TOPIC: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION  November 11, 1967: During the pendency of the case,

petitioner Cabigao was elected Vice-Mayor of Manila.

GONZALES v COMELEC
 October 10, 1968: The Court invited several legal
FACTS:
organizations, such as the Philippine Bar Association and the
 June 17, 1967: Republic Act No. 4880 was approved and took Civil Liberties Union, to act as amici curiae and submit
effect, amending the Revised Election Code. memoranda on the constitutional issues.

 Key Provisions: The Act introduced Section 50-A, which  Procedural Shift: Despite objections that the case was a
prohibited the too early nomination of candidates, and request for an advisory opinion or had become academic, the
Section 50-B, which limited the period of election Court treated the suit as a petition for prohibition due to the
campaigns or partisan political activities. "paramount public interest" and the proximity of national
elections.
 July 22, 1967: Petitioners Arsenio Gonzales (a voter) and
Felicisimo Cabigao (then an incumbent councilor and candidate  The Ruling: The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the
for Vice-Mayor) filed an action for Declaratory Relief with petition, concluding that R.A. 4880 could not be declared
Preliminary Injunction. unconstitutional because the required two-thirds vote of the
Justices to annul the statute was not obtained.
 The Challenge: The petitioners argued that the enforcement of
R.A. 4880 would prejudice their basic constitutional rights EASIER FACTS:
to freedom of speech, assembly, and association.
 In 1967, a law (R.A. 4880) was passed to control early
 August 1, 1967: The respondent, Commission on Elections campaigning and set limits on when candidates can start doing
(COMELEC), filed its answer, defending the law as a valid political activities.
exercise of police power designed to ensure clean and
 Gonzales and Cabigao challenged it in court, saying it violates
orderly elections.
their freedom of speech, assembly, and association.
 August 3, 1967: The Supreme Court held a hearing and
 COMELEC defended the law, saying it’s needed for fair and
required both parties to submit memoranda in lieu of oral
orderly elections.
arguments.
 The Supreme Court took a while to decide, even asking help
 August 9, 1967: The Court issued a resolution deferring the
from legal groups and debating internally. Meanwhile, Cabigao
final vote on the constitutionality of the law due to a
actually won as Vice-Mayor during the case.
"divergence of views" among the Justices.
  In the end, the Court did NOT strike down the law — not  Divergence on Section 50-B (Campaign Period): This section,
because it was clearly valid, but because they couldn’t reach which limits the period for "election campaigns" or "partisan
enough votes (2/3) to declare it unconstitutional. political activities," caused a significant split among the
Justices:
In short:
The law stayed, kasi kulang ng votes to invalidate it—even though the o The Majority View: A majority of the Justices believed
Justices were divided. that paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)—which prohibit making
speeches, publishing campaign materials, and soliciting
votes—were unconstitutional on their face. They
argued these provisions were overbroad and
"broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when
ISSUE: the end can be more narrowly achieved".
Whether RA 4880 is unconstitutional. o The Minority View: Other Justices argued for the validity
of the entire act, contending that it was a necessary and
appropriate response to the "grave and substantive
RULING: evil" of excessive partisanship, corruption, and
violence in Philippine elections.
NO. IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
o The Outcome: Because the majority lacked one more
 Dismissal of the Petition: The Supreme Court dismissed the
petition and denied the writ prayed for, meaning the challenged affirmative vote to reach the constitutional threshold for
law remained in effect. a declaration of unconstitutionality, the challenge to
these paragraphs failed.
 The "Two-Thirds" Rule: The primary reason the law was not
declared unconstitutional was a procedural one: the Court  Application of the "Clear and Present Danger" Test: The Court
failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds vote of all its generally accepted the "clear and present danger" rule as the
members required to annul a statute. standard for limiting freedom of expression. The majority
concluded that while the government's purpose was legitimate,
 Validity of Section 50-A (Early Nomination): The Court the law was not "narrowly drawn" enough to satisfy this test.
unanimously sustained the validity of Section 50-A, which
prohibits the too-early nomination of candidates. The Justices  Primacy of Police Power: The Court recognized that Congress
agreed that while it affects the right of association, the acted under its police power to maintain the "purity and integrity
curtailment is not so severe as to render the right of the electoral process" and to curb the "ever-increasing cost of
meaningless. seeking public office". However, the Court emphasized its duty
 to safeguard individual rights even against legitimate legislative  February 25, 2013: The petitioners replied, requesting a formal
concerns. ruling from the COMELEC Law Department and asking that the
tarpaulins be allowed to remain while they sought legal
 Procedural Standing: Despite objections that the case had
remedies.
become academic (since the 1967 elections had passed), the
Court ruled it could still be treated as a petition for prohibition  February 27, 2013: The COMELEC Law Department issued a
due to the "paramount public interest" and the proximity of the letter ordering the immediate removal of the tarpaulins and
next national elections. threatened to file an election offense case against the
petitioners for non-compliance.
 Legal Challenge: Fearing prosecution, the petitioners filed a
The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC
petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme
 February 21, 2013: The petitioners (The Diocese of Bacolod) Court to nullify the COMELEC's notice and letter, arguing
posted two tarpaulins, each approximately 6 feet by 10 feet, they infringed upon the fundamental right to freedom of
on the front walls of the San Sebastian Cathedral, which is expression.
private property.
 March 5, 2013: The Supreme Court issued a Temporary
 The Content: One tarpaulin contained the message "IBASURA Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the COMELEC from
RH Law." The second tarpaulin, which became the subject of enforcing the removal orders.
this case, was titled "Conscience Vote" and categorized 2013
 March 19, 2013: The Supreme Court held oral arguments on the
electoral candidates as either "(Anti-RH) Team Buhay" (with a
case.
check mark) or "(Pro-RH) Team Patay" (with an "X" mark).
 January 21, 2015: The Supreme Court rendered its final
 Funding: The tarpaulins were not sponsored or paid for by
decision, granting the petition and declaring the COMELEC’s
any candidate or political party; they were part of the
orders unconstitutional.
petitioners' advocacy campaign against the Reproductive
Health (RH) Law. EASIR FACTS:
 February 22, 2013: Election Officer Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon  In 2013, the Diocese of Bacolod put up big tarpaulins outside
issued a "Notice to Remove Campaign Materials," ordering their cathedral. One of them basically told people how to vote on
the removal of the tarpaulins within three days because candidates depending on their stance on the RH Law (“Team
they exceeded the 2-foot by 3-foot size limit mandated by Buhay” vs “Team Patay”).
COMELEC Resolution No. 9615.
  COMELEC stepped in and said, “Bawal ‘yan,” because the tarps  Non-Candidates: The Court emphasized that petitioners
were too big based on election rules, and ordered them were private citizens and not candidates or political parties.
removed. The power of the COMELEC to regulate election propaganda
is generally limited to candidates and those acting on their
 The Diocese said, “Wait lang—this is not campaign material for
behalf to ensure equal opportunity and limited spending.
candidates. This is our expression/opinion as a private group.”
 Political Speech: The tarpaulin, which classified candidates as
 COMELEC still insisted and even threatened them with a case,
"Team Buhay" or "Team Patay" based on their vote on the RH
so the Diocese went to the Supreme Court.
Law, was characterized as protected political speech. The
 The Supreme Court temporarily stopped COMELEC, then later Court held that such expression by the electorate is essential to
ruled in favor of the Diocese. a "deliberative democracy" and enjoys a high degree of
protection.
In short:
The Court said COMELEC was wrong—because the tarpaulins were  Social Advocacy: The Court found that the message was
protected free speech, not regulated campaign ads. So, bawal primarily a social advocacy regarding a public issue and
pakialaman ng COMELEC yung ganung expression, especially since it only secondarily or incidentally related to the election of
was on private property and not funded by candidates. specific candidates.
2. Size as a Form of Expression

ISSUE:  The Court rejected the idea that size is merely a "time, place,
and manner" incident. It ruled that "size does matter" in
Do the COMELEC issuances unduly infringe petitioners’ freedom of communication because it enhances efficiency, underscores the
expression guaranteed by Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 importance of the message, and provides more space for
Constitution? arguments.
 Consequently, the medium (the large tarpaulin) is fundamentally
RULING: part of the protected expression itself.

