the Philippines. Petitioner DAR does not dispute this fact. Indeed, there is no evidence on record that respondents have just recently engaged in or converted to the business of breeding cattle after the enactment of the CARL that may lead one to suspect that respondents intended to evade its coverage. It must be stressed that what the CARL prohibits is the conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes after the effectivity of the CARL. There has been no change of business interest in the case of respondents. Moreover, it is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that the reenactment of a statute by Congress without substantial change is an implied legislative approval and adoption of the previous law. On the other hand, by [19] making a new law, Congress seeks to supersede an earlier one. In the case at bar, after the passage of the 1988 CARL, Congress enacted R.A. No. [20] 7881 which amended certain provisions of the CARL. Specifically, the new law changed the definition of the terms agricultural activity and commercial farming by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted to [21] With this significant commercial livestock, poultry and swine-raising. modification, Congress clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the coverage of agrarian reform. In sum, it is doctrinal that rules of administrative bodies must be in harmony with the provisions of the Constitution. They cannot amend or extend the Constitution. To be valid, they must conform to and be consistent with the Constitution. In case of conflict between an administrative order and the [22] provisions of the Constitution, the latter prevails. The assailed A.O. of petitioner DAR was properly stricken down as unconstitutional as it enlarges the
[16]

coverage of agrarian reform beyond the scope intended by the 1987 Constitution. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated September 19, 2003 and February 4, 2004, respectively, are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Page | 10

A.C. No. 4634. September 24, 1997] JESUS CABARRUS, JR., Complainant, vs. JOSE ANTONIO BERNAS, Respondents. DECISION TORRES, JR., J.: On August 30, 1996, Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed and administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for alleged violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and Code of professional Resposibility. In his 1 complaint-affidavit dated August 12, 1996, complainant alleged as follows: A.That on April 16, 1996, respondent Ramon B. Pascual, Jr., subscribe under oath before Marie Lourdes T. Sia Bernas, a notary public in Makati City, wife of lawyer jose Antonio Bernas, a verification and certification of non-forum shopping which was appended to a complaint for reconveyance of property and damages, denominated as Civil Case No. 65646, filed before the Regional Trial Court in National Capital Region, RTC, which case was raffled to RTC Branch 159 in Pasig City. A photocopy of said complaint is hereto attached and marked as Annexex (sic) A, A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6; B.That as basis for the instant complaint for falsification of public document, I am hereto quoting verbatim, the test (sic) of Annex A-6, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping which states: Ramon B. Pascual, Jr., under oath, depose and states: He is the plaintiff in this case, and certify that he cause the preparation of the foregoing pleading, the content of which are true to his personal knowledge and that he has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court, including the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency. If he should learn that a similar action of (sic) proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court or any other Tribunal agency, he undertake to report to (sic) that the fact within Five (5) days from the notice to this notice (sic) to this Honorable Court. Underscoring supplied. C.That the cause of action relied upon by the respondents in Civil Case No. 65646 is fraud, facilitated by forgery as gleaned from paragraph 15, 16, and 22; D.That contrary to the tenor, import and meanoing (sic) of the allegation under 1-B of the instant complaint, respondent and his counsel Jose Antonio Bernas caused the preparation and filing of a criminal complaint for falsification of a public document on April 11, 1996, (three days before the filing of the aforecited Civil Case) at the AOED of the National Bureau of Investigation if (sic) Taff (sic) Ave., a xerox copy of said complaint is hereto attached and marked as Annex B. D-1.That as stated in Annex B, the gravaman of the affidavit complaint of the respondent is forgery, the same legal issue in Civil Case No. 65646; D-2.That as early as August 14, 1995, respondent counsel, Jose Antonio Bernas filed a written complaint at the NBI for the same cause of action which was reiterated in another letter submitting to the NBI standard specimen signitures dated October 1995, copies of said letter complaint are hereto attached and marked as Annexes (sic) C. E. That respondent Ramon B. Pascual, Jr., on the basis of Annexes A, B, C, D, inclusive of submarkings knowingly subverted and perverted the truth when he falsify certified (sic) and verified under oath in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, that: He has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court, including the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other Tribunal or agency. Where verification-certification was placed under oath and was conveniently notarized by the wife of the counsel of respondent in both cases at Branch 159 of the RTC in Pasig and at the NBI, an agency within

the ambis (sic) and purview of the circulus (sic) of the Supreme Court prohibiting forum shopping. F. That Jose Antonio Bernas, the counsel on record of the respondents in Civil Case No. 65646 is the same lawyer who instigated a criminal complaint at the NBI for forgery and respondents themselves conspired and confabulated with each other in facilitating and insuring the open, blatant and deliberate violation of Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code which states: Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents.- The penalty of prison correctional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than p 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange (sic) or any other kind of commercial documents; and 2. Any person who, to the damage of the third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article. Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree. G. That Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas should be disbarred for having instigated abetted and facilitated the perversion and subversion of truth in the said verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Contrary to Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, Canon 10 of the code of Professional responsibility for Lawyers, the pertinent provisions of which are herein below quoted and a copy of said code is hereto attached and marked as Annex E; CANON 1. A. LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in lawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful (sic) conduct. Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities simed (sic) at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. CANON 3 A. LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OF (sic) STATEMENT OF FACTS. Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualified (sic) or legal services. CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. In his Comment, respondents Jose Antonio Bernas avers that he has not committed forum shopping because the criminal action is not an action that involves the same issue as those in the civil action and both suits can exist without constituting forum shopping so long as the civil aspect has not yet been prosecuted in the criminal case. He emphasized that forum shopping only exist when identical reliefs are issued by the same parties in multiple fora. In his Supplemental Comment, respondent further contends that neither he or his client Pascual has commenced any criminal action. Pascual merely requested the NBI to assist in the investigation or prosecution, and left it to the NBI to determine whether the filing of an endorsement to the prosecutor, who would determine probable caused, would be appropriate. It was only upon request of the NBI the he assisted Ramon Pascual in drafting an affidavit-complaint for falsification of public documents against complainant. Likewise, respondent by Page | 11
3 2

counsel reiterates that the letter transmitted to the NBI cannot constitute an action or proceeding because the NBIs functions are merely investigatory and informational in nature. NBI has no prosecutorial functions or quasi-judicial power and is incapable of granting relief or remedy. The NBI cannot be an agency contemplated by the circular. The core issue to be resolved here is whether respondent Atty. Bernas transgressed Circular No. 28-91, Revised Circular No. 28-91, and administrative Circular No. 04-94 on forum shopping. After a careful scrutiny of the records, we find the administrative complaint bereft of merit and should be dismissed. There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. Therefore, a party to a case resort to forum shopping because by filling another petition involving the same essential facts and circumstances, xxx, respondents approached two different for a in order to increase their chances 4 of obtaining a favorable decision or action, In this case, there is no forum shopping to speak of Atty. Bernas, as counsel of Mr. Pascual, Jr., merely requested the assistance of the NBI to investigate the the alleged fraud and 5 forgery committed by Mr. Jesus Cabarrus. The filing of the civil case for conveyance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City does not preclude respondent to institute a criminal action. The rule allows the filing of a civil case independently with the criminal case without violating the circulars on forum shopping. It is scarcely necessary to add that Circular No. 28-91 must be so interpreted and applied as to achieve the purposes projected by the Supreme Court when it promulgated that Circular No. 28-91 was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure-which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as 6 possible. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Adjunct to this, Act No. 157 , specifically section 1 hereof provides, viz: Section 1. There is hereby created a Bureau of Investigation under the Department of Justice which shall have the following functions: (a) To undertake investigation of crimes and other offenses against the laws of the Philippines, upon its initiative and as public interest may require; (b) To render assistance, whenever properly requested in the investigation or detection of crimes and other offenses; (c) To act as a national clearing house of criminal and other infromations for the benefit and use of the prosecuting and lawenforcement entities of the Philippines, identification records of all person without criminal convictions, records of identifying marks, characteristics, and ownership or possession of all firearms as well as bullets fired therefrom; (d) To give technical aid to all prosecuting and law-enforcement officers and entities of the Government as well as the courts that may request its services; (e) To extend its services, whenever properly requested in the investigation of cases of administrative or civil nature in which the Government is interested; (f) To undertake the instruction and training of representative number of city and municipal peace officers at the request of their respective superiors along effective methods of crime investigation and detection in order to insure greater efficiency in the discharge of their duties;
7

(g) To establish and maintain an up-to-date scientific crime laboratory and to conduct researches inn furtherance of scientific knowledge in criminal investigation; (h) To perform such other related function as the secretary of Justice may assign from time to time. Explicitly, the function of the National Bureau of Investigations are merely investigatory and informational in nature. It has no judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of granting any relief to a party. It cannot even determine probable cause. It is an investigative agency whose findings are merely recommendatory. It undertakes investigation of crimes upon its own initiative and as public welfare may require. It renders assistance when requested in the investigation or detection of crimes which precisely what Atty. Bernas sought in order to prosecute those person responsible for defrauding his client. The courts, tribunal and agencies referred to under Circular No. 28-91, revised Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 are those vested with judicial powers or quasi-judicial powers and those who not only hear and determine controversies between adverse parties, but to make binding orders or judgments. As succinctly put it by R.A. 157, the NBI is not performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The NBI cannot therefore be among those forums contemplated by the Circular that can entertain an action or proceeding, or even grant any relief, declaratory or otherwise. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

Page | 12

G.R. No. 148579 : February 5, 2007 GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, Respondent. DECISION CORONA, J.: Subject of this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the June 1 18, 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the January 7, 2000 2 order of respondent Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) which read:cra:nad In view thereof, the BOARD, by the undersigned, hereby imposes the administrative penalty of SUSPENSION FROM AIRING/BROADCASTING any program on EMC Channel 27 for a period of seven (7) days which period shall commence immediately upon receipt of this Order. Your failure to comply with this ORDER shall be construed by the BOARD as defiance on your part of a lawful order of the BOARD. The facts follow. Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages the UHF television station, EMC Channel 27. On January 7, 2000, respondent MTRCB issued an order of suspension against petitioner for airing "Muro Ami: The Making" without first securing a permit from it as provided in Section 7 of PD 3 1986. chanroblesvirtuallawlibary The penalty of suspension was based on Memorandum Circular 98-17 dated 4 December 15, 1998 which provided for the penalties for exhibiting a program without a valid permit from the MTRCB. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the suspension order and, at the same time, informed MTRCB that Channel 27 had complied with the suspension order by going off the air since midnight of January 11, 2000. It also filed a letterprotest which was merely "noted" by the MTRCB thereby, in effect, denying both the motion for reconsideration and letter-protest. Petitioner then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari which was dismissed in the now assailed June 18, 2001 decision. The January 7, 2000 suspension order issued by MTRCB was affirmed in toto. Hence, this recourse. The pivotal issues for our resolution are: (1) whether the MTRCB has the power or authority to review the show "Muro Ami: The Making" prior to its broadcast by television and (2) whether Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was enforceable and binding on petitioner. First, Section 3 of PD 1986 empowers the MTRCB to screen, review and examine all motion pictures, television programs including publicity materials. This power of prior review is highlighted in its Rules and Regulations, particularly Section 7 thereof, which reads:cra:nad SECTION 7. REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR REVIEW. -- No motion picture, television program or related publicity material shall be imported, exported, produced, copied, distributed, sold, leased, exhibited or broadcasted by television without prior permit issued by the BOARD after review of the motion picture, television program or publicity material. The only exemptions from the MTRCB's power of review are those expressly 6 mentioned in Section 7, such as (1) television programs imprinted or exhibited
5

by the Philippine Government and/or departments and agencies, and (2) newsreels. According to the CA, the subject program was a publicity for the movie, "Muro Ami." In adopting this finding, we hold that "Muro Ami: The Making," did not fall under any of the exemptions and was therefore within the power of review of MTRCB. On the other hand, petitioner claims that "Muro Ami: The Making" was a public 7 affairs program. Even if that were so, our resolution of this issue would not change. This Court has already ruled that a public affairs program -- described as a variety of news treatment; a cross between pure television news and newsrelated commentaries, analysis and/or exchange of opinions -- is within the 8 MTRCB's power of review. Clearly, "Muro Ami: The Making" (which petitioner claims to be a public affairs program) was well within the purview of MTRCB's power of prior review. However, while MTRCB had jurisdiction over the subject program, Memorandum Circular 98-17, which was the basis of the suspension order, was not binding on petitioner. The Administrative Code of 1987, particularly Section 3 thereof, expressly requires each agency to file with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center three certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Administrative issuances which are not published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be 9 enforced. chanroblesvirtuallawlibary Memorandum Circular No. 98-17, which provides for the penalties for the first, second and third offenses for exhibiting programs without valid permit to 10 exhibit, has not been registered with the ONAR as of January 27, 2000. Hence, 11 the same is yet to be effective. It is thus unenforceable since it has not been 12 filed in the ONAR. Consequently, petitioner was not bound by said circular and should not have been meted the sanction provided thereunder. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 18, 2001, insofar as it affirmed the public respondent Movie and Television Review and Classification Board's jurisdiction over "Muro Ami: The Making," is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the suspension order issued against petitioner GMA Network, Inc. pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 is hereby declared null and void. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Page | 13

G.R. No. L-63915 December 29, 1986 LORENZO M. TA;ADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI), petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President, MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents. RESOLUTION

ART. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication. After a careful study of this provision and of the arguments of the parties, both on the original petition and on the instant motion, we have come to the conclusion and so hold, that the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous publication. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended. An example, as pointed out by the present Chief Justice in his 6 separate concurrence in the original decision, is the Civil Code which did not become effective after fifteen days from its publication in the Official Gazette but "one year after such publication." The general rule did not apply because it was "otherwise provided. " It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed with altogether. The reason. is that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern the legislature could validly provide that a law e effective immediately upon its approval notwithstanding the lack of publication (or after an unreasonably short period after publication), it is not unlikely that persons not aware of it would be prejudiced as a result and they would be so not because of a failure to comply with but simply because they did not know of its existence, Significantly, this is not true only of penal laws as is commonly supposed. One can think of many non-penal measures, like a law on prescription, which must also be communicated to the persons they may affect before they can begin to operate. We note at this point the conclusive presumption that every person knows the law, which of course presupposes that the law has been published if the presumption is to have any legal justification at all. It is no less important to remember that Section 6 of the Bill of Rights recognizes "the right of the people to information on matters of public concern," and this certainly applies to, among others, and indeed especially, the legislative enactments of the government. The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. An example is a law granting citizenship to a particular individual, like a relative of President Marcos who was decreed instant naturalization. It surely cannot be said that such a law does not affect the public although it unquestionably does not apply directly to all the people. The subject of such law is a matter of public interest which any member of the body politic may question in the political forums or, if he is a proper party, even in the courts of justice. In fact, a law without any bearing on the public would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as anultra vires act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest even if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people only, and t to the public as a whole. We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. administrative rules and regulations must a also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation.

