Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
G.R. No. 171396 May 3, 2006
PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, LORENZO TAADA III, RONALD LLAMAS, !. !ARR" L. RO#UE, $R.,
$OEL RUIZ %UTU"AN, ROGER R. RA"EL, GAR" S. MALLARI, ROMEL REGALADO %AGARES,
C!RISTOP!ER F.C. %OLASTIG, Petitioners,
vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL&ARRO"O, AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER&IN&C!IEF, E'ECUTIVE
SECRETAR" EDUARDO ERMITA, !ON. AVELINO CRUZ II, SECRETAR" OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
GENERAL GENEROSO SENGA, C!IEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF T!E P!ILIPPINES,
DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO LOMI%AO, C!IEF, P!ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 171(09 May 3, 2006
NIEZ CAC!O&OLIVARES AND TRI%UNE PU%LIS!ING CO., INC., Petitioners,
vs.
!ONORA%LE SECRETAR" EDUARDO ERMITA AND !ONORA%LE DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO
C. LOMI%AO, Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 171()* May 3, 2006
FRANCIS $OSEP! G. ESCUDERO, $OSEP! A. SANTIAGO, TEODORO A. CASINO, AGAPITO A.
A#UINO, MARIO $. AGU$A, SATUR C. OCAMPO, MU$IV S. !ATAMAN, $UAN EDGARDO ANGARA,
TEOFISTO DL. GUINGONA III, EMMANUEL $OSEL $. VILLANUEVA, LIZA L. MAZA, IMEE R.
MARCOS, RENATO %. MAGTU%O, $USTIN MARC S%. C!IPECO, ROILO GOLEZ, DARLENE
ANTONINO&CUSTODIO, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, $OSEL G. VIRADOR, RAFAEL V. MARIANO,
GIL%ERT C. REMULLA, FLORENCIO G. NOEL, ANA T!ERESIA !ONTIVEROS&%ARA#UEL, IMELDA
C. NICOLAS, MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN, NERI $AVIER COLMENARES, MOVEMENT OF CONCERNED
CITIZENS FOR CIVIL LI%ERTIES REPRESENTED %" AMADO GAT INCIONG, Petitioners,
vs.
EDUARDO R. ERMITA, E'ECUTIVE SECRETAR", AVELINO $. CRUZ, $R., SECRETAR", DND
RONALDO V. PUNO, SECRETAR", DILG, GENEROSO SENGA, AFP C!IEF OF STAFF, ARTURO
LOMI%AO, C!IEF PNP, Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 171()3 May 3, 2006
+ILUSANG MA"O UNO, REPRESENTED %" ITS C!AIRPERSON ELMER C. LA%OG AND
SECRETAR" GENERAL $OEL MAGLUNSOD, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LA%OR UNIONS ,
+ILUSANG MA"O UNO -NAFLU&+MU., REPRESENTED %" ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT, $OSELITO V.
USTAREZ, ANTONIO C. PASCUAL, SALVADOR T. CARRANZA, EMILIA P. DAPULANG, MARTIN
CUSTODIO, $R., AND RO#UE M. TAN, Petitioners,
vs.
!ER E'CELLENC", PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL&ARRO"O, T!E !ONORA%LE E'ECUTIVE
1
SECRETAR", EDUARDO ERMITA, T!E C!IEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF T!E P!ILIPPINES,
GENEROSO SENGA, AND T!E PNP DIRECTOR GENERAL, ARTURO LOMI%AO, Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 171(00 May 3, 2006
ALTERNATIVE LA/ GROUPS, INC. -ALG., Petitioner,
vs.
E'ECUTIVE SECRETAR" EDUARDO R. ERMITA, LT. GEN. GENEROSO SENGA, AND DIRECTOR
GENERAL ARTURO LOMI%AO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 171()9 May 3, 2006
$OSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, FELICIANO M. %AUTISTA, ROMULO R. RIVERA, $OSE AMOR M.