YES.  Sinasabi ng Court na hindi lang yung message ang

importante, kundi pati kung paano ito ipinapakita. Kasama
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC issuances unduly sa “freedom of speech” hindi lang yung sinasabi mo, kundi pati
infringed upon the petitioners’ freedom of expression. yung laki, format, at paraan ng pag-display ng message.
1. Nature of the Speech and the Speaker
  Kaya nung sinabi nilang “size does matter,” ibig sabihin:  Property Rights: Because the tarpaulin was posted on
👉 yung laki ng tarpaulin ay bahagi mismo ng expression—mas private property with the owner's consent, the COMELEC’s
malaki, mas visible, mas malakas ang impact ng mensahe. order of removal was an impermissible encroachment on
 In short: property rights protected by the due process clause.
Hindi puwedeng limitahan basta-basta yung size, kasi parte ‘yun
ng paraan mo ng pagpapahayag—at protected din ‘yun ng Final Ruling
Constitution
The Supreme Court concluded that the COMELEC's role is to ensure
3. Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral Regulation equal opportunities among candidates, not to regulate or limit the
speech of the electorate. The act of the COMELEC in issuing the notice
 Content-Based Regulation: The Court determined that the and letter was declared unconstitutional and void.
regulation was content-based because it specifically
targeted speech that deliverred opinions on candidates
while ignoring other forms of speech, such as commercial SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS, INCORPORATED v COMELEC
advertisements.
FACTS:
 Failure of Constitutional Tests:
 Prior to 2001: Social Weather Stations (SWS), a private
o As a content-based restraint, it bore a heavy research institution, and Kamahalan Publishing (publisher of the
presumption of invalidity and failed the "clear and Manila Standard), frequently conducted and published election
present danger" rule; the government could not prove surveys as close as two days before election day in 1992,
a compelling state interest that justified such a broad 1995, and 1998,.
suppression of a non-candidate's speech.
 February 2001: Congress enacted Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair
o Even if the regulation were considered content-neutral, it Election Act). Section 5.4 of this law prohibited the
still failed the intermediate scrutiny test because it was publication of surveys affecting national candidates 15
not narrowly tailored and was not the least restrictive days before an election and local candidates 7 days before
means to achieve the goal of "equal opportunity". an election. (survey ban)
4. Chilling Effect and Property Rights  March 1, 2001: The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 3636.
Section 24(h) of this resolution was promulgated to implement
 Chilling Effect: The COMELEC's threat of criminal prosecution
the survey publication ban mandated by R.A. No. 9006,.
for an election offense was found to create a "chilling effect" that
would dissuade other citizens from expressing their views  Election Period 2001: SWS expressed its intent to conduct and
during elections. release surveys throughout the entire election period, while
 Kamahalan Publishing intended to publish these results up to
the day of the elections on May 14, 2001.
### 1. It Imposed a Prior Restraint
 Legal Challenge: The petitioners filed an action for prohibition
The law prohibited the publication of survey results within 15 days
to enjoin the COMELEC from enforcing the ban, arguing that
of a national election and 7 days of a local election,. The Court
the restriction constituted a prior restraint on freedom of
ruled that this constituted a **prior restraint** on protected
speech without a clear and present danger to justify it,.
speech. Because freedom of expression holds a "preferred status"
 May 5, 2001: The Supreme Court rendered its decision, in the Constitution, any measure imposing a prior restraint carries
granting the petition and declaring both Section 5.4 of R.A. No. a heavy presumption of invalidity, and the government failed to
9006 and the implementing portion of COMELEC Resolution provide sufficient justification to overcome this presumption.
3636 unconstitutional,.
 COMELEC ARGUMENT: The ban was necessary to prevent the
### 2. It Was a Direct and Total Suppression of Speech
"manipulation and corruption of the electoral process" by
unscrupulous or erroneous surveys released just before an Although the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) argued the
election ban was merely a limited restriction on timing, the Court held that
the curtailment was **direct, absolute, and substantial. Even if the
ISSUE:
ban was for a limited duration, it resulted in the **total
Does Section 5.4 of Republic Act No. 9006 and Section 24(h) of suppression of a specific category of speech** (election surveys)
COMELEC Resolution No. 3636 unconstitutionally abridge the during the most critical period of the campaign.
freedoms of speech, expression, and of the press by imposing a
prior restraint on the publication of election surveys?
### 3. It Failed the "O'Brien Test"
To determine the law's validity, the Court applied the **O'Brien
RULING:
test**, which requires that a government regulation be no greater
The ban on election surveys, specifically **Section 5.4 of Republic than essential to further a substantial governmental interest,. This
Act No. 9006** (the Fair Election Act), was declared means that a government rule should not be more restrictive than necessary
unconstitutional because it was found to be an **unconstitutional to achieve an important government objective.”
abridgment of freedom of speech, expression, and the press**.
The ban failed this test for the following reasons:
* **Interest not unrelated to suppression:** The Court found that
The Supreme Court’s decision rested on three primary grounds: the government’s interest in preventing "evils" like the
bandwagon effect or misinformation was not unrelated to the military security), as established in *Near v. Minnesota* and *New
suppression of free expression,. York Times Co. v. United States*. Content-based regulations must
satisfy strict scrutiny or the O’Brien standard, requiring a
* **Availability of less restrictive means:** The objectives of the
compelling or substantial interest unrelated to suppression of
law—such as preventing last-minute pressure on voters or
speech and no greater restraint than necessary. Any infringement
"dagdag-bawas" (election cheating)—could be achieved through
bears a heavy presumption against validity, and less restrictive
**less restrictive means**. Instead of banning speech, the
alternatives must be exhausted. Measures that single out one.
government could punish unlawful **acts**, such as confiscating
form of protected expression while leaving other channels free
bogus survey results or false election propaganda after due notice
violate the principle that the government may not restrict speech
and hearing,.
because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content.

### Additional Findings

The Court further noted that:
* The government cannot legitimately prohibit "natural-enough"
tendencies, such as the **bandwagon effect** or "herd mentality,"
by suppressing the publication of survey results.
* While some countries restrict surveys, many others with similar
or less mature political developments do not impose such
embargoes, making the international argument for the ban
inconclusive. TOPIC: FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
* Unlike the ban on political advertisements (which provided BAYAN, KARAPATAN, KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS
alternative "COMELEC hours"), this law provided no such (KMP) vs.
alternative for the dissemination of survey information. EDUARDO ERMITA, GR No. 169838
DOCTRINE: Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 is sustained as a valid
regulation of time, place, and manner. It is considered content-neutral
Under the 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 4 guarantees that
because it applies to all assemblies regardless of their message and
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
does not constitute prior restraint since the content of the speech is
expression, or of the press.” Prior restraints are permissible only
irrelevant to the regulation
in exceptional cases (e.g., obscenity, incitement to violence,
SUMMARY:  A peaceful mass action was held and was preempted and
Various groups (Petitioners) were violently dispersed and arrested by police violently dispersed by the police.
during mass actions conducted under the "no permit, no rally" rule. The
authorities justified these actions by citing Batas Pambansa No. 880 and a  A rally co-sponsored by the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) is
newly announced "Calibrated Preemptive Response" (CPR) policy intended blocked and forcibly dispersed by police, resulting in injuries to
to preempt unlawful protests. Consequently, the petitioners sought to nullify members.
the law and the policy, arguing they imposed unconstitutional prior restraints
on the right to peaceably assemble. Respondents argued that the law is  A protest march to Malacañang was violently dispersed, leading
constitutional as it is a valid regulation of the time, place, and manner of
to injuries and multiple arrests.
public assemblies and has no reference to the actual content of the speech
being regulated.  A rally participated in by the first group of petitioners (Bayan, et
al.) is violently dispersed by police implementing B.P. No. 880.
Whether BP Blg. 880 and CPR are constitutional.
 A multi-sectoral rally co-sponsored by KMU on España Avenue
BP Blg. 880 is CONSTITUTIONAL while CPR is NULL and VOID.
The Court ruled that B.P. Blg. 880 is a valid content-neutral regulation of the is blocked at Morayta Street and forcibly dispersed, causing
time, place, and manner of public assemblies, as it does not target the further injuries and three arrests.
message but ensures public order under the "clear and present danger"
test. The CPR policy was struck down for lacking legal basis and for being  Petitioners filed petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the
inconsistent with the statutory mandate of "maximum tolerance," which constitutionality of Batas Pambansa No. 880 and the CPR
requires the highest degree of restraint from authorities. policy.
To protect the right to assembly, the Court ordered all local
government units to designate freedom parks within thirty days of the  Respondent (Mayor Joselito Atienza) argued that he has the
decision's finality. Failure to comply with this mandate results in all power to deny a permit independently of B.P. No. 880 under RA
public parks and plazas being deemed freedom parks, where no prior permit 7160; that his denials of permits were under the "clear and
—only advance notice—shall be required for public assemblies. present danger" rule as there was a clamor to stop rallies that
disrupt the economy and to protect the lives of other people.
FACTS: ISSUE:
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, also known as "The Public Whether BP Blg. 880 and CPR are constitutional.
Assembly Act of 1985” was approved to regulate the right of
the people to peaceably assemble. COMPREHENSIVE RULING:

 Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita issues a press release BP Blg. 880 is CONSTITUTIONAL while CPR is NULL AND VOID.
announcing the "Calibrated Preemptive Response" (CPR) 1. “Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
policy, which mandates a "no permit, no rally" standard and the speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
dispersal of unlawful mass actions.
 peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress entitled to protection. Finally, maximum tolerance is for the
of grievances.” The first point to mark is that the right to protection and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of
peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances is, the content of the expressions in the rally.
together with freedom of speech, of expression, and of the
press, a right that enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional 6. IN THIS CASE, the Court ruled that Batas Pambansa No. 880 is
protection. However, it must be remembered that the right, while valid primarily because it is a content-neutral regulation that
sacrosanct, is not absolute. does not aim to suppress the message of a protest, but merely
2. The exercise of those rights is not absolute for it may be so regulates the time, place, and manner of public assemblies.
regulated that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of While the right to peaceably assemble is a preferred right, it is
others having equal rights, nor injurious to the rights of the not absolute and may be regulated under the state's sovereign
community or society. The power to regulate the exercise of police power to ensure that its exercise does not injure the
such and other constitutional rights is termed the sovereign rights of others or the general welfare of the community.
"police power," which is the power to prescribe regulations, to 7. The court ruled that the law is very clear and does not constitute
promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or prior restraint. The law regulates the exercise of the right to
safety, and general welfare of the people. peaceful assembly and petition only to the extent needed to
3. Sec. 4. Permit when required and when not required.— avoid a clear and present danger of the substantive evils
 WRITTEN PERMIT IS REQUIRED- by a person to Congress has the right to prevent. There is NO PRIOR
organize and hold public assembly in PUBLIC PLACES. RESTRAINT since the content of the speech is not relevant to
 WRITTEN PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED- if the public the regulation.
assembly is done in a FREEDOM PARK duly 8. The court also held that the delegation of power to mayors to
established by law/ ordinance and in a PRIVATE grant or deny permits is valid because it is governed by a
PROPERTY. If it is done in the latter, the CONSENT of precise and sufficient standard: the "clear and present
OWNER is only required. danger" test. A permit can only be denied if there is clear and
4. It is very clear that B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute ban of public convincing evidence of an imminent and grave danger to public
assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place order, safety, convenience, morals, or health.
and manner of the assemblies. It is referred to as a "content- 9. THE CPR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
neutral" regulation of the time, place, and manner of holding  B.P. No. 880 explicitly mandates the policy of
public assemblies. "maximum tolerance," defined as the highest degree of
restraint that authorities must observe during a public
5. Bp Blg 880 also refers to all kinds of public assemblies that assembly. The Court ruled that CPR is illegal if it means
would use public places. The reference to "lawful cause" does something other than maximum tolerance and serves
not make it content-based because assemblies really have to be no valid purpose if it means the same thing.
for lawful causes, otherwise they would not be "peaceable" and
  CPR has no place in the legal firmament and incrimination.
described it as a "darkness that shrouds freedom". It
was noted that no law, ordinance, or executive order Whether requiring a judge to reveal his financial condition every two
years constituted an unconstitutional invasion of this privacy.
supports the policy.
 The policy was found to confuse the public and was The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of Section 7 of Republic
used by some police agents to justify abuses during the Act No. 3019. The Court held that the law is a legitimate exercise of police
dispersal of rallies. power intended to minimize corruption and promote morality in public
 Petitioners successfully argued that the policy was an service, which justifies the limited intrusion into an official's financial affairs.
ultra vires act (beyond legal authority) because it It further clarified that the requirement is not arbitrary and does not violate
the right to privacy as the requirement has a clear rational relationship to a
attempted to alter the statutory standard of maximum
valid state objective and that is to deter official corruption and maintaining
tolerance without legislative action. It was also honesty in public service.
challenged for being vague and for a lack of
publication.
FACTS:
 Republic Act No. 1379 is approved, decreeing the forfeiture of
TOPIC: RIGHT TO PRIVACY property unlawfully acquired by public officers or employees
MORFE v MUTOC, GR NO L-20387 (Haan na kayat agdisclose  Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
SALN) Act) is approved to deter dishonesty and promote morality in
DOCTRINE: The right to privacy is a fundamental constitutional public service.
guarantee that protects an individual's "private sector" from state  Under Section 7 of RA 3019, public officers are required to
intrusion. However, this right is not absolute and must yield to a valid file a sworn statement of assets and liabilities within 30 days
exercise of police power when there is a rational relationship between of assuming office and periodically every two years
the state's regulation and a significant public interest, such as thereafter during the month of January.
maintaining the integrity of public office as a public trust.
 Plaintiff Jesus P. Morfe, a judge, complies with the law by filing
SUMMARY: his prescribed sworn statement of financial condition upon
Congress enacted Republic Act No. 3019 in 1960, requiring public officers
assuming his office.
to file a sworn statement of assets and liabilities upon assuming office and
periodically every two years thereafter. Jesus P. Morfe, a judge who had  Morfe files a petition for declaratory relief in the CFI asserting
complied with the initial filing, initiated a declaratory relief proceeding to
challenge the constitutionality of the periodic submission requirement. He
that the requirement for periodical filing is oppressive and
contended that the law was an oppressive exercise of police power that unconstitutional.
violated his rights to due process, privacy, and protection against self-
  The defendants (Executive Secretary and Secretary of Justice) 3. IN THIS CASE, this is not to say that a public officer, by virtue of
file an Answer, maintaining that the law is a reasonable a position he holds, is bereft of constitutional protection; it is
exercise of police power to insure clean public service. only to emphasize that in subjecting him to such a further
compulsory revelation of his assets and liabilities, including the
 The lower court issues a decision declaring Section 7 of RA
statement of the amounts and sources of income, the amounts
3019 unconstitutional insofar as it requires the periodical
of personal and family expenses, and the amount of income
submission of financial statements. GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S
taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year, there is no
ACTION.
unconstitutional intrusion into what otherwise would be a
 ANOTHER ALLEGATION AGAINST RA 3019- "an insult to the private sphere.
personal integrity and official dignity" of public officials,
premised as it is "on the unwarranted and derogatory 4. The requirement has a clear rational relationship to a valid
assumption" that they are "corrupt at heart". state objective—deterring official corruption and maintaining
honesty in public service.
ISSUE:
5. Because a public office is a public trust, the Court held that
Whether Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
when an individual accepts such a position, they are deemed to
Practices Act), which requires public officers to periodically file a sworn have voluntarily assumed the obligation to provide information
statement of assets and liabilities, is unconstitutional. about their personal affairs
RULING:
Other Notes:
YES, Sec. 7 of RA 3019 IS CONSTITUTIONAL. / Whether requiring
a judge to reveal his financial condition every two years  The law is a valid exercise of police power aimed at promoting
constituted an unconstitutional invasion of this privacy. morality in public service and minimizing opportunities for official
corruption.
1. The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition  The requirement does not violate due process because it is not
independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully arbitrary or oppressive but is a reasonable measure responsive
deserving of constitutional protection. to the "supremacy of reason" and "fair play".
2. In this case, it cannot be said that the challenged statutory  The Court found no unconstitutional invasion of privacy, ruling
provision (SEC. 7, RA 3019) calls for disclosure of information that the disclosure has a rational relationship to the valid
which infringes on the right of a person to privacy. It cannot be objective of the statute and that a public officer's right to be let
denied that the rational relationship such a requirement alone is not infringed by such a compulsory revelation of
possesses with the objective of a valid statute goes very far in financial condition.
precluding assent to an objection of such character.
  There was no violation of the rights against unreasonable accommodate him, the college Dean and faculty refused his requests,
search and seizure or self-incrimination, noting that the resulting in a failing grade for a missed Saturday examination. After his final
protection against self-incrimination must await the existence of plea for reconsideration went unheeded, Valmores filed a petition for
mandamus to compel the respondents to enforce the CHED guidelines and
actual criminal, civil, or administrative cases rather than being protect his right to religious freedom.
decided in a vacuum in a declaratory relief proceeding.
Whether Respondents violated Petitioner Valmores' right to freedom of
Important Concepts: religion.
 Right to privacy is the "right to be let alone,". It is the most YES. The Court ruled that the 2010 CHED Memorandum imposes a
comprehensive of rights and the one most valued by civilized ministerial duty on higher education institutions (HEIs). The memorandum’s
men. language, which uses terms like "enjoined" and "strict compliance,"
 This right is fundamental to the concept of liberty; if an individual indicates that HEIs do not have discretion to deny exemptions once a
cannot maintain a private sphere of existence, they cease to be student submits a certification from a religious leader.
The Court also held that while the freedom to believe is absolute, the
"master of himself" and are no longer truly free.
freedom to act on those beliefs may be regulated only to protect the public
from injury. In this case, there was no evidence that excusing Valmores from
Saturday activities would harm public safety or the rights of other.
TOPIC: FREEDOM OF RELIGION Lastly, educational institutions are bound to safeguard the religious freedom
of their students. Thus, to such end, our schools carry the responsibility to
VALMORES v ACHACOSO (medical student nga Seventh Day restrict its own academic liberties, should they collide with constitutionally
Adventist Member) preferred rights.