CRUZ, J.: Due process was invoked by the petitioners in demanding the disclosure of a number of presidential decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by law. The government argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was "otherwise provided," as when the decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon their approval. In the decision of this case on April 24, 1985, the Court affirmed the necessity for the publication of some of these decrees, declaring in the dispositive portion as follows: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect. The petitioners are now before us again, this time to move for 1 reconsideration/clarification of that decision. Specifically, they ask the following questions: 1. What is meant by "law of public nature" or "general applicability"? 2. Must a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which are not? 3. What is meant by "publication"? 4. Where is the publication to be made? 5. When is the publication to be made? Resolving their own doubts, the petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not; that publication means complete publication; and that the publication must be 2 made forthwith in the Official Gazette. In the Comment required of the then Solicitor General, he claimed first that the motion was a request for an advisory opinion and should therefore be dismissed, and, on the merits, that the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" in Article 2 of the Civil Code meant that the publication required therein was not always imperative; that publication, when necessary, did not have to be made in the Official Gazette; and that in any case the subject decision was concurred in only by three justices and consequently not binding. This elicited a 4 Reply refuting these arguments. Came next the February Revolution and the Court required the new Solicitor General to file a Rejoinder in view of the supervening events, under Rule 3, Section 18, of the Rules of Court. Responding, he submitted that issuances intended only for the internal administration of a government agency or for particular persons did not have to be 'Published; that publication when necessary must be in full and in the Official Gazette; and that, however, the decision under reconsideration was not binding because it was 5 not supported by eight members of this Court. The subject of contention is Article 2 of the Civil Code providing as follows:
3

Page | 14

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. Accordingly, even the charter of a city must be published notwithstanding that it applies to only a portion of the national territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of that place. All presidential decrees must be published, including even, say, those naming a public place after a favored individual or exempting him from certain prohibitions or requirements. The circulars issued by the Monetary Board must be published if they are meant not merely to interpret but to "fill in the details" of the Central Bank Act which that body is supposed to enforce. However, no publication is required of the instructions issued by, say, the Minister of Social Welfare on the case studies to be made in petitions for adoption or the rules laid down by the head of a government agency on the assignments or workload of his personnel or the wearing of office uniforms. Parenthetically, municipal ordinances are not covered by this rule but by the Local Government Code. We agree that publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. As correctly pointed out by the petitioners, the mere mention of the number of the presidential decree, the title of such decree, its whereabouts (e.g., "with Secretary Tuvera"), the supposed date of effectivity, and in a mere supplement of the Official Gazette cannot satisfy the publication requirement. This is not even substantial compliance. This was the manner, incidentally, in which the General Appropriations Act for FY 1975, a presidential decree undeniably of general 7 applicability and interest, was "published" by the Marcos administration. The evident purpose was to withhold rather than disclose information on this vital law. Coming now to the original decision, it is true that only four justices were 8 categorically for publication in the Official Gazette and that six others felt that publication could be made elsewhere as long as the people were sufficiently 9 10 informed. One reserved his vote and another merely acknowledged the 11 need for due publication without indicating where it should be made. It is therefore necessary for the present membership of this Court to arrive at a clear consensus on this matter and to lay down a binding decision supported by the necessary vote. There is much to be said of the view that the publication need not be made in the Official Gazette, considering its erratic releases and limited readership. Undoubtedly, newspapers of general circulation could better perform the function of communicating, the laws to the people as such periodicals are more easily available, have a wider readership, and come out regularly. The trouble, though, is that this kind of publication is not the one required or authorized by existing law. As far as we know, no amendment has been made of Article 2 of the Civil Code. The Solicitor General has not pointed to such a law, and we have no information that it exists. If it does, it obviously has not yet been published. At any rate, this Court is not called upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to repeal or modify it if we find it impractical. That is not our function. That function belongs to the legislature. Our task is merely to interpret and apply the law as conceived and approved by the political departments of the government in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Consequently, we have no choice but to pronounce that under Article 2 of the Civil Code, the publication of laws must be made in the Official Gazett and not elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity after fifteen days from such publication or after a different period provided by the legislature. We also hold that the publication must be made forthwith or at least as soon as possible, to give effect to the law pursuant to the said Article 2. There is that possibility, of course, although not suggested by the parties that a law could be rendered unenforceable by a mere refusal of the executive, for whatever reason, to cause its publication as required. This is a matter, however, that we do not need to examine at this time.

Finally, the claim of the former Solicitor General that the instant motion is a request for an advisory opinion is untenable, to say the least, and deserves no further comment. The days of the secret laws and the unpublished decrees are over. This is once again an open society, with all the acts of the government subject to public scrutiny and available always to public cognizance. This has to be so if our country is to remain democratic, with sovereignty residing in the people and all government authority emanating from them. Although they have delegated the power of legislation, they retain the authority to review the work of their delegates and to ratify or reject it according to their lights, through their freedom of expression and their right of suffrage. This they cannot do if the acts of the legislature are concealed. Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets. Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding unless their existence and contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full disclosure and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that cannot feint parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn. WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared that all laws as above defined shall immediately upon their approval, or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after fifteen days from their publication, or on another date specified by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code. SO ORDERED.

Page | 15

G.R. No. L-15138

July 31, 1961

BILL MILLER, petitioner-appellee, vs. ATANACIO A. MARDO, and MANUEL GONZALES, respondents-appellants. x---------------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. L-15377 July 31, 1961

NUMERIANA RAGANAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SEN BEE TRADING COMPANY, MACARIO TAN, and SERGIO TAN, defendantsappellees. x---------------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. L-16660 July 31, 1961

and Gonzales to answer and, as prayed for, issued a writ of preliminary injunction. The latter file their separate motions to dismiss the petition, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, it being argued that pursuant to Republic Acts Nos. 997 and 1241, as implemented by Executive Order No. 218, series of 1956 and Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, regional offices of the Department of labor have exclusive and original jurisdiction over all cases affecting money claims arising from violations of labor standards or working conditions. Said motions to dismiss were denied by the court. Answers were then filed and the case was heard. Thereafter, the court rendered a decision holding that Republic Acts Nos. 997 and 1241, as well as Executive Order No. 218, series of 1956 and Reorganization Plan No. 20-A issued pursuant thereto, did not repeal the provision of the Judiciary Act conferring on courts of first instance original jurisdiction to take cognizance of money claims arising from violations of labor standards. The question of venue was also dismissed for being moot, the same having been already raised and decided in a petition for certiorari and prohibition previously filed with this Court in G.R. No. L-14007 (Mardo, etc. v. De Veyra, etc.) which was dismissed for lack of merit in our resolution of July 7, 1958. From the decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio, respondents Hearing Officer and Gonzales interposed the present appeal now before us. In G.R. No. L-16781, Cresencio Estano filed with Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor, a complaint (RO 3 Ls. Case No. 874) against Chin Hua Trading Co. and/or Lao Kang Suy and Ke Bon Chiong, as Manager and Assistant Manager thereof, respectively, claiming to have been their driver from June 17, 1947 to June 4, 1955, for which service he was not paid overtime pay (for work in excess of 8 hours and for Sundays and legal holidays) and vacation leave pay. He prayed for judgment for the amount due him, plus attorney's fees. Chin Hua Trading, et al., filed their answer and, issues having been joined, hearing thereof was started before Chief Hearing Officer Atanacio Mardo and Hearing Officer Jorge Benedicto. Before trial of the case could be terminated, however, Chin Hua Trading, et al., filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. 26826)), to restrain the hearing officers from proceeding with the disposition of the case, on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to entertain the same, as Reorganization Plan No. 20-A and Executive Order No. 218, series of 1956, in relation to Republic Act No. 997, as amended by Republic Act No. 1241, empowering them to adjudicate the complaint, is invalid or unconstitutional. As prayed for, a preliminary injunction was issued by the court. After due hearing the court rendered a decision holding that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A is null and void and therefore, granted the writ of prohibition making permanent the preliminary injunction previously issued. From this decision, the claimant and the hearing officers appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to us, as it involves only questions of law. In G.R. No. L-15377, appellant Numeriana Raganas filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu a complaint (Civil Case No. R-5535) against appellees Sen Bee Trading Company, Macario Tan and Sergio Tan, claiming that she was employed by appellees as a seamstress from June 5, 1952 to January 11, 1958, for which service she was underpaid and was not given overtime, as well as vacation and sick leave pay. She prayed for judgment on the amount due her for the same plus damages. To said complaint, appellees filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear the case as it involves a money claim and should, under Reorganization Plan No. 20-A be filed with the Regional Office of the Department of Labor; and there is pending before the regional office of the Department of Labor, a claim for separation vacation, sick and maternity leave pay filed by the same plaintiff (appellant) against the same defendants-appellees). Acting on said motion, the court dismissed the case, relying on the provision of Section 25, Article VI of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A and on our resolution in the case of NASSCO v. Arca, et al. (G.R. No. L-12249, May 6, 1957). From this order, appellant Raganas appealed to the Court of Appeals, but said court certified the case to us. In G.R. No. L-16660, Vicente B. Romero filed with Regional Officer No. 2 of the Department of Labor a complaint (Wage Case No. 196-W) against Sia Seng, for recovery of alleged unpaid wages, overtime and separation pay. Sia Seng, filed an answer. At the date set for hearing the latter did not appear despite due notice to him and counsel. Upon his petition, Romero was allowed to present his evidence. Thereafter, a decision was rendered by the Hearing Officer in favor of Romero. Upon the latter's motion for execution, the records of the case were referred to Regional Labor Administrator Angel Hernando for issuance of Page | 16

VICENTE ROMERO, petitioner-appellee, vs. ANGEL HERNANDO ETC., and SIA SENG, respondents-appellants. x---------------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. L-16781 July 31, 1961

CHIN HUA TRADING COMPANY, and LAO KANG SUY, petitioners-appellees, vs. ATANACIO A. MARDO, JORGE BENEDICTO, and CRESENCIO ESTAO, respondents-appellants. x---------------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. L-17056 July 31, 1961

FRED WILSON & CO., INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. MELITON C. PARDUCHO, ETC., and MARIANO PABILIARE, respondentsappellees. R. L. Resurreccion for Paciano C. C. Villavieja for respondents-appellants. BARRERA, J.: These appeals, although originating from different Courts of First Instance, are here treated together in this single decision because they present but one identical question of law, namely, the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, prepared and submitted by the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission under the authority of Republic Act No. 997, as amended by Republic Act No. 1241, insofar as it confers jurisdiction to the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor created in said Plan to decide claims of laborers for wages, overtime and separation pay, etc. In G.R. No. L-15138, Manuel Gonzales filed with Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor, in Manila, a complaint (IS-1148) against Bill Miller (owner and manager of Miller Motors) claiming to be a driver of Miller from December 1, 1956 to October 31, 1957, on which latter date he was allegedly arbitrarily dismissed, without being paid separation pay. He prayed for judgement for the amount due him as separation pay plus damages. Upon receipt of said complaint, Chief Hearing Officer Atanacio Mardo of Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor required Miller to file an answer. Whereupon, Miller filed with the Court of First Instance of Baguio a petition (Civil Case No. 759) praying for judgment prohibiting the Hearing Officer from proceeding with the case, for the reason that said Hearing Officer had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the subject matter of the complaint. The court then required the Hearing Officer petitioner-appellee.

said writ of execution, being the officer charged with the duty of issuing the same. Hernando, believing that Sia Seng should be given a chance to present his evidence, refused to issue the writ of execution and ordered a re-hearing. As a consequence, Romero filed with the Court of First Instance of Isabela a petition for mandamus (Case No. Br. II-35) praying that an order be issued commanding respondent Regional Labor Administrator to immediately issue a writ of execution of the decision in Wage Case No. 196-W. To this petition, respondent Regional Labor Administrator filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground that it states no cause of action, but action thereon was deferred until the case is decided on the merits. Sia Seng filed his answer questioning the validity of the rules and regulations issued under the authority of Reorganization Plan No. 20A. After hearing, the court rendered a decision ordering, inter alia, respondent Regional Labor Administrator to forthwith issue the corresponding writ of execution, as enjoined by Section 48, of the Rules and Regulations No. 1 of the Labor Standards Commission. From this decision of the Court of First Instance, Sia Seng and Regional Labor Administrator Hernando appealed to us. Appellant Sia Seng urges in his appeal that the trial court erred in not dismissing the petition, in spite of the fact that the decision sought to be enforced by appellee Romero was rendered by a hearing officer who had no authority to render the same, and in failing to hold that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A was not validly passed as a statute and is unconstitutional. In G.R. No. L-17056, Mariano Pabillare instituted in Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor a complaint (IS-2168) against petitioner Fred Wilson & Co., Inc., alleging that petitioner engaged his services as Chief Mechanic, Air conditioning Department, from October 1947 to February 19, 1959, when he was summarily dismissed without cause and without sufficient notice and separation pay. He also claimed that during his employment he was not paid for overtime rendered by him. He prayed for judgment for the amount due him for such overtime and separation pay. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that said regional office "being purely an administrative body, has no power, authority, nor jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim sought to be recovered in the action." Said motion to dismiss having been denied by respondent Hearing Officer Meliton Parducho, petitioner Fred Wilson & Co., Inc. filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for certiorariand prohibition, with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. 41954) to restrain respondent hearing officer from proceeding with the case, and praying, among others, that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, insofar as it vests original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims (to the exclusion of regular courts of justice) on the Labor Standards Commission or the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor, be declared null and void and unconstitutional. As prayed for, the court granted a writ of preliminary injunction. Respondents Hearing Officer and Pabillare filed answer and the case was heard. After hearing, the court rendered a decision declaring that "by the force of Section 6 of R.A. No. 997, as amended by R.A. 1241, Plan No. 20-A was deemed approved by Congress when it adjourned its session in 1956' (Res. of May 6, 1957 in National Shipyards Steel Corporation v. Vicente Area, G.R. No. L-12249). It follows that the questioned reorganization Plan No. 20-A is valid.". Petitioner Fred Wilson & Co., Inc. appealed directly to us from this decision. The specific legal provision invoked for the authority of the regional offices to take cognizance of the subject matter involved in these cases is paragraph 25 of Article VI of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, which is hereunder quoted: 25 Each regional office shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases falling under the Workmen's Compensation law, and cases affecting all money claims arising from violations of labor standards on working conditions including but not restrictive to: unpaid wages, underpayment, overtime, separation pay and maternity leave of employees and laborers; and unpaid wages, overtime, separation pay, vacation pay and payment for medical services of domestic help. Under this provision, the regional offices have been given original and exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) all cases falling under the Workmen's Compensation law;

(b) all cases affecting money claims arising from violations of labor standards on working conditions, unpaid wages, underpayment, overtime, separation pay and maternity leave of employees and laborers; and . (c) all cases for unpaid wages, overtime, separation pay, vacation pay and payment for medical services of domestic help. Before the effectivity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, however, the Department of Labor, except the Workmen's Compensation Commission with respect to claims for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation law, had no compulsory power to settle cases under (b) and (c) above, the only authority it had being to mediate merely or arbitrate when the parties so agree in writing, In case of refusal by a party to submit to such settlement, the remedy 1 is to file a complaint in the proper court. It is evident, therefore, that the jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases affecting money claims such as those sought to be enforced in these proceedings, is a new conferment of power to the Department of Labor not theretofore exercised by it. The question thus presented by these cases is whether this is valid under our Constitution and applicable statutes. It is true that in Republic Act No. 1241, amending Section 4 of Republic Act 997, which created the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission, the latter was empowered (2) To abolish departments, offices, agencies, or functions which may not be necessary, or create those which way be necessary for the efficient conduct of the government service, activities, and functions. (Emphasis supplied.) But these "functions" which could thus be created, obviously refer merely to administrative, not judicial functions. For the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission was created to carry out the reorganization of theExecutive Branch of the National Government (See Section 3 of R.A. No. 997, as amended by R.A. No. 1241), which plainly did not include the creation of courts. And the Constitution expressly provides that "the Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law.(Sec. 1, Art. VII of the Constitution). Thus, judicial power rests exclusively in the judiciary. It may be conceded that the legislature may confer on administrative boards or bodies quasi-judicial powers involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, as incident to the performance of administrative 2 functions. But in so doing, the legislature must state its intention in express terms that would leave no doubt, as even such quasi-judicial prerogatives must be limited, if they are to be valid, only to those incidental to or in connection with the performance of jurisdiction over a matter exclusively vested in the 3 courts. If a statute itself actually passed by the Congress must be clear in its terms when clothing administrative bodies with quasi-judicial functions, then certainly such conferment can not be implied from a mere grant of power to a body such as the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission to create "functions" in connection with the reorganization of the Executive Branch of the Government. And so we held in Corominas et al. v. Labor Standards Commission, et al. (G.R. No. L-14837 and companion cases, June 30, 1961); . . . it was not the intention of Congress, in enacting Republic Act No. 997, to authorize the transfer of powers and jurisdiction granted to the courts of justice, from these to the officials to be appointed or offices to be created by the Reorganization Plan. Congress is well aware of the provisions of the Constitution that judicial powers are vested 'only in the Supreme Court and in such courts as the law may establish'. The Commission was not authorized to create courts of justice, or to take away from these their jurisdiction and transfer said jurisdiction to the officials appointed or offices created under the Reorganization Plan. The Legislature could not have intended to grant such powers to the Reorganization Commission, an executive body, as the Legislature may not and cannot delegate its power to legislate or create courts of justice any Page | 17