AMORADO, ALICIA A. RISOS&VIDAL, FELIMON C. A%ELITA III, MANUEL P. LEGASPI, $.%. $OV" C.
%ERNA%E, %ERNARD L. DAGCUTA, ROGELIO V. GARCIA AND INTEGRATED %AR OF T!E
P!ILIPPINES -I%P., Petitioners,
vs.
!ON. E'ECUTIVE SECRETAR" EDUARDO ERMITA, GENERAL GENEROSO SENGA, IN !IS
CAPACIT" AS AFP C!IEF OF STAFF, AND DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO LOMI%AO, IN !IS
CAPACIT" AS PNP C!IEF, Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 171(2( May 3, 2006
LOREN %. LEGARDA, Petitioner,
vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL&ARRO"O, IN !ER CAPACIT" AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER&IN&C!IEF0
ARTURO LOMI%AO, IN !IS CAPACIT" AS DIRECTOR&GENERAL OF T!E P!ILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE -PNP.0 GENEROSO SENGA, IN !IS CAPACIT" AS C!IEF OF STAFF OF T!E ARMED FORCES
OF T!E P!ILIPPINES -AFP.0 AND EDUARDO ERMITA, IN !IS CAPACIT" AS E'ECUTIVE
SECRETAR", Respondents.
D E C I S I !
SANDOVAL&GUTIERREZ, J.1
"ll po#ers need so$e restraint% practical ad&ust$ents rather than ri'id for$ula are necessar(.
1
Superior stren'th ) the
use of force ) cannot $a*e #ron's into ri'hts. In this re'ard, the courts should be vi'ilant in safe'uardin' the
constitutional ri'hts of the citi+ens, specificall( their libert(.
Chief ,ustice "rte$io -. Pan'aniban.s philosoph( of libert( is thus $ost relevant. /e said0 1I2 3a454 627o87629
86:5;<y, <=5 43a854 o> ?@4<635 4=o@8A B569= =5a768y a9a624< 9o75;2C52< a2A 62 >a7o; o> <=5 Doo;, <=5 oDD;5445A, <=5
Ca;962a86E5A, <=5 A64Do445445A a2A <=5 B5aF.1 2a#s and actions that restrict funda$ental ri'hts co$e to the courts
1#ith a heav( presu$ption a'ainst their constitutional validit(.1
3
4hese seven 567 consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition alle'e that in issuin' Presidential Procla$ation
!o. 1816 5PP 18167 and 9eneral rder !o. : 59.. !o. :7, President 9loria Macapa'al-"rro(o co$$itted 'rave
abuse of discretion. Petitioners contend that respondent officials of the 9overn$ent, in their professed efforts to
defend and preserve de$ocratic institutions, are actuall( tra$plin' upon the ver( freedo$ 'uaranteed and protected b(
the Constitution. /ence, such issuances are void for bein' unconstitutional.
3
nce a'ain, the Court is faced #ith an a'e-old but persistentl( $odern proble$. How does the Constitution of a free
people combine the degree of liberty, without which, law becomes tyranny, with the degree of law, without which,
liberty becomes license;
<
n =ebruar( 3>, 388?, as the nation celebrated the 38th "nniversar( of the Edsa People Power I, President "rro(o
issued PP 1816 declarin' a state of national e$er'enc(, thus0
NO/, T!EREFORE, I, 9loria Macapa'al-"rro(o, President of the Republic of the Philippines and Co$$ander-in-
Chief of the "r$ed =orces of the Philippines, b( virtue of the po#ers vested upon $e b( Section 1@, "rticle 6 of the
Philippine Constitution #hich states that0 14he President. . . #henever it beco$es necessar(, . . . $a( call out 5the7
ar$ed forces to prevent or suppress. . .rebellion. . .,1 and in $( capacit( as their Co$$ander-in-Chief, Ao =5;5:y
3oCCa2A <=5 A;C5A Fo;354 o> <=5 P=686DD6254, <o Ca62<a62 8aB a2A o;A5; <=;o@9=o@< <=5 P=686DD6254, D;5752<
o; 4@DD;544 a88 >o;C4 o> 8aB8544 76o85235 a4 B588 a4 a2y a3< o> 624@;;53<6o2 o; ;5:5886o2 a2A <o 52>o;35 o:5A65235
<o a88 <=5 8aB4 a2A <o a88 A53;554, o;A5;4 a2A ;59@8a<6o24 D;oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5;4o2a88y o; @Do2 Cy A6;53<6o2%
and a4 D;o76A5A 62 S53<6o2 17, A;<6385 12 o> <=5 Co24<6<@<6o2 Ao =5;5:y A538a;5 a S<a<5 o> Na<6o2a8 EC5;9523y.