DOCTRINE: While the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to

act on those beliefs may be regulated only to protect the public from FACTS:
injury. In this case, there was no evidence that excusing Valmores from  CHED issued a Memorandum enjoining higher education
Saturday activities would harm public safety or the rights of other. institutions to excuse students from activities that conflict with
Educational institutions are bound to safeguard the religious freedom of their religious obligations.
their students. Thus, to such end, our schools carry the responsibility to  Denmark S. Valmores, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist
restrict its own academic liberties, should they collide with Church, enrolls as a first-year student at the Mindanao State
constitutionally preferred rights. University (MSU)-College of Medicine.
SUMMARY:  Valmores writes to Dean Cristina Achacoso requesting to be
Denmark S. Valmores, a Seventh-day Adventist medical student at
Mindanao State University, requested exemption from Saturday classes and
excused from classes or exams should they be rescheduled to a
exams to strictly observe his religious Sabbath. Despite the existence of a Saturday, citing his church's strict observance of the Sabbath.
2010 CHED Memorandum and a direct order from the MSU President to
  Several of Valmores' classes and examinations are moved to Whether Respondents violated Petitioner Valmores' right to freedom
Saturdays, which he misses due to his religious beliefs. of .religion
 Valmores is unable to take a Histo-Pathology laboratory RULING:
examination held on a Saturday. He received a failing grade and
YES. The Respondents violated the petitioner’s freedom of
is deemed ineligible to retake the exam.
religion.
 A Certification is issued by the Seventh-day Adventist Church to
1. Under SEC. 5 of the 1987 Consitutution. No law shall be made
support Valmores' request for exemption from Saturday secular
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
activities.
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
 Valmores writes again to Dean Achacoso seeking profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
reconsideration and offering to take make-up examinations. shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for
the exercise of civil or political rights.
 CHED Regional Office refers the matter to the MSU President
2. As faculty members of the MSU-College of Medicine,
and Dean Achacoso for action.
respondents herein were duty-bound to protect and preserve
 MSU President Dr. Muslim sends a copy of the 2010 CHED petitioner Valmores' religious freedom.
Memorandum to Dean Achacoso with a note explicitly enjoining 3. While in some cases the Court has sustained government
her to enforce it in Valmores' case. regulation of religious rights, the Court fails to see in the present
case how public order and safety will be served by the denial of
 After his requests continue to go unheeded, Valmores through petitioner Valmores' request for exemption. Neither is there any
counsel sends a final letter to Dean Achacoso manifesting his showing that petitioner Valmores' absence from Saturday
intent to take legal action. (Hindi pa rin nag take action si dean) classes would be injurious to the rights of others. Precisely, the
 PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: he is bound by his religious 2010 CHED Memorandum was issued to address such conflicts
convictions to refrain from all secular activities on Saturdays, a and prescribes the action to be taken by HEIs should such
day that is deemed holy by his church. circumstance arise. Because there was no showing that
excusing Valmores would be injurious to others or a threat
 RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT: to public safety, his religious rights took precedence
rests only on the fact that there were other Seventh-day 4. IN THIS CASE, the respondents violated the petitioner’s right to
Adventists who had successfully completed their studies at the freedom of religion through a concerted refusal to
MSU-College of Medicine accommodate his religious obligations, specifically by
denying his requests to be excused from Saturday classes
ISSUE:
and examinations. Despite the petitioner’s status as a
Seventh-day Adventist which requires strict observance of the
 Saturday Sabbath, the respondents refused to enforce the
2010 CHED Memorandum that explicitly enjoins higher  The Court held that forcing a student to choose between
education institutions to excuse students from activities that honoring their religious obligations and finishing their
conflict with their religious duties. The respondents’ actions education is a patent infringement of religious freedom. It
rejected the respondents' argument that other Seventh-day
constituted a patent infringement of religious freedom
Adventists had successfully graduated without such
because they forced the petitioner to choose between his accommodations, noting that one man’s transgressions are
religious convictions and his education. theirs alone to bear and that in religious discipline,
5. As representatives of the State, educational institutions are adherence is the general rule.
bound to safeguard the religious freedom of their students.
Thus, to such end, our schools carry the responsibility to restrict
its own academic liberties, should they collide with
constitutionally preferred rights. 2 CONCEPTS under FREEDOM OF RELIGION:
 Freedom to believe and Freedom to act.
1. FREEDOM TO BELIEVE- it is absolute
Important Concepts in the Case: 2. FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEF- Not absolute.
Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of
 Mandamus is employed to compel the performance of a
society. But the power to regulate must be so exercised, in
ministerial duty by a tribunal, board, officer, or [Link] THIS
attaining a permissible end, as not to unduly infringe on the
CASE, MSU is an HEI created by legislative charter and was
protected freedom.
established "to better implement the policy of the Government in
the intensification of the education of the Filipino youth,
especially among the Muslims and others belonging to the
national minorities." Thus, respondents herein, as faculty TOPIC: FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
members of MSU, fall under the policy-making authority of MANOTOC v CA (Estafa case; agabroad ngem nadeny jay motion)
the CHED and therefore bound to observe the issuances
promulgated by the latter. DOCTRINE: Under the Constitution, the liberty of travel is not an
 Under CHED MEMORANDUM 2010: unrestricted right and may be impaired upon lawful order of the court, or
(i) HEIs are enjoined to excuse students from attending or participating in school or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, or
related activities, if such schedule conflicts with the students' exercise of their
religious obligations; public health. A court order releasing an accused on bail constitutes a
(ii) to compensate for absences, students may be allowed to do remedial work, which "lawful order" that validly restricts the right to travel. This is because the
in turn should be within the bounds of school rules and regulations and without very nature and function of a bail bond is to ensure the accused
affecting their grades; and
(iii) to be entitled to exemption, affected students must submit a certification of remains under the power of the court as if they were in the actual
attendance duly signed by their respective minister. custody of a proper officer.
SUMMARY:  The petitioner is provisionally released on bail amounting to
Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., a principal stockholder facing multiple P105,000.00, with FGU Insurance Corporation serving as his
criminal charges for estafa, was provisionally released from custody after surety.
posting bail in the total amount of P105,000.00. He subsequently filed
motions with the trial courts for permission to leave the country to attend to  The petitioner files a "motion for permission to leave the
business transactions in the United States, but these requests were denied
country" with the trial courts, stating he needs to travel to the
due to a lack of urgency and potential risks to the surety's liability. Manotoc
challenged these denials through a petition for review, contending that his United States for business transactions.
constitutional right to travel could not be restricted once he had been
admitted to bail
 Judge Camilon denies the motion, ruling that there is no
discernment of urgency to warrant judicial permission for the
Does a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released trip.
on bail have an unrestricted right to travel? NO.
 Judge Pronove also denies the motion, noting that allowing the
The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful accused to leave the jurisdiction might allow the surety company
order of the court, or when necessary, in the interest of national security, to claim they are no longer liable for his appearance.
public safety or public health.
IN THIS CASE, the order of the trial court releasing petitioner on bail  The Immigration Commissioner denies the petitioner's request
constitutes such lawful order. In his Motion for Permission to Leave the to withdraw the February 1980 memorandum that restricted his
Country', it shows that it is solely predicated on petitioner's wish to travel to travel.
the United States to attend to some business transactions and search for
business opportunities. There was no urgent or compelling reason can be  CA dismisses the petitioner's request for certiorari and
discerned to justify the grant of his motion. Petitioner has not sufficiently
mandamus, which sought to annul the trial court orders and the
shown that there is absolute necessity for him to travel abroad.
SEC's communication-request.

FACTS:  Four of the criminal cases against the petitioner are dismissed
after the prosecution verifies that he was not connected with the
 Following a "run" on stock brokerages and the appointment of a brokerage firm at the time the alleged offenses were committed.
management committee for the petitioner’s firms, the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) requests the  While the case is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Commissioner of Immigration to deny petitioner Ricardo L. petitioner files a motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite
Manotoc, Jr. clearance for departure. to obtain foreign investment in the United States.

 Six criminal complaints for estafa are filed against the petitioner  PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: Having been admitted to bail as
and another officer regarding suspected fake Torrens titles. a matter of right, the court which granted him bail or SEC has no
jurisdiction over his liberty, thus his constitutional right to travel
shall not be infringed.
ISSUE: his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or
recognizance.
Does a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released
 The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available
on bail have an unrestricted right to travel?
at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates
RULING: as a valid restriction on his right to travel.

NO. Section 5, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states:

The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon TOPIC: RIGHT TO INFORMATION
lawful order of the court, or when necessary, in the interest of national
CHAVEZ v PEA (Kayat ni Chavez nga idisclose ni PEA ken AMARI
security, public safety or public health.
jay pagtultulagan da during pre-decisional stage uray awan pay
 IN THIS CASE, the order of the trial court releasing petitioner on kontrata! Haha! Chismoso yarn?)
bail constitutes such lawful order. In his Motion for Permission to
DOCTRINE: The constitutional right to information includes official
Leave the Country', it shows that it is solely predicated on
information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The
petitioner's wish to travel to the United States to attend to some
information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the
business transactions and search for business opportunities.
government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged
There was no urgent or compelling reason can be discerned to
information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting
justify the grant of his motion. Petitioner has not sufficiently
national security and public order.
shown that there is absolute necessity for him to travel abroad.
 As petitioner has failed to satisfy the trial courts and the SUMMARY:
appellate court of the urgency of his travel, the duration thereof, The Public Estates Authority entered into a Joint Venture Agreement and a
as well as the consent of his surety to the proposed travel, We subsequent Amended JVA with AMARI, a private corporation, to develop
the reclaimed "Freedom Islands" and reclaim additional submerged areas of
find no abuse of judicial discretion in their having denied Manila Bay without public bidding. Petitioner Francisco Chavez filed a
petitioner's motion for permission to leave the country. petition for mandamus seeking to compel the public disclosure of
renegotiation terms and to enjoin the agreement, arguing that the transfer of
Other Important Concepts: public lands to a private corporation violated constitutional prohibitions.
While the case was pending, the Amended JVA was signed and approved
 A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from by the President, leading the petitioner to challenge the contract's validity on
leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the the grounds that it sought to alienate inalienable natural resources and
nature and function of a bail bond. lands of the public domain.
 Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court- Bails is the security
required and given for the release of a person who is in the Whether the constitutional right to information includes official
information on on-going negotiations before a final agreement.
custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in which
YES. The right to information "contemplates inclusion of negotiations  President Fidel V. Ramos, through the Executive Secretary,
leading to the consummation of the transaction." Certainly, a consummated approves the JVA.
contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to information.
Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if no contract is  Senate President Ernesto Maceda denounces the JVA as the
consummated, and if one is consummated, it may be too late for the public "grandmother of all scams," prompting a joint Senate
to expose its defects. The information, however, must constitute definite
investigation.
propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions
like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar  A Senate Committee Report concludes that the reclaimed
matters affecting national security and public order.
lands are inalienable lands of the public domain, the
certificates of title are void, and the JVA is illegal.
FACTS:
 President Ramos creates a Legal Task Force to study the
 PH Government signs a contract with the Construction and JVA’s legality; the task force eventually upholds the JVA's
Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) to reclaim legality, contradicting the Senate report.
foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay.
 News reports emerge regarding on-going renegotiations
 President Marcos issues PD No. 1084, creating the Public between PEA and AMARI
Estates Authority (PEA), and PD No. 1085, transferring the
 Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, as a taxpayer, files the instant
reclaimed lands in Manila Bay to the PEA.
Petition for Mandamus to compel PEA to disclose the terms
 President Marcos directs PEA to amend its contract with CDCP of the renegotiations and enjoin the signing of a new
so that all future works are funded and owned by PEA; CDCP agreement.
subsequently cedes its rights and interests in the reclaimed
 During the pendency of the case, PEA and AMARI sign the
areas to PEA.
Amended Joint Venture Agreement (Amended JVA).
 President Corazon Aquino issues Special Patent No. 3517,
 President Joseph Estrada approves the Amended JVA.
transferring approximately 1.9 million square meters of
reclaimed land to PEA.  Following the approval of the Amended JVA, the petitioner
prays that the renegotiated contract be declared null and void
 The RD issues Transfer Certificates of Title to PEA for the three
on constitutional and statutory grounds.
reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands".
 RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT: AMARI argues there must first
 PEA enters into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with AMARI,
be a consummated contract before petitioner can invoke the
a private corporation, to develop the Freedom Islands and
right. (adda dapat kontrata palang and right to information
reclaim an additional 250 hectares of submerged areas.
cannot be invoked during pre-decisional stage)
ISSUE: meetings, terms of reference and other documents
attached to such reports or minutes, all relating to the JVA.
Whether the constitutional right to information includes official
 However, the right to information does not compel PEA to
information on on-going negotiations before a final agreement.
prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like relating to the
renegotiation of the JVA. The right only affords access to
records, documents and papers, which means the
RULING: opportunity to inspect and copy them. One who exercises
YES. Under Sec. 7 Art. III. The right of the people to information on the right must copy the records, documents and papers at his
matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official expense.
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,  The right to information, however, does not extend to matters
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data recognized as privileged information under the separation
used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, of powers. The right does not also apply to information on
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. military and diplomatic secrets, information affecting national
security, and information on investigations of crimes by law
"Sec. 28, Art II. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused,
the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of which courts have long recognized as confidential. The right
all its transactions involving public interest." may also be subject to other limitations that Congress may
impose by law.
 These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote
 IN CONCLUSION, the constitutional right to information
transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the
includes official information on on-going
government, as well as provide the people sufficient information
negotiations before a final contract. The information,
to exercise effectively other constitutional rights.
however, must constitute definite propositions by the
 IN THIS CASE, the right to information "contemplates
government and should not cover recognized exceptions like
inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of
privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and
the transaction." Certainly, a consummated contract is not a
similar matters affecting national security and public order.
requirement for the exercise of the right to information.
Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if no contract
is consummated, and if one is consummated, it may be too late
for the public to expose its defects. TOPIC: RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE
 The SC held that petitioner may access information on the VICTORIANO v ELIZALDE ROPE WORKER’S UNION (Iglesia ni
renegotiation of the JVA which includes evaluation reports, Victoriano)
recommendations, legal and expert opinions, minutes of
DOCTRINE: The right comprehends at least two broad notions, upholds and reinforces it. It does not prohibit the members of said religious
namely: first, liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, sects from affiliating with labor unions. It still leaves to said members the
whereby an employee may act for himself without being prevented by liberty and the power to affiliate, or not to affiliate, with labor unions.
law; and second, power, whereby an employee may, as he pleases,
join or refrain from Joining an association. FACTS:
It is the employee who should decide for himself whether he should join  Benjamin Victoriano was an employee of Elizalde Rope Factory,
or not an association; and should he choose to join, he himself makes Inc. and, as a condition of his employment, becomes a member
up his mind as to which association he would join; and even after he of the Elizalde Rope Workers' Union under a "closed shop"
has joined, he still retains the liberty and the power to leave and cancel provision in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
his membership with said organization at any time.
 RA No. 3350 is enacted, amending the Industrial Peace Act to
It is clear, therefore, that the right to join a union includes the right to provide that closed-shop agreements "shall not cover members
abstain from joining any union. of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members
SUMMARY:
in any such labor organization". (In short, Ang RA No. 3350 ay
Benjamin Victoriano, a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo employed by the nagsasabi na kung ang relihiyon mo ay bawal sumali sa labor
Elizalde Rope Factory, resigned from his labor union following the union, hindi ka pwedeng pilitin sumali kahit may closed-shop
enactment of Republic Act No. 3350, which exempted religious objectors rule sa trabaho.)
from "closed shop" agreements. The union subsequently invoked its
collective bargaining agreement to demand Victoriano's dismissal,  Victoriano, a member of the "Iglesia ni Cristo" (a religious sect
prompting the company to notify him that he would be terminated unless he that prohibits its members from joining labor unions), presents
reached an arrangement with the labor organization. Victoriano filed a his resignation to the Union.
petition for injunction to prevent his discharge, while the union countered by
asserting that the new law was unconstitutional for impairing the right to  The collective bargaining agreement between the Company and
form associations.
the Union expires and is renewed the following day.
Whether Republic Act No. 3350 is unconstitutional for allegedly  Victoriano reiterates his resignation from the Union
violating the right to form lawful associations.
 The Union writes a formal letter to the Company requesting
NO. RA 3350 provides that members of said religious sects cannot be Victoriano’s dismissal from service because he is no longer a
compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have
closed shop agreements with the employers; that in spite of any closed shop member of the Union.
agreement, members of said religious sects cannot be refused employment
 The Company management notifies Victoriano that it will be
or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not members
of the collective bargaining union. It is clear, therefore, that the assailed Act constrained to dismiss him unless he reaches a satisfactory
does not infringe the constitutional provision on freedom of association, but arrangement with the Union.
  To prevent his termination, Victoriano files an action for Under the Bill of Rights, the right to form associations or societies
injunction against the Company and the Union in the CFI. for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
 The trial court renders a decision enjoining the Company from Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875 (Industrial Peace Act) provides that
dismissing Victoriano employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join of
assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of
 The Union appeals the decision directly to the Supreme Court
collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities for the
asserting that Republic Act No. 3350 is unconstitutional.
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection.
 RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT (UNION):
What the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act recognize and
1. The Act infringes on the fundamental right to form lawful guarantee is the "right" to form or join associations.
associations
 It is the employee who should decide for himself whether he
2. The Act deprives said members of religious sectors of
should join or not an association; and should he choose to join,
their constitutional right to form or join lawful
he himself makes up his mind as to which association he would
associations or organizations
join; and even after he has joined, he still retains the liberty and
 PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: Republic Act No. 3350 does not
the power to leave and cancel his membership with said
violate the right to form lawful associations, for the right to join
organization at any time. It is clear, therefore, that the right to
associations includes the right not to join or to resign from a
join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any union.
labor organization
 IN THIS CASE, RA 3350 provides that members of said
ISSUE: religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to join
labor unions even when said unions have closed shop
Whether Republic Act No. 3350 is unconstitutional for allegedly agreements with the employers; that in spite of any closed
violating the right to form lawful associations. shop agreement, members of said religious sects cannot be
refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole
ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining
RULING: union. It is clear, therefore, that the assailed Act does not
infringe the constitutional provision on freedom of association,
NO. RA 3350 is constitutional. Republic Act No. 3350 does not
but upholds and reinforces it. It does not prohibit the
violate the constitutional provision on freedom of association.
members of said religious sects from affiliating with labor
Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 875 recognize freedom of unions. It still leaves to said members the liberty and the
association. power to affiliate, or not to affiliate, with labor unions. (SO,
EMPLOYEES/MEMBERS STILL HAVE CHOICE)
  If, notwithstanding their religious beliefs, the members of said allegations that it violates the general principles expressed in the non self-
religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor union, they can executing provisions they cite herein. There are two reasons for denying a
do so. If in deference and fealty to their religious faith, they cause of action to an alleged infringement of broad constitutional principles:
basic considerations of due process and the limitations of judicial power.
refuse to sign up, they can do so; the law does not coerce The President may, by executive or administrative order, direct the
them to join; neither does the law prohibit them from reorganization of government entities under the Executive Department.
joining; and neither may the employer or labor union
compel them to join. Republic Act No. 3350 does not violate
the constitutional provision on freedom of association. FACTS:
 Erap issues EO No. 102, "Redirecting the Functions and
Operations of the Department of Health," which refocused the
TOPIC: RIGHT TO HEALTH DOH mandate from service provider to technical assistance
provider.
Tondo Medical Center Employees Association v. Court of Appeals
 DOH launches the Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA), a
DOCTRINE: A citizen is allowed to raise a constitutional question only
reform package providing for fiscal autonomy for government
when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or
hospitals and the collection of socialized user fees.
threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the
government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and  The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) approves
the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. the Notice of Organization, Staffing and Compensation Action
necessary for the DOH reorganization.
SUMMARY:
The Department of Health launched the Health Sector Reform Agenda  The Presidential Committee on Effective Governance (PCEG)
(HSRA) to provide fiscal autonomy to government hospitals through
socialized user fees, while President Estrada issued Executive Order No.
issues Memorandum Circular No. 62, approving the
102 to reorganize the department's functions. Several health worker Rationalization and Streamlining Plan (RSP) of the DOH.
associations and unions petitioned to nullify these measures, arguing they
made medical services inaccessible to the poor and that the President had  DOH Secretary Alberto G. Romualdez issues Department
usurped legislative authority to reorganize a department. After the Court of Circular No. 275-C, creating various committees to implement
Appeals denied the petition due to procedural defects and ruled that the the streamlining plan.
invoked constitutional provisions were not self-executing, the petitioners
elevated the case to the Supreme Court for review.  The DOH issues a draft administrative order outlining the
guidelines for the corporate restructuring of selected DOH
Whether Executive Order No. 102 is detrimental to the health of the hospitals.
people.