other agency of the Government. (Chinese Flour Importers Assoc. vs. Price Stabilization Board, G.R. No. L-4465, July 12, 1951; Surigao Consolidated vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-5692, March 5, 1954; U.S. vs. Shreveport, 287 U.S. 77, 77 L. ed 175, and Johnson vs. San Diego, 42 P. 249, cited in 11 Am. Jur 921-922.) (Emphasis supplied.) But it is urged, in one of the cases, that the defect in the conferment of judicial or quasi-judicial functions to the Regional offices, emanating from the lack of authority of the Reorganization Commission has been cured by the nondisapproval of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A by Congress under the provisions of Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 997, as amended. It is, in effect, argued that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A is not merely the creation of the Reorganization Commission, exercising its delegated powers, but is in fact an act of Congress itself, a regular statute directly and duly passed by Congress in the exercise of its legislative powers in the mode provided in the enabling act. The pertinent provision of Republic Act No. 997, as amended, invoked in favor of this argument reads as follows: SEC. 6 (a) The provisions of the reorganization plan or plans submitted by the President during the Second Session of the Third Congress shall be deemed approved after the adjournment of the said session, and those of the plan or plans or modifications of any plan or plans to be submitted after the adjournment of the Second Session, shall be deemed approved after the expiration of the seventy session days of the Congress following the date on which the plan is transmitted to it, unless between the date of transmittal and the expiration of such period, either House by simple resolution disapproves the reorganization plan or any, modification thereof. The said plan of reorganization or any modification thereof may, likewise, be approved by Congress in a concurrent Resolution within such period. It is an established fact that the Reorganization Commission submitted Reorganization Plan No. 20-A to the President who, in turn, transmitted the same to Congress on February 14, 1956. Congress adjourned its sessions without passing a resolution disapproving or adopting the said reorganization plan. It is now contended that, independent of the matter of delegation of legislative authority (discussed earlier in this opinion), said plan, nevertheless became a law by non-action on the part of Congress, pursuant to the abovequoted provision. Such a procedure of enactment of law by legislative in action is not countenanced in this jurisdiction. By specific provision of the Constitution No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and copies thereof in its final form furnished the Members at least three calendar clays prior to its passage by the National Assembly (Congress), except when the President shall have certified to the necessity of its immediate enactment. Upon the last reading of a bill no amendment thereof shall be allowed, and the question upon its final passage shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered on the Journal. (Sec. 21-[a], Art. VI). Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large on its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members voting for and against shall be entered on its journal. If any bill shall not be returned by the President as herein provided within twenty days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall become a law in like manner as if he has signed it, unless the Congress by adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall become a law unless vetoed by the President within thirty days after adjournment. (Sec. 20[1]. Art. VI of the Constitution).

A comparison between the procedure of enactment provided in section 6 (a) of the Reorganization Act and that prescribed by the Constitution will show that the former is in distinct contrast to the latter. Under the first, consent or approval is to be manifested by silence or adjournment or by "concurrent resolution." In either case, the contemplated procedure violates the constitutional provisions requiring positive and separate action by each House of Congress. It is contrary to the "settled and well-understood parliamentary law (which requires that the) two houses are to hold separate sessions for their deliberations, and the determination of the one upon a proposed law is to be submitted to the separate determination of the other," (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., p. 187). Furthermore, Section 6 (a) of the Act would dispense with the "passage" of any measure, as that word is commonly used and understood, and with the requirement presentation to the President. In a sense, the section, if given the effect suggested in counsel's argument, would be a reversal of the democratic processes required by the Constitution, for under it, the President would propose the legislative action by action taken by Congress. Such a procedure would constitute a very dangerous precedent opening the way, if Congress is so disposed, because of weakness or indifference, to eventual abdication of its legislative prerogatives to the Executive who, under our Constitution, is already one of the strongest among constitutional heads of state. To sanction such a procedure will be to strike at the very root of the tri-departmental scheme four democracy. Even in the United States (in whose Federal Constitution there is no counterpart to the specific method of passaging laws prescribed in Section 21[2] of our Constitution) and in England (under whose parliamentary system the Prime Minister, real head of the Government, is a member of Parliament), the procedure outlined in Section 6(a) herein before quoted, is but a technique adopted in the delegation of the rule-making power, to preserve the control of the legislature and its share in the responsibility for the adoption of proposed 4 regulations. The procedure has ever been intended or utilized or interpreted as another mode of passing or enacting any law or measure by the legislature, as seems to be the impression expressed in one these cases. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, we hold ad declare that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, insofar as confers judicial power to the Regional Offices over cases other than these falling under the Workmen's Compensation on Law, is invalid and of no effect. This ruling does not affect the resolution of this Court in the case of National Steel & Shipyards Corporation v. Arca et al., G.R. No. L-12249, dated May 6, 1957, considering that the said case refers to a claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commission, which exercised quasi-judicial powers even before the reorganization of the Department of Labor. WHEREFORE (a) The decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio involved in case G.R. No. L-15138 is hereby affirmed, without costs; (b) The decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila questioned in case G.R. No. L-16781 is hereby affirmed, without costs; (c) The order of dismissal issued by the Court of First Instance of Cebu appealed from in case G.R. No. L-15377 is set aside and the case remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings, without costs; (d) In case G.R. No. L-16660, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, directing the Regional Labor Administrator to issue a writ of execution of the order of the Regional Office No. 2, is hereby reversed, without costs; and . (e) In case G.R. No. L-17056, the decision rendered after hearing by the Court of First Instance of Manila, dismissing the complaint for annulment of the proceedings before the Regional office No. 3, is hereby reversed and the preliminary injunction at first issued by the trial court is revived and made permanents without costs. SO ORDERED. Page | 18

FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 147525 : February 26, 2007 BONIFACIO ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR OF THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION OFFICE OF PAMPANGA andMARIA QUIBULOY, Respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.: Under review are the January 14, 1994 decision and June 01, 2000 2 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 502 UDK. The CA dismissed petitioner Bonifacio Espinoza's petition for certiorari imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the provincial adjudicator of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Office (PARAD) of San Fernando, Pampanga in deciding DARAB Case No. 203-P-90. The events leading to this petition for review on certiorari stemmed from an 3 agrarian dispute before the PARAD, San Fernando, Pampanga. A complaint for ejectment was filed against petitioner by private respondent Maria V. Quibuloy, as co-owner and administratrix of three parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3676. She alleged that petitioner had reneged on his obligations as tenant to pay the rent and till the subject landholding. Instead of answering the complaint, petitioner moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. He cited Section 1, Rule III of the 1989 Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (1989 DARAB Rules), providing for conciliation proceedings before the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) prior to initiating the case. He contended that presentation of a certification from the BARC, attesting that the dispute had been submitted to it for mediation or conciliation without any success of settlement, was a jurisdictional requirement. On that note, he concluded that the provincial adjudicator could not take cognizance of the agrarian dispute due to Quibuloy's failure to present the required certificate. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was set on November 7, 1990. On the said date, petitioner or his counsel failed to appear, hence the motion was 5 submitted for resolution. chanroblesvirtuallawlibary Without issuing a ruling on petitioner's motion, the provincial adjudicator set the case for hearing on May 22, 1991. Again, neither petitioner nor his counsel attended the hearing. Thus, Quibuloy was allowed to present her evidence ex6 parte. Thereafter, the dispute was ordered submitted for decision. cra Just before the decision was rendered, petitioner filed his answer assailing Quibuloy's personality to bring suit. Petitioner also offered unsubstantiated denials of Quibuloy's charges. As his defense, he denied allegations of nonpayment of rents and non-tillage of the land for lack of knowledge and information to form a belief as to the veracity thereof. The provincial adjudicator was sufficiently convinced that Quibuloy's allegations were true and correct. Accordingly, he decided the case against 7 petitioner. cra Instead of immediately appealing from the adjudicator's decision, petitioner allowed the reglementary period to lapse. Thereafter, he filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The appellate court dismissed the petition as "unavailing and vacuous." It reiterated the well-settled rule thatcertiorari lies only in cases of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. It stressed that certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal. Now, petitioner comes to us with practically a rehash of the issues already raised in the CA, to wit: I.
8 4 1

WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR OF THE [PARAD] OF PAMPANGA IS CORRECT IN PROCEEDING WITH DARAB CASE NO. 203-P-90 WITHOUT FIRST COMPLYING WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1, RULE III OF THE [1989] DARAB REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE. II. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR OF THE [PARAD] OF PAMPANGA IS CORRECT IN DECIDING DARAB CASE NO. 203-P-90 WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS. III. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER'S ANSWER TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S COMPLAINT IN DARAB CASE NO. 203-P-90 WAS FILED OUT OF TIME AND IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SAME. IV. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT IS CORRECT IN DECIDING DARAB CASE NO. 203-P-90 IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE SELFSERVING AFFIDAVIT OF THE LATTER AND HER LONE WITNESS CONSIDERING HER FAILURE TO PRESENT THE TITLE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION (TCT NO. 3676) OR ANY DOCUMENT TO SHOW HER AUTHORITY TO ACT AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SAME. V. WHETHER OR NOT THE [CA's] DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI 9 AND DENIAL OF [PETITIONER'S] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS PROPER. We deny the petition. A special civil action of certiorari is an independent action, raising the question of jurisdiction where the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave 10 abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The ultimate purpose of such action is to keep an inferior tribunal within the bounds of its 11 jurisdiction or relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts. cra A petition forcertiorari was never meant as a mode of reviewing errors of judgment committed by an inferior tribunal. Thus, it has been settled that the remedy of certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal lost by the party entitled thereto 12 especially if the right of appeal was lost through negligence. When the remedy of appeal is available but is lost due to petitioner's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies, resort to certiorari is precluded. Under the 1989 DARAB Rules, an aggrieved party may appeal the decision of a provincial adjudicator to the Adjudication Board within 15 days from receipt. In this case, petitioner allowed the appeal period to lapse and instead filed a petition for certiorari in the CA roughly three months after the assailed decision was rendered. It is evident that the CA acted on the petition properly. Even if, in the greater interest of substantial justice, certiorari may be availed of, it must be shown that the adjudicator acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, that is, that the adjudicator exercised his powers in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostilities, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of 14 law. chanroblesvirtuallawlibary As correctly found by the appellate court, there is no showing that errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion were committed by public respondent. On the first assigned error, the 1989 DARAB Rules exempted parties residing in 15 non-adjoining barangays from presenting the BARC certification. Since it is Page | 19
13

undisputed that Quibuloy resided in San Nicolas 1ST, Lubao, Pampanga while petitioner stayed in San Agustin, Lubao, Pampanga, the former was not required to present the BARC certification before the adjudicator taking cognizance of the agrarian dispute. Needless to say, the provincial adjudicator did not err in entertaining the dispute notwithstanding the absence of the BARC certification. On the second issue, administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions are not bound by technical rules followed in courts of law. The adjudicator is given enough latitude, subject to the essential requirements of administrative due process, to be able to expeditiously ascertain the facts of the agrarian 16 dispute. chanroblesvirtuallawlibary While there may have been a technical lapse on the part of the adjudicator in disposing of the motion to dismiss, the assailed acts of the adjudicator did not amount to a grave abuse of discretion justifying a writ of certiorari . Considering the technical flexibility afforded to agrarian adjudicators, the order may easily be construed as a denial of the motion to dismiss. What would have been the prudent recourse under the rules was to submit an answer immediately, participate in the hearing and appeal an adverse decision. Sadly, petitioner failed to do any of these. It is now too late for him to dispute the adjudicator's decision. Moving on to the third assignment of error, we hold that petitioner's answer was indeed filed out of time. While the 1989 DARAB Rules provides that the non-answering respondent (petitioner) may be allowed to belatedly file his answer, it also provides that the answer should be filed before the matter is submitted for decision. Here, petitioner submitted his answer after the case was submitted for decision. Lastly, on the fourth assignment of error, it cannot be overemphasized that only errors of jurisdiction may be reviewed by the CA in a petition for certiorari . "Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same 17 is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari ." cra In sum, the petition failed to prove that the CA committed any reversible error in denying petitioner's petition for certiorari as well as his motion for reconsideration. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

Page | 20

G.R. No. L-29169

August 19, 1968

person "to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction." This rule may apply even to a co-defendant in a joint trial. 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRECEPT. The guide in the interpretation of the constitutional precept that the accused shall not be compelled to furnish evidence against himself "is not the probability of the evidence but the capability of abuse." 6. ID.; ID.; ID.; WAIVER OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION; MEANING; REQUIREMENTS OF WAIVER. "To be effective, a waiver must be certain and unequivocal, and intelligently, understandably, and willingly made; such waiver follows only where liberty of choice has been fully accorded. After a claim a witness cannot properly be held to have waived his privilege on vague and uncertain evidence. A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. 7. ID.; ID.; ID.; VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IS JURISDICTIONAL BAR. A court's jurisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost in the course of the proceedings due to failure to complete the court as the Sixth Amendment requires by providing Counsel for an accused who is unable to obtain Counsel, who has not intelligently waived this constitutional guarantee, and whose life or liberty is at stake. If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas corpus. 8. ID.; ID.; ID.; HABEAS CORPUS AS REMEDY WHERE THERE IS BREACH. Habeas Corpus is a high prerogative writ. It is traditionally considered as an exceptional remedy to release a person whose liberty is illegally restrained such as when the accused's constitutional rights are disregarded. Such defect results in the absence or loss of jurisdiction and therefore invalidates the trial and consequent conviction of the accused whose fundamental right was violated. That void judgment of conviction may be challenged by collateral attack, which precisely is the function of habeas corpus. This writ may issue even if another remedy which is less effective may be availed of by the defendant. Thus, failure by the accused to perfect his appeal before the Court of Appeals does not preclude a recourse to the writ. The writ may be granted upon a judgment already final. The writ of habeas corpus as an extraordinary remedy must be liberally given effect so as to protect well a person whose liberty is at stake. SANCHEZ, J.: The thrust of petitioner's case presented in his original and supplementary petitions invoking jurisdiction of this Court is that he is entitled, on habeas corpus, to be freed from imprisonment upon the ground that in the trial which 1 resulted in his conviction he was denied his constitutional right not to be compelled to testify against himself. There is his prayer, too, that, should he fail in this, he be granted the alternative remedies of certiorari to strike down the two resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing his appeal for failure to file brief, and of mandamus to direct the said court to forward his appeal to this Court for the reason that he was raising purely questions of law. The indictment in the court below the third amended information upon which the judgment of conviction herein challenged was rendered, was for qualified theft of a motor vehicle, one (1) Thunderbird car, Motor No. H9YH143003, with Plate No. H-16648 Pasay City '62 together with its accessories worth P22,200.00. Accused were the following: Petitioner herein, Roger Chavez, Ricardo Sumilang alias "Romeo Vasquez", Edgardo P. Pascual alias "Ging" Pascual, Pedro Rebullo alias "Pita", Luis Asistio alias "Baby" Asistio, Lorenzo 2 Meneses alias"Lory" Meneses, Peter Doe, Charlie Doe and Paul Doe. Averred in the aforesaid information was that on or about the 14th day of November, 1962, in Quezon City, the accused conspired, with intent of gain, abuse of confidence and without the consent of the owner thereof, Dy Sun Hiok y Lim, in asporting the motor vehicle above-described. Upon arraignment, all the accused, except the three Does who have not been identified nor apprehended, pleaded not guilty.1wph1.t Page | 21