She cited the follo#in' facts as bases0
/!EREAS, over these past $onths, ele$ents in the Do86<63a8 oDDo46<6o2 =a75 3o24D6;5A B6<= a@<=o;6<a;6a24 o> <=5
5G<;5C5 L5>< ;5D;5452<5A :y <=5 NDF&CPP&NPA a2A <=5 5G<;5C5 R69=<, ;5D;5452<5A :y C686<a;y aA752<@;64<4 ,
<=5 =64<o;63a8 525C654 o> <=5 A5Co3;a<63 P=686DD625 S<a<5 ) #ho are no# in a tactical alliance and en'a'ed in a
concerted and s(ste$atic conspirac(, over a broad front, to brin' do#n the dul( constituted 9overn$ent elected in
Ma( 388>%
/!EREAS, these conspirators have repeatedl( tried to brin' do#n the President%
/!EREAS, <=5 38a6C4 o> <=545 585C52<4 =a75 :552 ;53F85448y Ca926>65A :y 35;<a62 459C52<4 o> <=5 2a<6o2a8
C5A6a0
/!EREAS, this series of actions is hurtin' the Philippine State ) b( obstructin' 'overnance includin' =62A5;629 <=5
9;oB<= o> <=5 53o2oCy a2A 4a:o<a9629 <=5 D5oD85H4 3o2>6A5235 62 9o75;2C52< a2A <=56; >a6<= 62 <=5 >@<@;5 o>
<=64 3o@2<;y%
/!EREAS, these a3<6o24 a;5 aA75;458y a>>53<629 <=5 53o2oCy0
/!EREAS, <=545 a3<676<654 9675 <o<a86<a;6a2 >o;354 o> :o<= <=5 5G<;5C5 L5>< a2A 5G<;5C5 R69=< <=5 oD52629 <o
62<5246>y <=56; a7oB5A a6C4 <o :;629 AoB2 <=5 A5Co3;a<63 P=686DD625 S<a<5%
/!EREAS, "rticle 3, Section > of the our Constitution $a*es the defense and preservation of the de$ocratic
institutions and the State the pri$ar( dut( of 9overn$ent%
/!EREAS, the activities above-described, their conseAuences, ra$ifications and collateral effects constitute a 385a;
a2A D;5452< Aa295; to the safet( and the inte'rit( of the Philippine State and of the =ilipino people%
n the sa$e da(, the President issued 9. . !o. : i$ple$entin' PP 1816, thus0
/!EREAS, over these past $onths, ele$ents in the political opposition have conspired #ith authoritarians of the
extre$e 2eft, represented b( the !D=-CPP-!P" and the extre$e Ri'ht, represented b( $ilitar( adventurists - the
historical ene$ies of the de$ocratic Philippine State ) and #ho are no# in a tactical alliance and en'a'ed in a
concerted and s(ste$atic conspirac(, over a broad front, to brin' do#n the dul(-constituted 9overn$ent elected in
Ma( 388>%
/!EREAS, these conspirators have repeatedl( tried to brin' do#n our republican 'overn$ent%
<
/!EREAS, the clai$s of these ele$ents have been rec*lessl( $a'nified b( certain se'$ents of the national $edia%
/!EREAS, these series of actions is hurtin' the Philippine State b( obstructin' 'overnance, includin' hinderin' the
'ro#th of the econo$( and sabota'in' the people.s confidence in the 'overn$ent and their faith in the future of this
countr(%
/!EREAS, these actions are adversel( affectin' the econo$(%
/!EREAS, these activities 'ive totalitarian forces% of both the extre$e 2eft and extre$e Ri'ht the openin' to
intensif( their avo#ed ai$s to brin' do#n the de$ocratic Philippine State%
/!EREAS, "rticle 3, Section > of our Constitution $a*es the defense and preservation of the de$ocratic institutions