NO. The HSRA cannot be nullified based solely on petitioners’ bare

  DOH issues Administrative Order No. 172, providing policies ART II, SEC. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to
and guidelines for the private practice of medical and health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.
paramedical professionals within government health facilities.
 In Tanada v. Angara, the Court specifically set apart the
 (In Summary, During Erap’s time, they reworked the DOH. Instead of directly sections found under Article II of the 1987 Constitution as non-
providing all health services, it shifted more into a support and guiding role. self-executing and ruled that such broad principles need
Government hospitals were given more freedom to manage themselves and
started charging fees based on what patients can afford. They also
legislative enactments before they can be implemented.
reorganized the DOH, set up teams to handle the changes, and allowed  But, Sec. 15, Art. II is a non-self-executing in the aforecited
doctors to do private practice inside public hospitals.) case of Tañada v. Angara.
 Petitioners file a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and
 IN THIS CASE, The HSRA cannot be nullified based solely on
Mandamus before the Supreme Court, challenging the
petitioners’ bare allegations that it violates the general principles
validity of the HSRA and EO 102.
expressed in the non-self-executing provisions they cite herein.
 The Supreme Court refers the petition to the Court of Appeals There are two reasons for denying a cause of action to an
for appropriate action. alleged infringement of broad constitutional principles: basic
considerations of due process and the limitations of judicial
 CA Denied the petition, ruling that the challenged constitutional power. (The Supreme Court basically said the “right to health” in
provisions were not self-executing and that the President had the Constitution isn’t automatically something you can use in
the authority to reorganize the DOH court. It still needs a specific law to make it enforceable. So,
 PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: the implementation of the petitioners can’t just use it to cancel government programs
aforementioned reforms had resulted in making free medicine like the HSRA right away.)
and free medical services inaccessible to economically  These non-self executing provisions only serve as guides for
disadvantaged Filipinos. (KASI NGA MARAMI DAW NABAGO the judiciary and directives for the legislative and executive
and Such policies allegedly resulted in making inaccessible free branches, like SEC. 15 ART II.
medicine and free medical services.)  The Petitioners claim that EO No. 102 is void on the ground that
it was issued by the President in excess of his authority is
ISSUE: incorrect. This Court has already ruled in a number of cases
that the President may, by executive or administrative
Whether Executive Order No. 102 is detrimental to the health of the
order, direct the reorganization of government entities
people.
under the Executive Department.
RULING:
Important Concept:
NO. One of the cited provisions of petitioners is Art. II, Sec. 15.
  Petitioners must show any present substantial interest. A citizen Whether environmental consequences and the protection of the public
is allowed to raise a constitutional question only when he can forest should take precedence procedural technicalities and rules of
show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened court.
injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the YES. As a rule, the State, as represented by the government, is not
government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged estopped by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. IN THIS CASE,
action; and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable the Court held that concerns regarding environmental consequences must
action. take precedence over procedural infirmities. It stated that the State’s
 In this case, this Court finds that the petitioners miserably failed commitment to protecting the environment and the national interest
outweighs the "mistakes or errors" of government agents who illegally
to show any merit to their claims (Petitioners failed to show any agreed to give away nearly 8,000 hectares of forest land.
particularized interest for bringing the suit, nor any direct or The ruling draws on the constitutional principle that the State must protect
personal injury sustained or were in the immediate danger of and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.
sustaining) The Court characterized this right as one concerning self-preservation and
self-perpetuation, which imposes a "solemn obligation" on the State to
preserve the environment for both present and future generations.
TOPIC: RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENT
DOCTRINE: The State must protect and advance the right of the HEIRS OF ATTY. JOSE C. REYES V. REPUBLIC OF THE
people to a balanced and healthful ecology. The Court characterized PHILIPPINES
this right as one concerning self-preservation and self-perpetuation,
which imposes a "solemn obligation" on the State to preserve the FACTS:
environment for both present and future generations.
 July 17, 1961: Spouses Dr. Casiano A. Sandoval and Luz
SUMMARY: Marquez de Sandoval filed an application for registration of
title over Cadastral Lot 7453, a massive tract of land totaling
The Sandoval spouses applied for the registration of over 15,000 hectares 15,303.5928 hectares in Cordon, Isabela.
of land in Isabela, a case that remained largely inactive for nearly twenty
years. In 1981, a compromise agreement was signed by the heirs and  March 30, 1962: During the initial hearing, the trial court issued
officials from the Bureau of Lands and Bureau of Forest Development, an order of general default against the entire world, except for
resulting in a trial court decision that distributed the property. Atty. Jose C.
Reyes received over 892 hectares as attorney's fees under this agreement,
the respondent, the Republic of the Philippines.
which the Office of the Solicitor General later moved to annul for lack of  1979: The Bureau of Forest Development issued Administrative
jurisdiction. The Republic argued that the original decision was void
because the contested property was inalienable forest land at the time the Order No. 4-1246, which reclassified the land from forest
registration application was filed. land to alienable land—approximately 20 years after the
original registration application was filed.
  February 6, 1981: A compromise agreement was entered into  In 1962, the court basically said no one else objected except the
by the Sandoval heirs, the Directors of the Bureau of Lands and Philippine government.
Bureau of Forest Development (represented by a provincial
 But here’s the catch: the land was still classified as forest land,
fiscal), and other private parties, including Atty. Jose C. Reyes,.
meaning it couldn’t be privately owned yet. It was only
 March 3, 1981: Judge Andres B. Plan of the RTC of Isabela reclassified as alienable land in 1979—way after the
rendered a decision based on the compromise agreement, application.
distributing the land among the parties; notably, Atty. Jose C.
 In 1981, the parties (including government reps and a lawyer,
Reyes was assigned 892.5928 hectares as attorney's fees.
Atty. Reyes) made a compromise agreement, dividing the
 April 14, 1981: A manifestation was purportedly filed by the land. The court approved it, even giving a big chunk as
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) withdrawing as counsel attorney’s fees.
and acknowledging the RTC decision, though the OSG later
 There was also a supposed document saying the government
denied the existence and validity of this document,.
agreed—but later, the government denied that it was legit.
 August 18, 1999: After allegedly learning of the judgment only a
 Fast forward to 1999, the government challenged the decision,
year prior, the Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition with
saying the court had no authority (no jurisdiction) in the first
the Court of Appeals to annul the 1981 RTC decision on the
place.
ground of lack of jurisdiction,.
 In 2001, the Court of Appeals agreed and canceled the
 July 19, 2001: The Court of Appeals annulled the RTC
decision, since the land wasn’t legally disposable when the
decision, ruling that the land was inalienable forest land at
case started.
the time of the application and the RTC had no jurisdiction to
distribute it via a compromise agreement,,.  Finally, in 2006, the Supreme Court backed this up, saying the
government can’t be bound by mistakes or illegal actions
 August 3, 2006: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of
of its officials.
Appeals' decision, finding that the State cannot be estopped
by the unauthorized or illegal acts of its agents,, Bottom line: The whole land distribution got voided because the land
was still forest land at the start, so the court never had the power to
decide on it.
EASIER FACTS:
 Back in 1961, the Sandoval spouses applied to register a huge
ISSUE:
piece of land in Isabela.
Whether environmental consequences and the protection of the public land is at risk. Normally, the government isn’t bound by
forest should take precedence procedural technicalities and rules of mistakes made by its officials—and here, that rule still applies.
court. The officials who agreed to give away the land acted
improperly, so their actions can’t be used to justify losing public
RULING:
forest land. In short, saving the environment and protecting
YES. The court held that Republic is not estopped by the mistakes or national interest comes first over legal technicalities and
illegal acts of its agents and that the protection of the environment is a government errors.)
paramount duty that justifies the annulment of the lower court's  The ruling draws on the constitutional principle that the State
decision. (THE LAND AWARDED TO PETITIONER WAS DECLARED must protect and advance the right of the people to a
VOID). balanced and healthful ecology. The Court characterized this
right as one concerning self-preservation and self-perpetuation,
 The Court found that the contested land was part of the public which imposes a "solemn obligation" on the State to preserve
forest at the time the registration application was filed. Because the environment for both present and future generations.
forest lands are inalienable, the land registration court
lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate them, and any award made  The Court emphasized that the right to a healthy ecology carries
through a compromise agreement was unconstitutional. a correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
 The Court held that "environmental consequences in this Consequently, the Court refused to allow "unscrupulous
case override concerns over technicalities and rules of government agents" to bind the Republic to illegal agreements
procedure". It emphasized that the State has a "solemn that would result in the loss of vital forest lands.
obligation" to preserve the environment for both present and
future generations
 As a rule, the State, as represented by the government, is not OPOSA v FACTORAN
estopped by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. IN
DOCTRINE: The Court ruled that the petitioners had the legal standing
THIS CASE, the Court held that concerns regarding
(locus standi) to file a class suit not only for themselves and their
environmental consequences must take precedence over
generation but also on behalf of "generations yet unborn". This
procedural infirmities. It stated that the State’s commitment
personality to sue is anchored on the concept of inter-generational
to protecting the environment and the national interest
responsibility regarding the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
outweighs the "mistakes or errors" of government agents
The Court emphasized that every generation has a responsibility to the
who illegally agreed to give away nearly 8,000 hectares of
next to preserve the "rhythm and harmony of nature" for the full
forest land. (The Court basically said that protecting the
enjoyment of a sound environment.
environment is more important than strictly following technical
rules in this situation. Even if there were procedural issues or SUMMARY:
delays, those don’t matter as much when a huge area of forest
 the responsibility of each generation as a trustee of the
A group of minors, representing themselves and "generations yet environment.
unborn," filed a taxpayers' class suit against the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources to arrest the  DENR has granted Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to
continued deforestation of Philippine rainforests. The petitioners various corporations covering an aggregate area of 3.89 million
alleged that despite the rapid disappearance of forest cover, the hectares, far exceeding the remaining forest cover.
government had granted commercial timber license agreements
 Petitioners, including several minors represented by their
(TLAs) to various corporations covering an aggregate area far
exceeding the remaining virgin old-growth forests. They sought a parents and the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI),
court order to cancel all existing TLAs and to stop the issuance of send a final demand letter to DENR Secretary Fulgencio S.
new ones, asserting their fundamental constitutional right to a Factoran, Jr., demanding the cancellation of all existing
balanced and healthful ecology. The respondent Secretary filed a TLAs and a cessation of the approval of new ones.
motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause
 Following the Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs, the
of action and involved a political question that pertains to the
executive or legislative branches. The trial court granted the petitioners file a taxpayers' class suit (Civil Case) in the RTC
dismissal, ruling that the complaint lacked definiteness and that the asserting that they represent their generation as well as
relief requested would unconstitutionally impair the obligation of generations yet unborn.
contracts.
 Secretary Factoran files a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the
petitioners have no cause of action and that the complaint
Whether the plaintiffs successfully alleged with sufficient definiteness
a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed. raises a political question that pertains to the executive or
legislative branches.
YES. The Court ruled that the petitioners had the legal standing (locus
standi) to file a class suit not only for themselves and their generation but  RTC Judge Eriberto U. Rosario issues an order granting the
also on behalf of "generations yet unborn". This personality to sue is motion to dismiss, ruling that the complaint failed to state a
anchored on the concept of inter-generational responsibility regarding the specific legal right and that granting the relief would
right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The Court emphasized that every unconstitutionally impair the obligation of contracts.
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve the "rhythm and
harmony of nature" for the full enjoyment of a sound environment.  Petitioners file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
with the Supreme Court- RTC committed GADALEJ
FACTS:
 President Marcos issues PD No. 1151 (Philippine ISSUE:
Environmental Policy), declaring it a state policy to fulfill the
requirements of present and future generations and recognizing
Whether the plaintiffs successfully alleged with sufficient definiteness a in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the
specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed. inception of humankind.