ROGER CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE WARDEN OF THE CITY JAIL OF MANILA, respondents. 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION; BASIS THEREOF. The privilege against self-incrimination is based on the constitutional injunction that: "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," fully echoed in Section 1, Rule 115, Rules of Court where, in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant shall be entitled to be exempt from being a witness against himself. While the admissions of confessions of the prisoner, when freely and voluntarily made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the question put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonist that the states, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim which in England was a mere rule of evidence became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ORIGIN, NATURE AND PURPOSE THEREOF. An old Philippine case speaks of this constitutional injunction as "older than the Government of the United States"; as having "its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial methods of interrogating the accused person"; and as having been adopted in the Philippines "to wipe out such practices as formerly prevailed in these Islands of requiring accused persons to submit to judicial examinations, and to give testimony regarding the offenses which they were charged." So it is then that this right is "not merely a formal technical rule the enforcement of which is left to the discretion of the court"; it is mandatory; it secures to a defendant of valuable and substantive right; it is fundamental to our scheme of justice. The Supreme Court of the United States thru Mr. Justice Harlan warned that "the constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent as well as the innocent and the foresighted." It is in this context that the constitutional guarantee may not be treated with unconcern. Taada and Fernando take note of U.S. vs. Navarro, which reaffirms the rule that the constitutional prescription was established on broad grounds of public policy and humanity; of policy because it would place the witness against the strongest temptation to commit perjury, and of humanity because it would be to extort a confession of truth by a kind of duress every species and degree of which the law abhors. Therefore, the court may not extract from a defendant's own lips and against his will an admission of his guilt. Nor may a court as much as resort to compulsory disclosure, directly or indirectly, of facts usable against him as a confession of the crime or the tendency of which is to prove the commission of a crime. Because, it is his right to forego testimony, to remain silent, unless he chooses to take the witness stand with undiluted, unfettered exercise of his own free, genuine will. 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONCEPT OF COMPULSION. Compulsion as it is understood does not necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the product of unintentional statements. Pressure which operates to overbear his will, disable him from making a free and rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be sufficient. So is moral coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling lips of the defendant." 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ACCUSED DISTINGUISHED FROM ORDINARY WITNESS. An accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness. Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, an accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions. For, in reality, the purpose of calling an accused as a witness for the People would be to incriminate him. The rule positively intends to avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a

On July 23, 1963, trial commenced before the judge presiding Branch IX of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Quezon City. The trial opened with the following dialogue, which for the great bearing it has on this case, is here reproduced:. COURT:

As per understanding, the proceeding was suspended in order to enable me to confer with my client. I conferred with my client and he assured me that he will not testify for the prosecution this morning after I have explained to him the consequences of what will transpire. COURT:

The parties may proceed. What he will testify to does not necessarily incriminate him, counsel. FISCAL GRECIA: Our first witness is Roger Chavez [one of the accused]. ATTY. CARBON [Counsel for petitioner Chavez]: I am quite taken by surprise, as counsel for the accused Roger Chavez, with this move of the Fiscal in presenting him as his witness. I object. COURT: On what ground, counsel? . ATTY. CARBON: On the ground that I have to confer with my client. It is really surprising that at this stage, without my being notified by the Fiscal, my client is being presented as witness for the prosecution. I want to say in passing that it is only at this very moment that I come to know about this strategy of the prosecution. COURT (To the Fiscal): MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: You are not withdrawing the information against the accused Roger Chavez by making [him a] state witness?. FISCAL GRECIA: I am not making him as state witness, I am only presenting him as an ordinary witness. ATTY. CARBON: As a matter of right, because it will incriminate my client, I object. COURT: The Court will give counsel for Roger Chavez fifteen minutes within which to confer and explain to his client about the giving of his testimony. xxx xxx xxx I labored under the impression that the witnesses for the prosecution in this criminal case are those only listed in the information. I did not know until this morning that one of the accused will testify as witness for the prosecution. COURT: That's the reason why the court will go along with counsels for the accused and will give them time within which to prepare for their cross-examination of this witness. Page | 22 Your Honor. This incident of the accused Roger Chavez being called to testify for the prosecution is something so sudden that has come to the knowledge of this counsel. This representation has been apprised of the witnesses embraced in the information. For which reason I pray this court that I be given at least some days to meet whatever testimony this witness will bring about. I therefore move for postponement of today's hearing. COURT: The court will give counsel time within which to prepare his crossexamination of this witness. ATTY. CRUZ: And there is the right of the prosecution to ask anybody to act as witness on the witness-stand including the accused. If there should be any question that is incriminating then that is the time for counsel to interpose his objection and the court will sustain him if and when the court feels that the answer of this witness to the question would incriminate him. Counsel has all the assurance that the court will not require the witness to answer questions which would incriminate him. But surely, counsel could not object to have the accused called on the witnessstand. ATTY. CARBON: I submit. xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. CRUZ [Counsel for defendants Pascual and Meneses]: .

COURT: [after the recess] Are the parties ready? . FISCAL: We are ready to call on our first witness, Roger Chavez. ATTY. CARBON:

The court will not defer the taking of the direct examination of the witness. Call the witness to the witness stand. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION ROGER CHAVEZ, 31 years old, single, buy and sell merchant, presently detained at the Manila Police Department headquarters, after being duly sworn according to law, declared as follows: ATTY. IBASCO [Counsel for defendant Luis Asistio]: WITH THE LEAVE OF THE COURT: This witness, Roger Chavez is one of the accused in this case No. Q5311. The information alleges conspiracy. Under Rule 123, Section 12, it states: 'The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the coconspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.' COURT: That is premature, counsel. Neither the court nor counsels for the accused know what the prosecution events to establish by calling this witness to the witness stand. ATTY. IBASCO: I submit. COURT: The Fiscal may proceed.
3

Sumilang and Lee agreed on the purchase price (P21.000.00), they went to Binondo to Johnson Lee's cousin, Dy Sun Hiok, in whose name the car was registered. Thereafter, they went to see a lawyer notary public in Quezon City, known to Chavez for the drafting of the deed of sale. After the deed of sale was drawn up, it was signed by Sumilang as the vendee, Dy Sun Hiok the vendor, and Sumilang's driver and Johnson Lee the witnesses thereto. As payment was to be made at Eugene's restaurant in Quezon City, all of them then drove in the Thunderbird car to that place. The deed of sale and other papers remained in the pockets of Johnson Lee. At Eugene's, a man approached Sumilang with a note which stated that the money was ready at the Dalisay Theater. Sumilang then wrote on the same note that the money should be brought to the restaurant. At the same time he 4 requested Lee to exhibit the deed of sale of the car to the note bearer. Then, the two Chinese were left alone in the restaurant. For Sumilang, who had left the table to pose for pictures with some fans and come back, again left never to return. So did Chavez, who disappeared after he left on the pretext of buying cigarettes. The two Chinese could not locate Sumilang and Chavez. They went out to the place where the Thunderbird was parked, found that it was gone. They then immediately reported its loss to the police. Much later, the NBI recovered the already repainted car and impounded it. Right after the meeting at Eugene's, Chavez, Sumilang and Asistio converged that same day at Barrio Fiesta, a restaurant at Highway 54 near the Balintawak monument in Caloocan. There, Asistio handed to Sumilang P1,000.00 cash and a golf set worth P800.00 as the latter's share in the transaction. On the 14th of November, the registration of the car was transferred in the name of Sumilang in Cavite City, and three days later, in the name of Asistio in Caloocan. From the court's decision, Ricardo Sumilang's version, corroborated in part by Asistio, may be condensed as follows: In the last week of September, 1962, Sumilang saw Roger Chavez at a gas station. The latter informed him that there was a Thunderbird from Clark Field for sale for a price between P20,000.00 and P22,000.00. Chavez said that it could be held for him with a down payment of P10,000.00. To raise this sum, Sumilang and Chavez, on October 1, went to the house of a certain Nena Hernaez de los Reyes who wrote out a check for P5,000.00 as a loan to Sumilang. That check was exhibited in court. Sumilang and Chavez then went to Pasay City to see a certain Mario Baltazar, an agent of the Pasay City Mayor, and Narsing Cailles, Chief of the Fire Department. Sumilang asked the two for a P10,000-loan backed up by the P5,000.00-check aforesaid on condition that it should not be cashed immediately as there were not enough funds therefor. Baltazar and Cailles agreed to give the money the nextday as long as the check would be left with them and Sumilang would sign a promissory note for P10,000.00. Baltazar later informed Sumilang that Chavez picked up the money the next day. Four or five days afterwards, Chavez returned P4,000.00 to Sumilang because P6,000.00 was enough for the deposit. And so, Sumilang gave back the P4,000.00 to Baltazar. About the end of October or at the beginning of November, Chavez asked Sumilang for another P3,000.00. Sumilang sent Chavez to Baltazar and Cailles, with a note requesting that they accommodate him once more. He also sent a check, again without funds. Baltazar gave the money after verifying the authenticity of the note. On November 14, Chavez appeared at Sumilang's house with the news that the car was ready if Sumilang was ready with the rest of the money. So Sumilang got P9,000.00 from his mother and another P4,000.00 from his aparador. He immediately gave P6,000.00 to Chavez, intending to pay out the balance upon the car's delivery. It was then that Chavez told Sumilang that the car was already bought by a Chinese who would be the vendor. The purchase price finally agreed upon between Sumilang and Johnson Lee was P21,000.00, plus P500.00 agents commission at the expense of the buyer. Sumilang told Lee that he already paid part of the price to Chavez. Page | 23

And so did the trial proceed. It began with the "direct examination" of Roger Chavez by "Fiscal Grecia". Came the judgment of February 1, 1965. The version of the prosecution as found by the court below may be briefly narrated as follows: A few days before November 12, 1962, Roger Chavez saw Johnson Lee, a Chinese, driving a Thunderbird car. With Ricardo Sumilang (movie actor Romeo Vasquez) in mind, whom he knew was in the market for such a car, Chavez asked Lee whether his car was for sale. Lee answered affirmatively and left his address with Chavez. Then, on November 12, Chavez met Sumilang at a barbershop informed him about the Thunderbird. But Sumilang said that he had changed his mind about buying a new car. Instead, he told Chavez that he wanted to mortgage his Buick car for P10,000.00 to cover an indebtedness in Pasay City. Upon the suggestion of Chavez, they went to see Luis Asistio, who he knew was lending money on car mortgages and who, on one occasion, already lent Romeo Vasquez P3,000.00 on the same Buick car. Asistio however told the two that he had a better idea on how to raise the money. His plan was to capitalize on Romeo Vasquez' reputation as a wealthy movie star, introduce him as a buyer to someone who was selling a car and, after the deed of sale is signed, by trickery to run away with the car. Asistio would then register it, sell it to a third person for a profit. Chavez known to be a car agent was included in the plan. He furnished the name of Johnson Lee who was selling his Thunderbird. 1wph1.t In the morning of November 14, Chavez telephoned Johnson Lee and arranged for an appointment. Sometime in the afternoon. Chavez and Sumilang met Lee in his Thunderbird on Highway 54. Sumilang was introduced as the interested buyer. Sumilang's driver inspected the car, took the wheel for a while. After

At Eugene's, Chavez asked Sumilang for the balance. Sumilang accommodated. There, Sumilang, also saw a friend, "Ging" Pascual. In the course of their conversation at the bar, Sumilang mentioned the proposed transaction thru Chavez. Pascual warned that Chavez was a "smart" agent and advised that Sumilang should have a receipt for his money. A certain Bimbo, a friend of Pascual, offered to make out a receipt for Chavez to sign. After Sumilang returned from posing for some photographs with some of his fans, Bimbo showed him the receipt already signed by Chavez. Sumilang requested Pascual and Bimbo to sign the receipt as witnesses. And they did. This receipt was offered as an exhibit by the prosecution and by Sumilang. When Sumilang was ready to leave Eugene's, Johnson Lee turned over to him the deed of sale, the registration papers and the keys to the car. After shaking hands with Lee, Sumilang drove away in the car with his driver at the wheel. Two or three days afterwards, Sumilang dropped by the Barrio Fiesta on his way to a film shooting at Bulacan. He saw Asistio with many companions. Asistio liked his Thunderbird parked outside. Asistio offered to buy it from him for P22,500.00. As the offer was good, and knowing Asistio's and his friends' reputation for always getting what they wanted, Sumilang consented to the sale. Asistio tendered a down payment of P1,000.00; the balance he promised to pay the next day after negotiating with some financing company. Before said balance could be paid, the car was impounded. The trial court gave evidence to Sumilang's averment, strengthened by Baltazar's and Cailles' corroborations, that he paid good money for the car. Sumilang was thus cleared. So was Asistio whom the trial court believed to be a mere buyer of the car. And so, the prosecution's theory of conspiracy was discounted. As to the other accused, the court found no case against Pedro Rebullo alias "Pita" and Lorenzo Meneses alias "Lory". The accused "Ging" Pascual was also acquitted for in the first place he was not identified by Johnson Lee in court. As to Roger Chavez, however, the court had this to say: "Roger Chavez does not offer any defense. As a matter of fact, his testimony as witness for the 5 prosecution establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt." The trial court 6 branded him "a self-confessed culprit". The court further continued: It is not improbable that true to the saying that misery loves company Roger Chavez tried to drag his co-accused down with him by coloring his story with fabrications which he expected would easily stick together what with the newspaper notoriety of one and the sensationalism caused by the other. But Roger Chavez'accusations of Asistio's participation is utterly uncorroborated. And coming, as it does, from a man who has had at least two convictions for acts not very different from those charged in this information, the Court would be too gullible if it were to give full credence to his words even if they concerned a man no less 7 notorious than himself. The trial court then came to the conclusion that if Johnson Lee was not paid for his car, he had no one but Roger Chavez to blame. The sum of all these is that the trial court freed all the accused except Roger Chavez who was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft. He was accordingly sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of not less than ten (10) years, one (1) day, as minimum and not more than fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day as maximum, to indemnify Dy Sun Hiok and/or Johnson Lee in the sum of P21,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to undergo the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay the costs. The Thunderbird car then in the custody of the NBI was ordered to be turned over to Ricardo Sumilang, who was directed to return to Asistio the sum of P1,000.00 unless the latter chose to pay P21,500.00, representing the balance of the contract price for the car.

The foregoing sentence was promulgated on March 8, 1965. Roger Chavez appealed to the Court of Appeals. On April 18, 1968, the Court of Appeals required Atty. Natividad Marquez, counsel for Roger Chavez, to show cause within ten days from notice why Chavez' appeal should not be considered abandoned and dismissed. Reason for this is that said lawyer received notice to file brief on December 28, 1967 and the period for the filing thereof lapsed on January 27, 1968 without any brief having been filed. On May 13, 1968, Atty. Marquez registered a detailed written explanation. She also stated that if she were allowed to file appellant's brief she would go along with the factual findings of the court below but will show however that its 8 conclusion is erroneous. On May 14, 1968, the Court of Appeals, despite the foregoing explanation, resolved to dismiss the appeal. A move to reconsider was unavailing. For, on June 21, 1968, the Court of Appeals, through a per curiam resolution, disposed to maintain its May 14 resolution dismissing the appeal, directed the City Warden of Manila where Chavez is confined by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued by the Court of Appeals, to turn him over to Muntinlupa Bilibid Prisons pending execution of the judgment below, and ordered remand of the case to the Quezon City court for execution of judgment. It was at this stage that the present proceedings were commenced in this Court. Upon the petitions, the return, and the reply, and after hearing on oral arguments, we now come to grips with the main problem presented. We concentrate attention on that phase of the issues which relates petitioner's assertion that he was compelled to testify against himself. For indeed if this one question is resolved in the affirmative, we need not reach the others; in which case, these should not be pursued here. 1. Petitioner's plea on this score rests upon his averment, with proof, of violation of his right constitutionally entrenched against self-incrimination. He asks that the hand of this Court be made to bear down upon his conviction; that he be relieved of the effects thereof. He asks us to consider the constitutional injunction that "No person shall be compelled to be a witness 9 against himself," fully echoed in Section 1, Rule 115, Rules of Court where, in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant shall be entitled: "(e) To be exempt from being a witness against himself." . It has been said that forcing a man to be a witness against himself is at war with 10 "the fundamentals of a republican government"; that [i]t may suit the purposes of despotic power but it can not abide the pure atmosphere of 11 political liberty and personal freedom." Mr. Justice Abad Santos recounts the historical background of this constitutional inhibition, thus: " "The maxim Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which has long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in 1688, and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, was not uncommon even in England. While the admissions of confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press, the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition. The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand. But, however adopted, it has become firmly embedded in English, as well as in American jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the states, with one accord, made a denial of the right Page | 24

to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment." (Brown vs. Walker, 161 12 U.S., 591, 597; 40 Law. ed., 819, 821)." Mr. Justice Malcolm, in expressive language, tells us that this maxim was recognized in England in the early days 13 "in a revolt against the thumbscrew and the rack." An old Philippine case 14 [1904] speaks of this constitutional injunction as "older than the Government of the United States"; as having "its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial methods of interrogating the accused person"; and as having been adopted in the Philippines "to wipe out such practices as formerly prevailed in these Islands of requiring accused persons to submit to judicial examinations, and to give testimony regarding the offenses with which they were charged." So it is then that this right is "not merely a formal technical rule the enforcement of which is left to the discretion of the court"; it is mandatory; it 15 secures to a defendant a valuable and substantive right; it is fundamental to our scheme of justice. Just a few months ago, the Supreme Court of the United States (January 29, 1968), speaking thru Mr. Justice Harlan warned that "[t]he constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent as well 16 as the innocent and foresighted." It is in this context that we say that the constitutional guarantee may not be treated with unconcern. To repeat, it is mandatory; it secures to every defendant a valuable and substantive right. Taada and Fernando (Constitution of the Philippines, 4th ed., vol. I, pp. 583-584) take note of U.S. vs. Navarro, supra, which reaffirms the rule that the constitutional proscription was established on broad grounds of public policy and humanity; of policy because it would place the witness against the strongest temptation to commit perjury, and of humanity because it would be to extort a confession of truth by a kind of 17 duress every species and degree of which the law abhors. Therefore, the court may not extract from a defendant's own lips and against his will an admission of his guilt. Nor may a court as much as resort to compulsory disclosure, directly or indirectly, of facts usable against him as a confession of the crime or the tendency of which is to prove the commission of a crime. Because, it is his right to forego testimony, to remain silent, unless he chooses to take the witness stand with undiluted, unfettered exercise of his own free, genuine will. Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the product of unintentional statements. Pressure which operates to overbear his will, disable him from making a free and rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be sufficient. So is moral coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling 18 lips of the defendant." 2. With the foregoing as guideposts, we now turn to the facts. Petitioner is a defendant in a criminal case. He was called by the prosecution as the first witness in that case to testify for the People during the first day of trial thereof. Petitioner objected and invoked the privilege of self-incrimination. This he broadened by the clear cut statement that he will not testify. But petitioner's protestations were met with the judge's emphatic statement that it "is the right of the prosecution to ask anybody to act as witness on the witness stand including the accused," and that defense counsel "could not object to have the accused called on the witness stand." The cumulative impact of all these is that accused-petitioner had to take the stand. He was thus peremptorily asked to create evidence against himself. The foregoing situation molds a solid case for petitioner, backed by the Constitution, the law, and jurisprudence. Petitioner, as accused, occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness. Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an incriminating 19 answer is shot at him, and accused may altogether refuse to take the witness 20 stand and refuse to answer any and all questions. For, in reality, the purpose of calling an accused as a witness for the People would be to incriminate 21 him. The rule positively intends to avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a person "to furnish the missing evidence necessary 22 for his conviction." This rule may apply even to a co-defendant in a joint 23 trial.

And the guide in the interpretation of the constitutional precept that the accused shall not be compelled to furnish evidence against himself "is not the 24 probability of the evidence but it is the capability of abuse." Thus it is, that it was undoubtedly erroneous for the trial judge to placate petitioner with these words:. What he will testify to does not necessarily incriminate him, counsel. And there is the right of the prosecution to ask anybody to act as witness on the witness-stand including the accused. If there should be any question that is incriminating then that is the time for counsel to interpose his objection and the court will sustain him if and when the court feels that the answer of this witness to the question would incriminate him. Counsel has all the assurance that the court will not require the witness to answer questions which would incriminate him. But surely, counsel could not object to have the accused called on the witness stand. Paraphrasing Chief Justice Marshall in Aaron Burr's Trial, Robertsons Rep. I, 208, 25 244, quoted in VIII Wigmore, p. 355, While a defendant's knowledge of the facts remains concealed within his bosom, he is safe; but draw it from thence, and he is exposed" to conviction. The judge's words heretofore quoted "But surely counsel could not object to have the accused called on the witness stand" wielded authority. By those words, petitioner was enveloped by a coercive force; they deprived him of his will to resist; they foreclosed choice; the realities of human nature tell us that as he took his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, no genuine consent underlay submission to take the witness stand. Constitutionally sound consent was absent. 3. Prejudice to the accused for having been compelled over his objections to be a witness for the People is at once apparent. The record discloses that by leading questions Chavez, the accused, was made to affirm his statement given 26 to the NBI agents on July 17, 1963 at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. And this statement detailed the plan and execution thereof by Sumilang (Vasquez), Asistio and himself to deprive the Chinese of his Thunderbird car. And he himself proceeded to narrate the same anew in open court. He identified the 27 Thunderbird car involved in the case. The decision convicting Roger Chavez was clearly of the view that the case for the People was built primarily around the admissions of Chavez himself. The trial court described Chavez as the "star witness for the prosecution". Indeed, the damaging facts forged in the decision were drawn directly from the lips of Chavez as a prosecution witness and of course Ricardo Sumilang for the defense. There are the unequivocal statements in the decision that "even accused Chavez" identified "the very same Thunderbird that Johnson Lee had offered for sale"; that Chavez "testimony as witness for the prosecution establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that Chavez is "a selfconfessed culprit". 1wph1.t 4. With all these, we have no hesitancy in saying that petitioner was forced to testify to incriminate himself, in full breach of his constitutional right to remain silent. It cannot be said now that he has waived his right. He did not volunteer to take the stand and in his own defense; he did not offer himself as a witness; on the contrary, he claimed the right upon being called to testify. If petitioner nevertheless answered the questions inspite of his fear of being accused of perjury or being put under contempt, this circumstance cannot be counted against him. His testimony is not of his own choice. To him it was a case of compelled submission. He was a cowed participant in proceedings before a judge who possessed the power to put him under contempt had he chosen to remain silent. Nor could he escape testifying. The court made it abundantly clear that his testimony at least on direct examination would be taken right then and thereon the first day of the trial. Page | 25

It matters not that, after all efforts to stave off petitioner's taking the stand became fruitless, no objections to questions propounded to him were made. Here involve is not a mere question of self-incrimination. It is a defendant's constitutional immunity from being called to testify against himself. And the objection made at the beginning is a continuing one. 1wph1.t There is therefore no waiver of the privilege. "To be effective, a waiver must be certain and unequivocal, andintelligently, understandably, and willingly made; such waiver following only where liberty of choice has been fully accorded. After a claim a witness cannot properly be held to have waived his privilege on vague 28 29 and uncertain evidence." The teaching in Johnson vs. Zerbst is this: "It has been pointed out that "courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver" of fundamental constitutional rights and that we "do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights." A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Renuntiatio non praesumitur. The foregoing guidelines, juxtaposed with the circumstances of the case heretofore adverted to, make waiver a shaky defense. It cannot stand. If, by his own admission, defendant proved his guilt, still, his original claim remains valid. For the privilege, we say again, is a rampart that gives protection - even to the 30 guilty. 5. The course which petitioner takes is correct. Habeas corpus is a high 31 prerogative writ. It is traditionally considered as an exceptional remedy to release a person whose liberty is illegally restrained such as when the accused's 32 constitutional rights are disregarded. Such defect results in the absence or 33 loss of jurisdiction and therefore invalidates the trial and the consequent 34 conviction of the accused whose fundamental right was violated. That void judgment of conviction may be challenged by collateral attack, which precisely 35 is the function of habeas corpus. This writ may issue even if another remedy 36 which is less effective may be availed of by the defendant. Thus, failure by the accused to perfect his appeal before the Court of Appeals does not preclude a 37 recourse to the writ. The writ may be granted upon a judgment already 38 39 final. For, as explained in Johnson vs. Zerbst, the writ of habeas corpus as an 40 extraordinary remedy must be liberally given effect so as to protect well a person whose liberty is at stake. The propriety of the writ was given the nod in that case, involving a violation of another constitutional right, in this wise: Since the Sixth Amendment constitutionally entitles one charged with crime to the assistance of Counsel, compliance with this constitutional mandate is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a Federal Court's authority. When this right is properly waived, the assistance of Counsel is no longer a necessary element of the Court's jurisdiction to proceed to conviction and sentence. If the accused, however, is not represented by Counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his liberty. A court's jurisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost "in the course of the proceedings" due to failure to complete the court as the Sixth Amendment requires by providing Counsel for an accused who is unable to obtain Counsel, who has not intelligently waived this constitutional guaranty, and whose life or liberty is at stake. If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned 41 thereunder may obtain release of habeas corpus. Under our own Rules of Court, to grant the remedy to the accused Roger Chavez whose case presents a clear picture of disregard of a constitutional right is absolutely proper. Section 1 of Rule 102 extends the writ, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, "to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. Just as we are about to write finis to our task, we are prompted to restate that: "A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars any one. All acts

performed under it and all claims flowing out of it are void. The parties 42 attempting to enforce it may be responsible as trespassers. ... " 6. Respondents' return shows that petitioner is still serving under a final and valid judgment of conviction for another offense. We should guard against the improvident issuance of an order discharging a petitioner from confinement. The position we take here is that petitioner herein is entitled to liberty thru habeas corpus only with respect to Criminal Case Q-5311 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, under which he was prosecuted and convicted. Upon the view we take of this case, judgment is hereby rendered directing the respondent Warden of the City Jail of Manila or the Director of Prisons or any other officer or person in custody of petitioner Roger Chavez by reason of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, in Criminal Case Q-5311, entitled"People of the Philippines, plaintiff, vs. Ricardo Sumilang, et al., accused," to discharge said Roger Chavez from custody, unless he is held, kept in custody or detained for any cause or reason other than the said judgment in said Criminal Case Q-5311 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, in which event the discharge herein directed shall be effected when such other cause or reason ceases to exist. No costs. So ordered.
43

Page | 26

G.R. Nos. 71208-09 August 30, 1985 SATURNINA GALMAN AND REYNALDO GALMAN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE MANUEL PAMARAN AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES AUGUSTO AMORES AND BIENVENIDO VERA CRUZ OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE HONORABLE BERNARDO FERNANDEZ, TANODBAYAN, GENERAL FABIAN C. VER, MAJOR GENERAL PROSPERO OLIVAS, SGT. PABLO MARTINEZ, SGT. TOMAS FERNANDEZ, SGT. LEONARDO MOJICA SGT. PEPITO TORIO, SGT. PROSPERO BONA AND AlC ANICETO ACUPIDO, respondents. G.R. Nos. 71212-13 August 30, 1985 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the TANODBAYAN (OMBUDSMAN), petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, GENERAL FABIAN C. VER, MAJOR GEN. PROSPERO OLIVAS, SGT. PABLO MARTINEZ, SGT. TOMAS FERNANDEZ, SGT. LEONARDO MOJICA, SGT. PEPITO TORIO, SGT. PROSPERO BONA AND AIC ANICETO ACUPIDO, respondents.

respondent Gen. Ver filed a formal "Motion to Exclude Testimonies of Gen. Fabian C. Ver before the Fact Finding Board as Evidence against him in the 7 above-entitled cases" contending that its admission will be in derogation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination and violative of the immunity granted by P.D. 1886. He prayed that his aforesaid testimony be rejected as evidence for the prosecution. Major Gen. Olivas and the rest of the other private respondents likewise filed separate motions to exclude their respective 8 individual testimonies invoking the same ground. Petitioner TANODBAYAN opposed said motions contending that the immunity relied upon by the private respondents in support of their motions to exclude their respective testimonies, was not available to them because of their failure to invoke their right against 9 self-incrimination before the ad hoc Fact Finding Board. Respondent SANDIGANBAYAN ordered the TANODBAYAN and the private respondents to submit their respective memorandum on the issue after which said motions will 10 be considered submitted for resolution. On May 30, 1985, petitioner having no further witnesses to present and having been required to make its offer of evidence in writing, respondent SANDIGANBAYAN, without the pending motions for exclusion being resolved, issued a Resolution directing that by agreement of the parties, the pending motions for exclusion and the opposition thereto, together with the memorandum in support thereof, as well as the legal issues and arguments, raised therein are to be considered jointly in the Court's Resolution on the 11 prosecution's formal offer of exhibits and other documentary evidences. On June 3, 1985, the prosecution made a written "Formal Offer of Evidence" which includes, among others, the testimonies of private respondents and other evidences produced by them before the Board, all of which have been 12 previously marked in the course of the trial. All the private respondents objected to the prosecution's formal offer of evidence on the same ground relied upon by them in their respective motion for exclusion. On June 13, 1985, respondent SANDIGANBAYAN issued a Resolution, now assailed in these two (2) petitions, admitting all the evidences offered by the prosecution except the testimonies and/or other evidence produced by the 13 private respondents in view of the immunity granted by P.D. 1886. Petitioners' motion for the reconsideration of the said Resolution having been 14 DENIED, they now come before Us by way of certiorari praying for the amendment and/or setting aside of the challenged Resolution on the ground that it was issued without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Private prosecutor below, as counsel for the mother of deceased Rolando Galman, also filed a separate petition for 15 certiorari on the same ground. Having arisen from the same factual beginnings and raising practically Identical issues, the two (2) petitioners were consolidated and will therefore be jointly dealt with and resolved in this Decision. The crux of the instant controversy is the admissibility in evidence of the testimonies given by the eight (8) private respondents who did not invoke their rights against self-incrimination before the Agrava Board. It is the submission of the prosecution, now represented by the petitioner TANODBAYAN, that said testimonies are admissible against the private respondents, respectively, because of the latter's failure to invoke before the Agrava Board the immunity granted by P.D. 1886. Since private respondents did not invoke said privilege, the immunity did not attach. Petitioners went further by contending that such failure to claim said constitutional privilege amounts to 16 a waiver thereof. The private respondents, on the other hand, claim that notwithstanding failure to set up the privilege against self- incrimination before the Agrava Board, said evidences cannot be used against them as mandated by Section 5 of the said P.D. 1886. They contend that without the immunity provided for by the second clause of Section 5, P.D. 1886, the legal compulsion imposed by the first clause of the same Section would suffer from constitutional infirmity for being violative of the witness' right against self17 incrimination. Thus, the protagonists are locked in horns on the effect and legal significance of failure to set up the privilege against self-incrimination.