 If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter,

RULING: it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless
the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are
YES, the plaintiffs successfully alleged with sufficient definiteness a mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby
specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed. highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the
state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and
 IN THIS CASE, the complaint focuses on one specific advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else
fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for
ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but
history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. parched earth incapable of sustaining life.
 The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the
 Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the Other Ruling:
rhythm and harmony of nature.
 The Court ruled that the petitioners had the legal standing
This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the (locus standi) to file a class suit not only for themselves and
preceding section of the same article: their generation but also on behalf of "generations yet unborn".
This personality to sue is anchored on the concept of inter-
 Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health generational responsibility regarding the right to a
of the people and instill health consciousness among them. balanced and healthful ecology. The Court emphasized that
every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve the
 While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be "rhythm and harmony of nature" for the full enjoyment of a
found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and sound environment.
not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
 The right to a balanced and healthful ecology (found in Section
important than any of the civil and political rights
enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution) is a fundamental,
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than demandable, and enforceable right. The Court held that the
self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly complaint stated a valid cause of action because a violation of
stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may this right by the state agency tasked to protect it (the DENR)
even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a justifies judicial intervention.
matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written
 The Court rejected the argument that the case involved a editorial board and authors charging them with violations
"political question" that should be left to the executive or of the student handbook.
legislative branches. It ruled that the case primarily involved
 November 15, 1994: At the initial hearing, the students refused
the enforcement of rights and policies already established
to submit written answers, arguing instead that the Department
by law. Under the expanded jurisdiction of the 1987
of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) had jurisdiction
Constitution, the judiciary has a duty to determine if there has
over the case under the Campus Journalism Act.
been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.  Late 1994: The students’ lawyer reiterated the jurisdictional
 The Court held that the non-impairment clause of the challenge; subsequently, the Discipline Committee proceeded
Constitution does not apply to Timber License Agreements. TLA with its investigation ex parte.
is not a contract, property, or a property right; rather, it is a
mere license or privilege granted by the State to regulate  January 1995: The Discipline Board imposed severe disciplinary
the use of forest resources. As such, TLAs may be validly sanctions on eleven students, including expulsion, suspension,
amended, modified, or rescinded by the Executive when the and the withholding of graduation privileges.
national interest so requires. Even if TLAs were considered  Contention of Petitioners (The Students)
contracts, they would still yield to the police power of the State
when exercised to protect public health and the environment.  The petitioners contended that the Miriam College Discipline
Committee and Discipline Board lacked jurisdiction over the
case. WALANG JURISDICITION UNG SCHOOL
TOPIC: RIGHT TO EDUCATION  They argued that under Republic Act No. 7079 (The Campus
MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC V CA Journalism Act) and DECS Order No. 94, Series of 1992, the
DECS Regional Office had original jurisdiction over cases
FACTS: arising from the decisions and policies of a school’s editorial
board.
 September-October 1994: The Miriam College school paper,
Chi-Rho, and its magazine, Ang Magasing Pampanitikan ng  They invoked Section 7 of RA 7079, which explicitly states
Chi-Rho, published issues that members of the school that a student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on
community described as obscene, vulgar, and devoid of the basis of articles he or she has written.
moral values.
 The petitioners also asserted their constitutional rights to free
 November 4, 1994: Following complaints from the community speech and peaceable assembly, arguing they do not "shed
and a grade five student from another school, the Miriam their constitutional rights... at the schoolhouse gate".
College Discipline Committee sent letters to the student
 Argument of Respondent (Miriam College) School’s side:
Miriam College said they do have jurisdiction because schools have
 Miriam College argued that the right to discipline students is
academic freedom, which includes the right to discipline students
an inherent part of institutional academic freedom
and even remove them if needed. They also argued that the law
guaranteed by the Constitution.
doesn’t actually take away this power from schools.
 The school maintained that academic freedom includes the
In short:
freedom to determine "who may be admitted to study,"
Students: “DECS dapat, not the school—plus free speech namin
which necessitates the right to determine who may be excluded
‘to.”
or expelled.
School: “May power kami mag-discipline—that’s part of academic
 The respondent argued that DECS Order No. 94 does not freedom.”
exclude school administrators from exercising jurisdiction
over disciplinary cases, nor does RA 7079 explicitly strip
schools of this power. ISSUE:
EASIER FACTS: Whether Miriam College has the inherent right and jurisdiction to
discipline its students as part of its institutional academic freedom.
 Around 1994, Miriam College students published school paper
issues that people found offensive and inappropriate. Because RULING:
of complaints, the school’s Discipline Committee charged the
YES.
student writers and editors.
Section 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution. The essential
 The students refused to participate at first, saying the school
freedoms subsumed in the term "academic freedom" encompasses
had no jurisdiction and that the case should be handled by
the freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds:
DECS under the Campus Journalism Act.
(1) Who may teach,
 The school ignored that argument and continued the case,
eventually giving serious punishments like suspension and (2) What may be taught,
expulsion.
(3) How it shall be taught, and
Students’ side:
They argued that only DECS had authority over them, not the (4) Who may be admitted to study.
school. They also said the law protects student journalists from The right of the school to discipline its students is at once
being punished just for what they write, and that their free speech apparent in the third freedom, i.e., "how it shall be taught."
rights were violated.
 Thus, there can be no doubt that the establishment of an SUMMARY:
educational institution requires rules and regulations necessary Petitioner Manuel Camacho, Dean of the College of Education at the
for the maintenance of an orderly educational program and the University of Southeastern Philippines, challenged the passing grades
given by respondent Dr. Sixto O. Daleon to three doctoral students
creation of an educational environment conducive to learning.
during the 1994-1995 school year. These students received their grades
Such rules and regulations are equally necessary for the protection without attending regular classes, as Dr. Daleon instead utilized a
of the students, faculty, and property. special program of self-study consisting of reading materials, weekly
tutorials, and term papers. After receiving complaints from other
Accordingly, the right to discipline the student likewise finds basis in students regarding these "ghost students," Camacho discovered that Dr.
the freedom "what to teach." Daleon had made these arrangements without the Dean's prior
approval. While the university president initially directed the students to
 IN THIS CASE, Miriam College has the power to investigate, comply with regular course requirements, the Board of Regents
suspend or expel. It is a necessary corollary to the enforcement of eventually passed a resolution officially validating the grades as an
rules and regulations and the maintenance of a safe and orderly exercise of academic freedom. Camacho then filed administrative and
educational environment conducive to learning. That power, like the criminal anti-graft charges, but the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao
dismissed the complaints for lack of merit.
power to suspend or expel, is an inherent part of the academic
freedom of institutions of higher learning guaranteed by the Whether academic freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution
Constitution. We therefore rule that Miriam College has the justifies the act of Dr. Daleon in giving passing grades to the three
authority to hear and decide the cases filed against respondent students.
students. YES. The SC agrees with respondents’ position on the primacy of
academic freedom about higher institutions of learning.
Dr. Daleon’s teaching style, validated by the action of the USP Board of
Regents, is bolstered by the constitutional guarantee on academic
Final Ruling: The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision, freedom.
holding that Miriam College has the inherent right and jurisdiction to Institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college
to decide for itself, its aims and objectives and the methods on how best
discipline its students as part of its institutional academic freedom.
to attain them, free from outside coercion or interference save possibly
when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.