CUEVAS, JR., J.: On August 21, 1983, a crime unparalleled in repercussions and ramifications was committed inside the premises of the Manila International Airport (MIA) in Pasay City. Former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., an opposition stalwart who was returning to the country after a long-sojourn abroad, was gunned down to death. The assassination rippled shock-waves throughout the entire country which reverberated beyond the territorial confines of this Republic. The aftershocks stunned the nation even more as this ramified to all aspects of Philippine political, economic and social life. To determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and to allow a 1 free, unlimited and exhaustive investigation of all aspects of the tragedy, P.D. 1886 was promulgated creating an ad hoc Fact Finding Board which later 2 became more popularly known as the Agrava Board. Pursuant to the powers vested in it by P.D. 1886, the Board conducted public hearings wherein various witnesses appeared and testified and/or produced documentary and other evidence either in obedience to a subpoena or in response to an invitation issued by the Board Among the witnesses who appeared, testified and produced evidence before the Board were the herein private respondents 3 General Fabian C. Ver, Major General Prospero Olivas, Sgt. Pablo Martinez, Sgt. Tomas Fernandez, Sgt. Leonardo Mojica, Sgt. Pepito Torio, Sgt. Prospero 4 Bona and AIC Aniceto Acupido. UPON termination of the investigation, two (2) reports were submitted to His Excellency, President Ferdinand E. Marcos. One, by its Chairman, the Hon. Justice Corazon Juliano Agrava; and another one, jointly authored by the other members of the Board namely: Hon. Luciano Salazar, Hon. Amado Dizon, Hon. Dante Santos and Hon. Ernesto Herrera. 'the reports were thereafter referred and turned over to the TANODBAYAN for appropriate action. After 5 conducting the necessary preliminary investigation, the TANODBAYAN filed with the SANDIGANBAYAN two (2) Informations for MURDER-one for the killing of Sen. Benigno S. Aquino which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 10010 and another, criminal Case No. 10011, for the killing of Rolando Galman, who was found dead on the airport tarmac not far from the prostrate body of Sen. Aquino on that same fateful day. In both criminal cases, private respondents were charged as accessories, along with several principals, and one accomplice. Upon arraignment, all the accused, including the herein private ate Respondents pleaded NOT GUILTY. In the course of the joint trial of the two (2) aforementioned cases, the Prosecution represented by the Office of the petition TANODBAYAN, marked and thereafter offered as part of its evidence, the individual testimonies of 6 private respondents before the Agrava Board. Private respondents, through their respective counsel objected to the admission of said exhibits. Private

Page | 27

The question presented before Us is a novel one. Heretofore, this Court has not been previously called upon to rule on issues involving immunity statutes. The relative novelty of the question coupled with the extraordinary circumstance that had precipitated the same did nothing to ease the burden of laying down the criteria upon which this Court will henceforth build future jurisprudence on a heretofore unexplored area of judicial inquiry. In carrying out this monumental task, however, We shall be guided, as always, by the constitution and existing laws. The Agrava Board, came into existence in response to a popular public clamor that an impartial and independent body, instead of any ordinary police agency, be charged with the task of conducting the investigation. The then early distortions and exaggerations, both in foreign and local media, relative to the probable motive behind the assassination and the person or persons responsible for or involved in the assassination hastened its creation and 19 heavily contributed to its early formation. Although referred to and designated as a mere Fact Finding Board, the Board is in truth and in fact, and to all legal intents and purposes, an entity charged, not only with the function of determining the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing, but more importantly, the determination of the person or persons criminally responsible therefor so that they may be brought before the bar of justice. For indeed, what good will it be to the entire nation and the more than 50 million Filipinos to know the facts and circumstances of the killing if the culprit or culprits will nevertheless not be dealt with criminally? This purpose is implicit from Section 12 of the said Presidential Decree, the pertinent portion of which provides SECTION 12. The findings of the Board shall be made public. Should the findings warrant the prosecution of any person, the Board may initiate the filing of proper complaint with the appropriate got government agency. ... (Emphasis supplied) The investigation therefor is also geared, as any other similar investigation of its sort, to the ascertainment and/or determination of the culprit or culprits, their consequent prosecution and ultimately, their conviction. And as safeguard, the P.D. guarantees "any person called to testify before the Board the right to 20 counsel at any stage of the proceedings." Considering the foregoing environmental settings, it cannot be denied that in the course of receiving evidence, persons summoned to testify will include not merely plain witnesses but also those suspected as authors and co-participants in the tragic killing. And when suspects are summoned and called to testify and/or produce evidence, the situation is one where the person testifying or producing evidence is undergoing investigation for the commission of an offense and not merely in order to shed light on the facts and surrounding circumstances of the assassination, but more importantly, to determine the character and extent of his participation therein. Among this class of witnesses were the herein private respondents, suspects in the said assassination, all of whom except Generals Ver and Olivas, were detained (under technical arrest) at the time they were summoned and gave their testimonies before the Agrava Board. This notwithstanding, Presidential Decree No. 1886 denied them the right to remain silent. They were compelled to testify or be witnesses against themselves. Section 5 of P.D. 1886 leave them no choice. They have to take the witness stand, testify or produce evidence, 21 under pain of contempt if they failed or refused to do so. The jeopardy of being placed behind prison bars even before conviction dangled before their very eyes. Similarly, they cannot invoke the right not to be a witness against themselves, both of which are sacrosantly enshrined and protected by our 21 fundamental law. -a Both these constitutional rights (to remain silent and not to be compelled to be a witness against himself) were right away totally foreclosed by P.D. 1886. And yet when they so testified and produced evidence as ordered, they were not immune from prosecution by reason of the testimony given by them. Of course, it may be argued is not the right to remain silent available only to a person undergoing custodial interrogation? We find no categorical statement in the constitutional provision on the matter which reads:
18

... Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain and to counsel, 22 and to be informed of such right. ... (Emphasis supplied) Since the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, we now have a mass of 23 jurisprudence on this specific portion of the subject provision. In all these cases, it has been categorically declared that a person detained for the commission of an offense undergoing investigation has a right to be informed of his right to remain silent, to counsel, and to an admonition that any and all statements to be given by him may be used against him. Significantly however, there has been no pronouncement in any of these cases nor in any other that a person similarly undergoing investigation for the commission of an offense, if not detained, is not entitled to the constitutional admonition mandated by said Section 20, Art. IV of the Bill of Rights. The fact that the framers of our Constitution did not choose to use the term "custodial" by having it inserted between the words "under" and investigation", as in fact the sentence opens with the phrase "any person " goes to prove that 24 they did not adopt in toto the entire fabric of the Miranda doctrine. Neither are we impressed by petitioners' contention that the use of the word "confession" in the last sentence of said Section 20, Article 4 connotes the Idea that it applies only to police investigation, for although the word "confession" is used, the protection covers not only "confessions" but also "admissions" made in violation of this section. They are inadmissible against the source of the 25 confession or admission and against third person. It is true a person in custody undergoing investigation labors under a more formidable ordeal and graver trying conditions than one who is at liberty while being investigated. But the common denominator in both which is sought to be avoided is the evil of extorting from the very mouth of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense, the very evidence with which to prosecute and thereafter convict him. This is the lamentable situation we have at hand. All the private respondents, except Generals Ver and Olivas, are members of the military contingent that escorted Sen. Aquino while disembarking from the plane that brought him home to Manila on that fateful day. Being at the scene of the crime as such, they were among the first line of suspects in the subject assassination. General Ver on the other hand, being the highest military authority of his co-petitioners labored under the same suspicion and so with General Olivas, the first designated investigator of the tragedy, but whom others suspected, felt and believed to have bungled the case. The papers, especially the foreign media, and rumors from uglywagging tongues, all point to them as having, in one way or another participated or have something to do, in the alleged conspiracy that brought about the assassination. Could there still be any doubt then that their being asked to testify, was to determine whether they were really conspirators and if so, the extent of their participation in the said conspiracy? It is too taxing upon one's credulity to believe that private respondents' being called to the witness stand was merely to elicit from them facts and circumstances surrounding the tragedy, which was already so abundantly supplied by other ordinary witnesses who had testified earlier. In fact, the records show that Generals Ver and Olivas were among the last witnesses called by the Agrava Board. The subject matter dealt with and the line of questioning as shown by the transcript of their testimonies before the Agrava Board, indubitably evinced purposes other than merely eliciting and determining the so-called surrounding facts and circumstances of the assassination. In the light of the examination reflected by the record, it is not far-fetched to conclude that they were called to the stand to determine their probable involvement in the crime being investigated. Yet they have not been informed or at the very least even warned while so testifying, even at that particular stage of their testimonies, of their right to remain silent and that any statement given by them may be used against them. If the investigation was conducted, say by the PC, NBI or by other police agency, all the herein private respondents could not have been compelled to give any statement whether incriminatory or exculpatory. Not only that. They are also entitled to be admonished of their constitutional right to remain silent, to counsel, and be informed that any and all statements given by them may be used against them. Did they lose their aforesaid constitutional rights simply because the investigation was by the Agrava Board and not by any police investigator, officer or agency? True, they continued testifying. May that be construed as a waiver Page | 28

of their rights to remain silent and not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves? The answer is yes, if they have the option to do so. But in the light of the first portion of Section 5 of P.D. 1886 and the awesome contempt power of the Board to punish any refusal to testify or produce evidence, We are not persuaded that when they testified, they voluntarily waived their constitutional rights not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves much less their right to remain silent. Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the product of unintentional statements. Pressure which operates to overbear his will, disable him from making a free and rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be sufficient. So is moral coercion 'tending to force testimony from the unwilling 26 lips of the defendant. Similarly, in the case of Louis J. Lefkowitz v. Russel Turley" citing Garrity vs. New Jersey" where certain police officers summoned to an inquiry being conducted by the Attorney General involving the fixing of traffic tickets were asked questions following a warning that if they did not answer they would be removed from office and that anything they said might be used against them in any criminal proceeding, and the questions were answered, the answers given cannot over their objection be later used in their prosecutions for conspiracy. The United States Supreme Court went further in holding that: the protection of the individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent proceedings of statements obtained under threat or removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of the body politic. 385 US at 500, 17 L Ed. 562. The Court also held that in the context of threats of removal from office the act of responding to interrogation was not voluntary and was not an effective waiver of the privilege against self- incrimination. To buttress their precarious stand and breathe life into a seemingly hopeless cause, petitioners and amicus curiae (Ex-Senator Ambrosio Padilla) assert that the "right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself" applies only in favor of an accused in a criminal case. Hence, it may not be invoked by any of the herein private respondents before the Agrava Board. The Cabal vs. 28 Kapunan doctrine militates very heavily against this theory. Said case is not a criminal case as its title very clearly indicates. It is not People vs. Cabal nor a prosecution for a criminal offense. And yet, when Cabal refused to take the stand, to be sworn and to testify upon being called as a witness for complainant Col. Maristela in a forfeiture of illegally acquired assets, this Court sustained Cabal's plea that for him to be compelled to testify will be in violation of his right against self- incrimination. We did not therein state that since he is not an accused and the case is not a criminal case, Cabal cannot refuse to take the witness stand and testify, and that he can invoke his right against selfincrimination only when a question which tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate him is profounded to him. Clearly then, it is not the character of the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings that controls. The privilege has consistently been held to extend to all proceedings sanctioned by law and to all cases in which punishment is sought to be visited upon a witness, whether a 29 party or not. If in a mere forfeiture case where only property rights were involved, "the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself" is secured in favor of the defendant, then with more reason it cannot be denied to a person facing investigation before a Fact Finding Board where his life and liberty, by reason of the statements to be given by him, hang on the balance. Further enlightenment on the subject can be found in the historical background of this constitutional provision against self- incrimination. The privilege against self- incrimination is guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. In the Philippines, the same principle obtains as a direct result of American influence. At first, the provision in our organic laws were similar to the Constitution of the United States and was as follows: That no person shall be ... compelled in a criminal case to 30 be a witness against himself.
27

As now worded, Section 20 of Article IV reads: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The deletion of the phrase "in a criminal case" connotes no other import except to make said provision also applicable to cases other than criminal. Decidedly then, the right "not to be compelled to testify against himself" applies to the herein private respondents notwithstanding that the proceedings before the Agrava Board is not, in its strictest sense, a criminal case No doubt, the private respondents were not merely denied the afore-discussed sacred constitutional rights, but also the right to "due process" which is 31 fundamental fairness. Quoting the highly-respected eminent constitutionalist that once graced this Court, the former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, due process ... is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. To satisfy the due process requirement, official action, to paraphrase Cardozo, must not outrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression. Due process is thus hostile to any official action marred by lack of reasonableness. Correctly, it has been Identified as freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of the sporting Idea of fair play(Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court, 1983, pp. 32-33). It exacts fealty "to those strivings for justice and judges the act of officialdom of whatever branch "in the light of reason drawn from considerations of fairness that reflect (democratic) traditions of legal and political thought."(Frankfurter, Hannah v. Larche 1960, 363 US 20, at 487). It is not a narrow or '"echnical conception with fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances."(Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy 1961, 367 US 1230) Decisions based on such a clause requiring a 'close and perceptive inquiry into fundamental principles of our society. (Bartkus vs. Illinois, 1959, 359 US 121). Questions of due process are not to be treated narrowly or pedantically in slavery to form or phrases. (Pearson v. McGraw, 1939, 308 US 313). Our review of the pleadings and their annexes, together with the oral arguments, manifestations and admissions of both counsel, failed to reveal adherence to and compliance with due process. The manner in which the testimonies were taken from private respondents fall short of the constitutional standards both under the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE and under the EXCLUSIONARY RULE in Section 20, Article IV. In the face of such grave constitutional infirmities, the individual testimonies of private respondents cannot be admitted against them in ally criminal proceeding. This is true regardless of absence of claim of constitutional privilege or of the presence of a grant of immunity by law. Nevertheless, We shall rule on the effect of such absence of claim to the availability to private respondents of the immunity provided for in Section 5, P.D. 1886 which issue was squarely raised and extensively discussed in the pleadings and oral arguments of the parties. Immunity statutes may be generally classified into two: one, which grants "use immunity"; and the other, which grants what is known as "transactional immunity." The distinction between the two is as follows: "Use immunity" prohibits use of witness' compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness. On the other hand, "transactional immunity" grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for 32 an offense to which his compelled testimony relates." Examining Presidential Decree 1886, more specifically Section 5 thereof, which reads: SEC. 5. No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, records, correspondence, documents, or other evidence in obedience to a subpoena issued by the Board on the Page | 29

ground that his testimony or the evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to penalty or forfeiture; but his testimony or any evidence produced by him shall not be used against him in connection with any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying, nor shall he be exempt from demotion or removal from office. (Emphasis supplied) it is beyond dispute that said law belongs to the first type of immunity statutes. It grants merely immunity from use of any statement given before the Board, but not immunity from prosecution by reason or on the basis thereof. Merely testifying and/or producing evidence do not render the witness immuned from prosecution notwithstanding his invocation of the right against selfincrimination. He is merely saved from the use against him of such statement and nothing more. Stated otherwise ... he still runs the risk of being prosecuted even if he sets up his right against self- incrimination. The dictates of fair play, which is the hallmark of due process, demands that private respondents should have been informed of their rights to remain silent and warned that any and all statements to be given by them may be used against them. This, they were denied, under the pretense that they are not entitled to it and that the Board has no obligation to so inform them. It is for this reason that we cannot subscribe to the view adopted and urged upon Us by the petitioners that the right against self-incrimination must be invoked before the Board in order to prevent use of any given statement against the testifying witness in a subsequent criminal prosecution. A literal interpretation fashioned upon Us is repugnant to Article IV, Section 20 of the Constitution, which is the first test of admissibility. It reads: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. (Emphasis supplied) The aforequoted provision renders inadmissible any confession obtained in violation thereof. As herein earlier discussed, this exclusionary rule applies not 33 only to confessions but also to admissions, whether made by a witness in any proceeding or by an accused in a criminal proceeding or any person under investigation for the commission of an offense. Any interpretation of a statute which will give it a meaning in conflict with the Constitution must be avoided. So much so that if two or more constructions or interpretations could possibly be resorted to, then that one which will avoid unconstitutionality must be adopted even though it may be necessary for this purpose to disregard the 34 more usual and apparent import of the language used. To save the statute from a declaration of unconstitutionality it must be given a reasonable 35 construction that will bring it within the fundamental law. Apparent conflict 36 between two clauses should be harmonized. But a literal application of a requirement of a claim of the privilege against selfincrimination as a condition sine qua non to the grant of immunity presupposes that from a layman's point of view, he has the option to refuse to answer questions and therefore, to make such claim. P.D. 1886, however, forecloses such option of refusal by imposing sanctions upon its exercise, thus: SEC. 4. The Board may hold any person in direct or indirect contempt, and impose appropriate penalties therefor. A person guilty of .... including ... refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness or to subscribe to an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so may be summarily adjudged in direct contempt by the Board. ...