CAMACHO v ATTY. CORESIS

FACTS:
DOCTRINE: Institutional academic freedom includes the right of the
school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives and the  Petitioner Manuel Camacho begins his tenure as the Dean of
methods on how best to attain them, free from outside coercion or the College of Education at the University of Southeastern
interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls Philippines (USP).
for some restraint.
 Respondents Agulo, Tecson, and Alaba enroll in the subject  Camacho files a Complaint-Affidavit against Dr. Daleon before
Ed.D. 317 under respondent Dr. Sixto O. Daleon. the Office of the Ombudsman for gross incompetence and
insubordination.
 Dr. Daleon gives the three students passing grades without
requiring them to attend regular classes, opting instead for a  A Resolution was passed dismissing all administrative and
special program of self-study and weekly tutorial meetings. criminal complaints for insufficient evidence and lack of
palpable merit. NAG MR ni CAMACHO JAY OMBUDSMAN.
 Several doctoral students complain to Camacho regarding
the existence of "ghost students" in Dr. Daleon’s class who  The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao denies Camacho's
received passing grades despite failing to attend sessions. motion for reconsideration, leading to the current petition for
certiorari before the Supreme Court.
 Camacho informs Dr. Daleon of the complaints and requests
copies of exams, term papers, and attendance records; Dr.
Daleon ignores the request.
ISSUE:
 The matter is raised in a university council meeting, where USP
Whether academic freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution
President Dr. Edmundo Prantilla agrees to create a committee
justifies the act of Dr. Daleon in giving passing grades to the three
to investigate the complaint.
students.
 Dr. Daleon admits in a letter that he made special
RULING:
arrangements with the three students regarding their course
without obtaining Camacho’s approval. YES. The SC agrees with respondents’ position on the primacy of
academic freedom in regard to higher institutions of learning.
 Camacho recommends that the three students be required to
attend regular classes and comply with course requirements;  IN THIS CASE, Dr. Daleon’s teaching style, validated by the
President Prantilla initially approves this recommendation. action of the USP Board of Regents, is bolstered by the
constitutional guarantee on academic freedom.
 President Prantilla entertains an appeal from Agulo for the
 Institutional academic freedom includes the right of the
validation of the grades originally given by Dr. Daleon.
school or college to decide for itself, its aims and
 The Board of Regents (BOR) passes Resolution No. 2432, objectives and the methods on how best to attain them,
officially upholding the grade given by Dr. Daleon to free from outside coercion or interference save possibly
respondent Agulo. when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.
It encompasses the freedom to determine for itself on academic
grounds: who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be
taught, and who may be admitted to study." The right of the
 school to confirm and validate the teaching method of Dr. actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a
Daleon is at once apparent in the third freedom, i.e., "how it woman employee merely by reason of marriage.
shall be taught.
SUMMARY:
 Academic freedom is two-tiered – that of the academic Grace de Guzman was hired by PT&T as a reliever for several fixed
institution and the teachers. periods before being engaged as a probationary employee in
 Academic freedom also accords a faculty member the right to September 1991. On her employment application, she represented
pursue his studies in his particular specialty. It is defined as a herself as "single" despite having married in May 1991 to avoid being
right claimed by the accredited educator, as teacher and as disqualified by a company policy against hiring married women. PT&T
terminated her services in January 1992 after discovering the
investigator, to interpret his findings and to communicate his
discrepancy, citing her concealment of her marital status as an act of
conclusions without being subjected to any interference, dishonesty. De Guzman successfully contested her dismissal, with the
molestation, or penalty because these conclusions are Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruling that the company’s policy was an
unacceptable to some constituted authority within or beyond the illegal form of gender discrimination prohibited by the Labor Code. The
institution. IN THIS CASE, academic freedom clothes Dr. Supreme Court affirmed the illegal dismissal, holding that the "no-
Daleon with the widest latitude to innovate and experiment on marriage" rule was unconstitutional, while imposing a three-month
suspension on de Guzman for her misrepresentation.
the method of teaching which is most fitting to his students
(graduate students at that), subject only to the rules and policies Whether the Petitioner’s policy that disqualifies or dismisses
of the university. Considering that the Board of Regents has women workers for contracting marriage constitutes
validated his teaching style, we see no reason for petitioner to discrimination against women.
complain before us simply because he holds a contrary opinion
Art. 136 of Labor Code- explicitly prohibits discrimination merely by
on the matter.
reason of the marriage of a female employee.
Petitioner's policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from
work any woman worker who contracts marriage violates the right
TOPIC: WOMEN’S RIGHT TO EQUALITY against, discrimination, afforded all women workers by our labor laws
and by no less than the Constitution. Contrary to petitioner's assertion
PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY VS. that it dismissed private respondent from employment on account of her
NLRC AND GRACE DE GUZMAN dishonesty, the record discloses clearly that her ties with the company
were dissolved principally because of the company's policy that married
DOCTRINE: women are not qualified for employment in PT & T, and not merely
because of her supposed acts of dishonesty.
Art. 13 of the Labor Code. Stipulation against marriage. — It shall
be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment
or continuation of employment that a woman shall not get married,
FACTS:
or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a
woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to
 Grace de Guzman is initially hired by the Petitioner as a reliever
for a fixed period.
ISSUE:
 De Guzman contracts marriage.
whether the Petitioner’s policy that disqualifies or dismisses
 De Guzman is engaged for two more successive stints as a women workers for contracting marriage constitutes
reliever, during which she signs agreements representing discrimination against women.
herself as single.
 She is hired as a probationary employee for a 150-day period
RULING:
and again indicates her civil status as "single" on the job
application form. YES.
 PT&T's branch supervisor sends de Guzman a memorandum Section 14, Article II- expressly recognizes the role of women in
requiring her to explain the discrepancy in her civil status and nation-building and commands the State to ensure, at all times, the
reminding her of the company policy against hiring married fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Section 3
women. of Article XIII- requires the State to afford full protection to labor and
to promote full employment and equality of employment
 De Guzman responds by stating she was unaware of the policy
opportunities for all, including an assurance of entitlement to
and had not deliberately hidden her true civil status.
tenurial security of all workers.
 PT&T dismisses de Guzman from the company, leading her to
Section 14 of Article XIII mandates that the State shall protect
file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
working women through provisions for opportunities that would
 The Labor Arbiter rules that de Guzman was illegally dismissed enable them to reach their full potential.
due to discrimination and orders her reinstatement with back
Art. 136 of Labor Code- explicitly prohibits discrimination
wages.
merely by reason of the marriage of a female employee.
 The NLRC upholds the illegal dismissal ruling but modifies it by
 IN THIS CASE, petitioner's policy of not accepting or
imposing a three-month suspension on de Guzman for her
considering as disqualified from work any woman worker
dishonest concealment.
who contracts marriage violates the right against,
 The NLRC denies PT&T's motion for reconsideration, Thus, the discrimination, afforded all women workers by our labor laws
petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. and by no less than the Constitution. Contrary to petitioner's
assertion that it dismissed private respondent from
employment on account of her dishonesty, the record
 discloses clearly that her ties with the company were
dissolved principally because of the company's policy that
married women are not qualified for employment in PT & T,
and not merely because of her supposed acts of dishonesty.
Other Ruling:
 PT&T argued that Grace de Guzman was dismissed for
dishonesty because she indicated she was "single" on her
application after she was already married. However, the
Court ruled that this concealment was not in bad faith;
rather, she was "practically forced" into
misrepresentation by an illegal company policy for fear
of losing her job.