Such threat of punishment for making a claim of the privilege leaves the witness no choice but to answer and thereby forfeit the immunity purportedly granted by Sec. 5. The absurdity of such application is apparent Sec. 5 requires a claim which it, however, forecloses under threat of contempt proceedings against anyone who makes such claim. But the strong testimonial compulsion imposed by Section 5 of P.D. 1886 viewed in the light of the sanctions provided in Section 4,infringes upon the witness' right against self-incrimination. As a rule, such infringement of the constitutional right renders inoperative the testimonial compulsion, meaning, the witness cannot be compelled to answer UNLESS a co37 extensive protection in the form of IMMUNITY is offered. Hence, under the oppressive compulsion of P.D. 1886, immunity must in fact be offered to the witness before he can be required to answer, so as to safeguard his sacred constitutional right. But in this case, the compulsion has already produced its desired results the private respondents had all testified without offer of immunity. Their constitutional rights are therefore, in jeopardy. The only way to cure the law of its unconstitutional effects is to construe it in the manner as if IMMUNITY had in fact been offered. We hold, therefore, that in view of the potent sanctions imposed on the refusal to testify or to answer questions under Sec. 4 of P.D. 1886, the testimonies compelled thereby are deemed immunized under Section 5 of the same law. The applicability of the immunity granted by P.D. 1886 cannot be made to depend on a claim of the privilege against selfincrimination which the same law practically strips away from the witness. With the stand we take on the issue before Us, and considering the temper of the times, we run the risk of being consigned to unpopularity. Conscious as we are of, but undaunted by, the frightening consequences that hover before Us, we have strictly adhered to the Constitution in upholding the rule of law finding solace in the view very aptly articulated by that well-known civil libertarian and admired defender of human rights of this Court, Mr. Justice Claudio Teehankee, 38 in the case of People vs. Manalang and we quote: I am completely conscious of the need for a balancing of the interests of society with the rights and freedoms of the individuals. I have advocated the balancing-ofinterests rule in an situations which call for an appraisal of the interplay of conflicting interests of consequential dimensions. But I reject any proposition that would blindly uphold the interests of society at the sacrifice of the dignity of any human being. (Emphasis supplied) Lest we be misunderstood, let it be known that we are not by this disposition passing upon the guilt or innocence of the herein private respondents an issue which is before the Sandiganbayan. We are merely resolving a question of law and the pronouncement herein made applies to all similarly situated, irrespective of one's rank and status in society. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS and finding the instant petitions without merit, same are DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Page | 30

G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991 JOSE F.S. BENGZON JR., ABELARDO TERMULO, JOSE MANTECON, VICENTE MILLS JR., LEONARDO GAMBOA, KURT BACHMANN JR., JOSE V.E. JIMENEZ, ERNESTO CALUYA, AGERICO UNGSON, SUSAN ROXAS, ELVIE CASTILLO, and CYNTHIA SABIDO LIMJAP, petitioners, vs. THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE AND ITS MEMBERS, represented by and through the CHAIRMAN, HON. WIGBERTO TAADA, respondents, JOSE S. SANDEJAS, intervenor. 1. POLITICAL LAW; JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE AND EXTENT OF THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES TO CONDUCT INQUIRIES INTO PRIVATE AFFAIRS IN PURPORTED AID OF LEGISLATION. The "allocation of constitutional boundaries" is a task that this Court must perform under the Constitution. Moreover, as held in a recent case, "(t)he political question doctrine neither interposes an obstacle to judicial determination of the rival claims. The jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court. It cannot abdicate that obligation mandated by the 1987 Constitution, although said provision by no means does away with the applicability of the principle in appropriate cases." The Court is thus of the considered view that it has jurisdiction over the present controversy for the purpose of determining the scope and extent of the power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to conduct inquiries into private affairs in purported aid of legislation. 2. ID.; LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT; POWER TO CONDUCT INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION; RULE. The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not, therefore, absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by the afore-quoted provision of the Constitution. Thus, as provided therein, the investigation must be "in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" and that "the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one's self. The power to conduct formal inquiries or investigations is specifically provided for in Sec. 1 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. Such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-examination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or the formulation of future legislation. They may also extend to any and all matters vested by the Constitution in Congress and/or in the Senate alone. As held in Jean L. Aznault vs. Leon Nazareno, et al., the inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body making it, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate or to expel a member. Under Sec. 4 of the aforementioned Rules, the Senate may refer to any committee or committees any speech or resolution filed by any Senator which in its judgment requires an appropriate inquiry in aid of legislation. In order therefore to ascertain the character or nature of an inquiry, resort must be had to the speech or resolution under which such an inquiry is proposed to be made. 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; LIMITATIONS; REASONS THEREFOR. Now to another matter. It has been held that "a congressional committee's right to inquire is 'subject to all relevant limitations placed by the Constitution on governmental action,' including `the relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights'." In another case " . . . the mere semblance of legislative purpose would not justify an inquiry in the face of the Bill of Rights. The critical element is the existence of, and the weight to be ascribed to, the interest of the Congress in demanding disclosures from an unwilling witness. We cannot simply assume, however, that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that over-balances any private rights affected. To do so would be to abdicate the responsibility placed by the Constitution upon the judiciary to insure that the Congress does not unjustifiably encroach upon an individual's right to privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly." (Watkins vs. US, 354 USS 178 citing US vs. Rumely, 345 US 41). PADILLA, J.: This is a petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or injuective relief, to enjoin the respondent Senate Blue

Ribbon committee from requiring the petitioners to testify and produce evidence at its inquiry into the alleged sale of the equity of Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa Group in thirty-six (36) or thirty-nine (39) corporations. On 30 July 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), assisted by the Solicitor General, filed with the Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0035 (PCGG Case No. 35) entitled "Republic of the Philippines vs. Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez, et al.", for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages. The complaint was amended several times by impleading new defendants and/or amplifying the allegations therein. Under the Second Amended Complaint, 1 the herein petitioners were impleaded as party defendants. The complaint insofar as pertinent to herein petitioners, as defendants, alleges among others that: 14. Defendants Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez and Juliette Gomez Romualdez, acting by themselves and/or in unlawful concert with Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, and taking undue advantage of their relationship, influence and connection with the latter Defendant spouses, engaged in devices, schemes and strategems to unjuestly enrigh themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and the Filipino people, among others: (a) Obatained, with the active collaboration of Defendants Sene J. Gabaldon, Mario D. Camacho, Mamerto Nepomuceno, Carlos J. Valdez, Cesar C. Zalamea and Francisco Tantuico, Atty. Jose Bengzon, Jr. and his law partners, namely: Edilberto S. Narciso, Jr., Jose Vicente E. Jimenez, Amando V. Faustino, Jr., and Leonardo C. Cruz; Jose S. Sandejas and his fellow senior managers of FMMC/PNI Holdings groups of companies such as Leonardo Gamboa, Vicente T. Mills, Jr., Jose M. Mantecon, Abelardo S. Termulo, Rex C. Drilon II and Kurt Bachmann, Jr., control of some of the biggest business enterprises in the Philippines, such as the Manila Corporation (MERALCO), Benguet Consolidated and the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCI Bank) by employing devious financial schemes and techniques calculated to require the massive infusion and hemorrhage of government funds with minimum or negligible "cashout" from Defendant Benjamin Romualdez... xxx xxx xxx (m) manipulated, with the support, assistance and collaboration of Philgurantee officials led by chairman Cesar E.A. Virata and the Senior managers of FMMC/PNI Holdings, Inc. led by Jose S. Sandejas, Jr., Jose M. Mantecom and Kurt S. Bachmann, Jr., among others, the formation of Erectors Holdings, Inc. without infusing additional capital solely for the purpose of Erectors Incorporated with Philguarantee in the amount of P527,387,440.71 with insufficient securities/collaterals just to enable Erectors Inc, to appear viable and to borrow more capitals, so much so that its obligation with Philgurantee has reached a total of more than P2 Billion as of June 30, 1987. (n) at the onset of the present Administration and/or within the week following the February 1986 People's Revolution, in conspiracy with, supoort, assistance and collaboration of the abovenamed lawyers of the Bengzon Law Offices, or specifically Defendants Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr., V.E. Jimenez, Amando V. Faustino, Jr., and Edilberto S. Narciso, Jr., manipulated, shcemed, and/or executed a series of devices intended to conceal and place, and/or for the purpose of concealing and placing, beyond the inquiry and jurisdiction of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) herein Defendant's individual and collective funds, properties, and assets subject of and/or suited int he instant Complaint. (o) manuevered, with the technical know-how and legalitic talents of the FMMC senior manager and some of the Bengzon law partners, such as Attys. Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr., Edilberto S. Narciso, Jr., Amando V. Faustino, Jose Vicente E. Jimenez and Leonardo C. Cruz, the purported sale of Page | 31

defendant Benjamin Romualdez's interests in the (i) Professional Managers, (ii) A & E International Corporation (A & E), (iii) First Manila Managerment Corporation (FMMC), (iv) Philippine World Travel Inc. (PWTI) and its subsidiaries consisting of 36 corporations in all, to PNI Holdings, Inc. (wjose purported incorporations are all members of Atty. Jose F.S. Bengzon's law firm) for only P5 million on March 3, 1986 or three days after the creation of the Presidential Commission on Good Government on February 28, 1986, for the sole purpose of deceiving and preempting the Government, particularly the PCGG, and making it appear that defendant Benjamin Romualdez had already divested himself of his ownership of the same when in truth and in fact, his interests are well intact and being protected by Atty. Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. and some of his law partners, together with the FMMC senior managers who still control and run the affiars of said corporations, and in order to entice the PCGG to approve the said fictitious sale, the above-named defendants offered P20 million as "donation" to the Government; (p) misused, with the connivance, support and technical assitance of the Bengzon law firm represented by Atty. Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. as legal counsel, together with defendants Cesar Zalamea, Antonio Ozaeta, Mario D. Camacho amd Senen J. Gabaldon as members of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Commercial International bank (PCIB), the Meralco Pension Fund (Fund, for short) in the amount of P25 million by cuasing it to be invested in the PCIB and through the Bank's TSG, assigned to PCI Development and PCI Equity at 50% each, the Fund's (a) 8,028.011 common shares in the Bank and (b) "Deposit in Subscription" in the amount of P4,929.972.50 but of the agreed consideration of P28 million for the said assignment, PCI Development and PCI Equity were able to pay only P5,500.00 downpayment and the first amortization of P3,937,500.00 thus prompting the Fund to rescind its assignment, and the consequent reversion of the assigned brought the total shareholding of the Fund to 11,470,555 voting shares or 36.8% of the voting stock of the PCIB, and this development (which the defendants themselves orchestrated or allowed to happen) was used by them as an excuse for the unlawful dismantling or cancellation of the Fund's 10 million shares for allegedly exceeding the 30percent ceiling prescribed by Section 12-B of the General Banking Act, although they know for a fact that what the law declares as unlawful and void ab initio are the subscriptions in excess of the 30% ceiling "to the extent of the excess over any of the ceilings prescribed ..." and not the whole or entire stockholding which they allowed to stay for six years (from June 30, 1980 to March 24, 1986); (q) cleverly hid behind the veil of corporate entity, through the use of the names and managerial expertise of the FMMC senior manager and lawyers identified as Jose B. Sandejas, Leonardo Gamboa, Vicente T. Mills, Abelardo S, Termulo, Edilberto S. Narciso, Jr., Jose M. Mantecon, Rex C. Drilon II, Kurt Bachmann, Jr. together with the legal talents of corporate lawyers, such as Attys. Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr., Jose V.E. Jimenez, Amando V. Faustino, Jr., and Leonardo C. Cruz, the ill-gotten wealth of Benjamin T. Romualdez including, among others, the 6,229,177 shares in PCIB registered in the names of Trans Middle East Phils. Equities, Inc. and Edilberto S. Narciso, Jr. which they refused to surrender to PCGG despite their disclosure as they tried and continue to exert efforts in getting hold of the same as well as the shares in Benguet registered in the names of Palm Avenue Holdings and Palm Avenue Realty Development Corp. purportedly to be applied as payment for the claim of P70 million of a "merger company of the First Manila Managerment Corp. group" supposedly owned by them although the truth is that all the said firms are still beneficially owned by defendants Benjamin Romualdez. xxx xxx xxx On 28 September 1988, petitioner (as defendants) filed their respective answers. 2 Meanwhile, from 2 to 6 August 1988, conflicting reports on the disposition by the PCGG of the "Romualdez corporations" were carried in various metropolitan newspapers. Thus, one newspaper reported that the Romuladez firms had not been sequestered because of the opposition of certain PCGG officials who "had worked prviously as lawyers of the Marcos crony firms." Another daily reported otherwise, while others declared that on 3 March 1986, or shortly after the EDSA February 1986 revolution, the Romualdez

companies" were sold for P5 million, without PCGG approval, to a holding company controlled by Romualdez, and that Ricardo Lopa, the President's brother-in-law, had effectively taken over the firms, even pending negotiations for the purchase of the corporations, for the same price of P5 million which was reportedly way below the fair value of their assets. 3 On 13 September 1988, the Senate Minority Floor Leader, Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile delivered a speech "on a matter of personal privilege" before the Senate on the alleged "take-over personal privilege" before the Senate on the alleged "take-over of SOLOIL Incorporated, the flaship of the First Manila Management of Companies (FMMC) by Ricardo Lopa" and called upon "the Senate to look into the possible violation of the law in the case, particularly with regard to Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." 4 On motion of Senator Orlando Mercado, the matter was referred by the Senate to the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers (Blue Ribbon Committee). 5 Thereafter, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee started its investigation on the matter. Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa were subpoenaed by the Committee to appear before it and testify on "what they know" regarding the "sale of thirty-six (36) corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez." At the hearing held on 23 May 1989, Ricardo Lopa declined to testify on the ground that his testimony may "unduly prejudice" the defendants in Civil Case No. 0035 before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. likewise refused to testify involing his constitutional right to due process, and averring that the publicity generated by respondents Committee's inquiry could adversely affect his rights as well as those of the other petitioners who are his co-defendants in Civil Case No. 0035 before the Sandiganbayan. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, thereupon, suspended its inquiry and directed the petitioners to file their memorandum on the constitutional issues raised, after which, it issued a resolution 6 dated 5 June 1989 rejecting the petitioner's plea to be excused from testifying, and the Committee voted to pursue and continue its investigation of the matter. Senator Neptali Gonzales dissented. 7 Claiming that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is poised to subpoena them and required their attendance and testimony in proceedings before the Committee, in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose, in clear and blatant disregard of their constitutional rights, and to their grave and irreparable damager, prejudice and injury, and that there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition with a prayer for temporary restraning order and/or injunctive relief. Meanwhile, one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 0035 before the Sandiganbayan, Jose S. Sandejas, filed with the Court of motion for intervention, 8 which the Court granted in the resolution 9 of 21 December 1989, and required the respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to comment on the petition in intervention. In compliance, therewith, respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee filed its comment 10 thereon. Before discussing the issues raised by petitioner and intervenor, we will first tackle the jurisdictional question raised by the respondent Committee. In its comment, respondent Committee claims that this court cannot properly inquire into the motives of the lawmakers in conducting legislative investigations, much less cna it enjoin the Congress or any its regular and special commitees like what petitioners seek from making inquiries in aid of legislation, under the doctrine of separation of powers, which obtaines in our present system of government. The contention is untenable. In Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 11 the Court held: The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not hrough express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each Page | 32

department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters wihtin its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government... xxx xxx xxx But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the government. The ovelapping and interlacing of funcstions and duties between the several deaprtments, however, sometimes makes it hard to say just where the political excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated, in cases of conflict, the judicial departments is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof. xxx xxx xxx The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries; it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not inr eality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by tyhe Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to established for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantess to them. This is in thruth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution. Even the, this power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as its function is in this manner, the judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. More thatn that, courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but also becuase the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the government. The "allocation of constituional boundaries" is a task that this Court must perfomr under the Constitution. Moreowever, as held in a recent case, 12 "(t)he political question doctrine neither interposes an obstacle to judicial determination of the rival claims. The jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court. It cannot abdicate that obligation mandated by the 1987 Constitution, although said provision by no means does away with kthe applicability of the principle in appropriate cases." 13

The Court is thus of the considered view that it has jurisdiction over the present controversy for the purpose of determining the scope and extent of the power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to conduct inquiries into private affirs in purported aid of legislation. Coming to the specific issues raised in this case, petitioners contend that (1) the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee's inquiry has no valid legislative purpose, i.e., it is not done in aid of legislation; (2) the sale or disposition of hte Romualdez corporations is a "purely private transaction" which is beyond the power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to inquire into; and (3) the inquiry violates their right to due process. The 1987 Constition expressly recognizes the power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. 14 Thus, Section 21, Article VI thereof provides: The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committee may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. 15 The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not, therefore, absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by the afore-quoted provision of the Constitution. Thus, as provided therein, the investigation must be "in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" and that "the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one's self. The power to conduct formal inquiries or investigations in specifically provided for in Sec. 1 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. Such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-examination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or the formulation of future legislation. They may also extend to any and all matters vested by the Constitution in Congress and/or in the Seante alone. As held in Jean L. Arnault vs. Leon Nazareno, et al., 16 the inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body making it, must be material or necessary to the exervise of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate or to expel a member. Under Sec. 4 of the aforementioned Rules, the Senate may refer to any committee or committees any speech or resolution filed by any Senator which in tis judgment requires an appropriate inquiry in aid of legislation. In order therefore to ascertain the character or nature of an inquiry, resort must be had to the speech or resolution under which such an inquiry is proposed to be made. A perusal of the speech of Senator Enrile reveals that he (Senator Enrile) made a statement which was published in various newspapers on 2 September 1988 accusing Mr. Ricardo "Baby" Lopa of "having taken over the FMMC Group of Companies." As a consequence thereof, Mr. Lopa wrote a letter to Senator Enrile on 4 September 1988 categorically denying that he had "taken over " the FMMC Group of Companies; that former PCGG Chairman Ramon Diaz himself categorically stated in a telecast interview by Mr. Luis Beltran on Channel 7 on 31 August 1988 that there has been no takeover by him (Lopa); and that theses repeated allegations of a "takeover" on his (Lopa's) part of FMMC are baseless as they are malicious. The Lopa reply prompted Senator Enrile, during the session of the Senate on 13 September 1988, to avail of the privilege hour, 17 so that he could repond to the said Lopa letter, and also to vindicate his reputation as a Member of the Senate of the Philippines, considering the claim of Mr. Lopa that his (Enrile's) charges that he (Lopa) had taken over the FMMC Group of Companies are "baseless" and "malicious." Thus, in his speech, 18 Senator Enrile said, among others, as follows: Page | 33

Mr. President, I rise this afternnon on a matter of personal privilege; the privilege being that I received, Mr. President, a letter dated September 4, 1988, signed by Mr. ricardo A. Lopa, a.k.a. or Baby Lopa, wherein he denied categorically that he has taken over the First Manila Management Group of Companies which includes SOLOIL Incorporated. xxx xxxx xxx In answer to Mr. Lopa, I will quote pertinent portions from an Official Memorandum to the Presidential Commission of Good Government written and signed by former Governor, now Congressman Jose Ramirez, in his capacity as head of the PCGG Task Force for Region VIII. In his memorandum dated July 3, 1986, then Governor Ramirez stated that when he and the members of his task force sought to serve a sequestration order on the management of SOLOIL in Tanauan, Leyte, management officials assured him that relatives of the President of the Philippines were personally discussing and representing SOLOIL so that the order of sequestration would be lifted and that the new owner was Mr. Ricardo A. Lopa. I will quote the pertinent portions in the Ramire's memorandum. The first paragraph of the memorandum reads as follows and I quote, Mr. President: "Our sequestration work of SOLOIL in Tanauan, Leyte was not heeded by management because they said another representation was being made to this Commission for the ventual lifting of our sequestrationorder. They even assured us that Mr. Ricardo Lopa and Peping Cojunangco were personally discussing and representing SOLOIL, so the order of sequestration will finally be lifted. While we attempted to carry on our order, management refused to cooperate and vehemently turned down our request to make available to us the records of the company. In fact it was obviously clear that they will meet us with forcethe moment we insist on doing normally our assigned task. In view of the impending threat, and to avoid any untoward incident we decided to temporarily suspend our work until there is a more categorical stand of this Commission in view of the seemingly influential represetation being made by SOLOIL for us not to continue our work." Another pertinent portion of the same memorandum is paragraph five, which reads as follows, and I quote Mr. President: "The President, Mr. Gamboa, this is, I understand, the President of SOLOIL, and the Plant Superintendent, Mr. Jimenez including their chief counsel, Atty. Mandong Mendiola are now saying that there have been divestment, and that the new owner is now Mr. Ricardo Lopa who according to them, is the brother-in-law of the President. They even went further by telling us that even Peping Cojuangco who we know is the brother of her excellency is also interested in the ownership and management of SOLOIL. When he demanded for supporting papers which will indicate aforesaid divestment, Messrs. Gamboa, Jimenez and Mendiola refused vehemently to submit these papers to us, instead they said it will be submitted directly to this Commission. To our mind their continuous dropping of names is not good for this Commission and even to the President if our dersire is to achieve respectability and stability of the government." The contents of the memorandum of then Governor and now Congressman Jose Ramirez were personally confirmed by him in a news interview last September 7, 1988. xxx xxxx xxx Also relevant to this case, Mr. President, is a letter of Mr. Ricardo Lopa himself in August 11, 1988 issue of the newspaper Malaya headlined "On Alleged Takeover of Romualdez Firms."

Mr. Lopa states in the last paragraph of the published letter and I quote him: 12. As of this writing, the sales agreement is under review by the PCGG solely to determine the appropriate price. The sale of these companies and our prior rigtht to requires them have never been at issue. Perhaps I could not make it any clearer to Mr. Lopa that I was not really making baseless and malicious statements. Senator Enrile concluded his privilege speech in the following tenor: Mr. President, it may be worthwhile for the Senate to look into the possible violation of the law in the case particularly with regard to Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 5 of which reads as follows and I quote: Sec. 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for nay relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the VicePresident of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application with the Government: Provided, that this section shall not apply to any person who prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along the same line of business, nor to any transaction, contract or application filed by him for approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession. Mr. President, I have done duty to this Senate and to myself. I leave it to this august Body to make its own conclusion. Verily, the speech of Senator Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to look into a possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." I other words, the purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by respondent Blue Ribbon commitee was to find out whether or not the relatives of President Aquino, particularly Mr. ricardo Lopa, had violated the law in connection with the alleged sale of the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopaa Group. There appears to be, therefore, no intended legislation involved. The Court is also not impressed with the respondent Committee's argument that the questioned inquiry is to be conducted pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 212. The said resolution was introduced by Senator Jose D. Lina in view of the representaions made by leaders of school youth, community groups and youth of non-governmental organizations to the Senate Committee on Youth and Sports Development, to look into the charges against the PCGG filed by three (3) stockholders of Oriental petroleum, i.e., that it has adopted a "getrich-quick scheme" for its nominee-directors in a sequestered oil exploration firm.The pertinent portion of Senate Resolution No. 212 reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx WHEREAS, recent developments have shown that no less than the Solicitor-General has stated that the PCGG Chairman and at least three Commissioners should resign and that the agency should rid itself of "ineptness, incompetence and corruption" and that the Sandiganbayan has reportedly ordered the PCGG to answer charges filed by three stockholders of Oriental Petroleum that it has adopted a "get-rich-quick scheme" for its nominee-directors in a sequestered oil exploration firm; WHEREAS, leaders of school youth, community groups and youth of nongovernmental organization had made representations to the Senate Page | 34

Committee on Youth and Sports Development to look into the charges against the PCGG since said agency is a symbol of the changes expected by the people when the EDSA revolution took place and that the ill-gotten wealth to be recovered will fund priority projects which will benefit our people such as CARP, free education in the elementary and secondary levels reforestration, and employment generation for rural and urban workers; WHEREAS, the government and the present leadeship must demonstrate in their public and private lives integrity, honor and efficient management of government services lest our youth become disillusioned and lose hope and return to an Idelogy and form of government which is repugnant to true freedom, democratic participation and human rights: Now, therefore, be it. Resolved by the Senate, That the activities of the Presidential Commission on Good Government be investigated by the appropriate Committee in connection with the implementation of Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution. 19 Thus, the inquiry under Senate Resolution No. 212 is to look into the charges against the PCGG filed by the three (3) stockholders of Oriental Petroleum in connection with the implementation of Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution. It cannot, therefore, be said that the contemplated inquiry on the subject of the privilege speech of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, i.e., the alleged sale of the 36 (or 39) corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa Group is to be conducted pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 212 because, firstly, Senator Enrile did not indict the PCGG, and, secondly, neither Mr. Ricardo Lopa nor the herein petitioners are connected with the government but are private citizens. It appeals, therefore, that the contemplated inquiry by respondent Committee is not really "in aid of legislation" becuase it is not related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, since the aim of the investigation is to find out whether or not the ralatives of the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had violated Section 5 RA No. 3019, the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act", a matter that appears more within the province of the courts rather than of the legislature. Besides, the Court may take judicial notice that Mr. Ricardo Lopa died during the pendency of this case. In John T. Watkins vs. United States, 20 it was held held: ... The power of congress to conduct investigations in inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. it encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed, or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social,economic, or political system for the purpose of enabling Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste. But broad asis this power ofinquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs ofindividuals without justification in terms of the functions of congress. This was freely conceded by Solicitor General in his argument in this case. Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress. Investigations conducted soly for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to "punish" those investigated are indefensible. (emphasis supplied) It can not be overlooked that when respondent Committee decide to conduct its investigation of the petitioners, the complaint in Civil No. 0035 had already been filed with the Sandiganbayan. A perusal of that complaint shows that one of its principal causes of action against herein petitioners, as defendants therein, is the alleged sale of the 36 (or 39) corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez. Since the issues in said complaint had long been joined by the filing of petitioner's respective answers thereto, the issue sought to be investigated by the respondent Commitee is one over which jurisdiction had been acquired by the Sandiganbayan. In short, the issue had been pre-empted by that court. To allow the respondent Committee to conduct its own

investigation of an issue already before the Sandiganbayan would not only pose the possibility of conflicting judgments betweena legislative commitee and a judicial tribunal, but if the Committee's judgment were to be reached before that of the Sandiganbayan, the possibility of its influence being made to bear on the ultimate judgment of the Sandiganbayan can not be discounted. In fine, for the rspondent Committee to probe and inquire into the same justiciable controversy already before the Sandiganbayan, would be an encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that had much earlier set in. In Baremblatt vs. United States, 21 it was held that: Broad as it is, the power is not, howevern, without limitations. Since congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one of the other branches of the government. Lacking the judicial power given to the Judiciary, it cannot inquire into mattes that are exclusively the concern of the Judiciary. Neither can it suplant the Executive in what exclusively belongs to the Executive. ... Now to another matter. It has been held that "a congressional committee's right to inquire is 'subject to all relevant limitations placed by the Constitution on governmental action,' including "'the relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights'." 22 In another case ... the mere semblance of legislative purpose would not justify an inquiry in the face of the Bill of Rights. The critical element is the exeistence of, and the weight to be ascribed to, the interest of the Congress in demanding disclosures from an unwilling witness. We cannot simply assume, however, that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that over-balances any private rights affected. To do so would be to abdicate the responsibility placed by the Constitution upon the judiciary to insure that the Congress does not unjustifiably encroah upon an individual's right to privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly. 23 One of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to an individual is the right against self-incrimination. 24 Thir right constured as the right to remain completely silent may be availed of by the accused in a criminal case; but kit may be invoked by other witnesses only as questions are asked of them. This distinction was enunciated by the Court in Romeo Chavez vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al. 25 thus Petitioner, as accused, occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness. Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an incriminating answer is hot at him, an accused may altother refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any all questions. Moreover, this right of the accused is extended to respondents in administrative investigations but only if they partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. In Galman vs. Pamaran, 26the Court reiterated the doctrine in Cabal vs. Kapuanan (6 SCRA 1059) to illustrate the right of witnesses to invoke the right against selfincrimination not only in criminal proceedings but also in all other types of suit It was held that: We did not therein state that since he is not an accused and the case is not a criminal case, Cabal cannot refuse to take the witness stand and testify, and that he can invoke his right against self-incrimination only when a question which tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate him is propounded to him. Clearly then, it is not the characeter of the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings that controls. The privilege has consistenly been held to extend to all proceedings sanctioned by law and to all cases in which punishment is sought to be visited upon a witness, whether a party or not. Page | 35

We do not here modify these doctrines. If we presently rule that petitioners may not be compelled by the respondent Committee to appear, testify and produce evidenc before it, it is only becuase we hold that the questioned inquiry is not in aid of legislation and, if pursued, would be violative of the principle of separation of powers between the legislative and the judicial departments of government, ordained by the Constitution. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court holds that, under the facts, including the circumtance that petitioners are presently impleaded as defendants in a case before the Sandiganbayan, which involves issues intimately related to the subject of contemplated inquiry before the respondet Committee, the respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is hereby enjoined from compelling the petitioners and intervenor to testify before it and produce evidence at the said inquiry. SO ORDERED.

Page | 36

RUBI VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO [39 PHIL 660; NO. 14078; 7 MAR 1919] Friday, February 06, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Therefore, petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue.

Facts: The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 wherein nonChristian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) will be directed to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code, 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes inMindoro. Further, Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on thisreservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor. In that case, pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code, all the Mangyans in the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan, were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao, Naujan Lake. Also, that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days, in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code. Said resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro were claimed as necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam, and to introduce civilized customs among them. It appeared that Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be punished. It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of theirliberty by the provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away form the reservation.

Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty pf abode. Thus, WON Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional.

Held: The Court held that section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty of abode and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws, and that confinement inreservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. The Court is further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. Assigned as reasons for the action: (1) attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province; and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. The Solicitor-General adds the following; (3) The protection of the Manguianes; (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam; (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Liberty regulated by law": Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the general well-being. No man can do exactly as he pleases. None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. Page | 37

Bengzon, Jr. vs. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee G.R. No. 89914, November 20, 1991 Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PCGG, filed with the Sandiganbayan a civil case against Benjamin Romualdez. The complaint alleged that Benjamin Romualdez and Juliette Gomez Romualdez, acting by themselves and/or in unlawful concert with then President Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos, and taking undue advantage of their relationship, influence and connection with the latter spouses, engaged in devices, schemes and stratagems to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the Republic of thePhilippines and the Filipino people. Conflicting reports on the disposition by the PCGG of the Romualdezcorporations were carried in various newspapers. Other newspapers declared that shortly after the 1986 EDSA Revolution, the Romualdez companies were sold for P5 million, without PCGG approval, to a holding company controlled by Romualdez, and that Ricardo Lopa, the President s brother-in-law, had effectively taken over the firm.

In the Senate, Senator Enrile delivered a speech on the alleged take over by Lopa of SOLOIL Incorporated, the flagship of the First ManilaManagement of Companies owned by Romualdez. Senator Enrile also called upon the Senate to look into the possible violation of the law, particularly with regard to RA 3019, The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The matter was referred by the Senate to the Blue Ribbon Committee. Issue: Whether or not the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee sinquiry has valid legislative purpose as mandated by Art. VI, Sec. 21 Held: The Constitution expressly recognizes the power of both Houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. But the power of both Houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not absolute or unlimited. As provided under Art. VI, Sec. 21, the investigation must be in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure and that the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. It follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one s self. The power to conduct formal inquiries or investigations is specifically provided in the Senate Rules of Procedure. Such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-examination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or the formulation of future legislation. They may also extend to any and all matters vested by the Constitution in Congress and/or in the Senate alone. The speech of Senator Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to look into a possibleviolation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The purpose of the inquiry was to find out whether or not the relatives of President Aquino, particularly Lopa, had violated the law in connection with the alleged sale of 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Romualdez to the Lopa group. There appears to be, therefore, no intended legislation involved. This matter appears to be more within the province of the courts rather than of the legislature.

Page | 38