and the State the pri$ar( dut( of 9overn$ent%
/!EREAS, the activities above-described, their conseAuences, ra$ifications and collateral effects constitute a clear
and present dan'er to the safet( and the inte'rit( of the Philippine State and of the =ilipino people%
/!EREAS, Procla$ation 1816 date =ebruar( 3>, 388? has been issued declarin' a State of !ational E$er'enc(%
NO/, T!EREFORE, I GLORIA MACAPAGAL&ARRO"O, b( virtue of the po#ers vested in $e under the
Constitution as President of the Republic of the Philippines, and Co$$ander-in-Chief of the Republic of the
Philippines, and pursuant to Procla$ation !o. 1816 dated =ebruar( 3>, 388?, do hereb( call upon the "r$ed =orces of
the Philippines 5"=P7 and the Philippine !ational Police 5P!P7, to prevent and suppress acts of terroris$ and la#less
violence in the countr(%
I hereb( direct the Chief of Staff of the "=P and the Chief of the P!P, as #ell as the officers and $en of the "=P and
P!P, <o 6CC5A6a<58y 3a;;y o@< <=5 253544a;y a2A aDD;oD;6a<5 a3<6o24 a2A C5a4@;54 <o 4@DD;544 a2A D;5752< a3<4
o> <5;;o;64C a2A 8aB8544 76o85235.
n March <, 388?, exactl( one #ee* after the declaration of a state of national e$er'enc( and after all these petitions
had been filed, the President lifted PP 1816. She issued Procla$ation !o. 1831 #hich reads0
/!EREAS, pursuant to Section 1@, "rticle -II and Section 16, "rticle BII of the Constitution, Procla$ation !o.
1816 dated =ebruar( 3>, 388?, #as issued declarin' a state of national e$er'enc(%
/!EREAS, b( virtue of 9eneral rder !o.: and !o.? dated =ebruar( 3>, 388?, #hich #ere issued on the basis of
Procla$ation !o. 1816, the "r$ed =orces of the Philippines 5"=P7 and the Philippine !ational Police 5P!P7, #ere
directed to $aintain la# and order throu'hout the Philippines, prevent and suppress all for$ of la#less violence as
#ell as an( act of rebellion and to underta*e such action as $a( be necessar(%
/!EREAS, the "=P and P!P have effectivel( prevented, suppressed and Auelled the acts la#less violence and
rebellion%
NO/, T!EREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL&ARRO"O, President of the Republic of the Philippines, b(
virtue of the po#ers vested in $e b( la#, hereb( A538a;5 <=a< <=5 4<a<5 o> 2a<6o2a8 5C5;9523y =a4 35a45A <o 5G64<.
In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1816 and 9.. !o. :, respondents stated that the proxi$ate cause
behind the executive issuances #as the conspirac( a$on' so$e $ilitar( officers, leftist insur'ents of the !e# People.s
"r$( 5!P"7, and so$e $e$bers of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President "rro(o.
>
4he(
considered the ai$ to oust or assassinate the President and ta*e-over the rei'ns of 'overn$ent as a clear and present
dan'er.
>
Durin' the oral ar'u$ents held on March 6, 388?, the Solicitor 9eneral specified the facts leadin' to the issuance of
PP 1816 and 9.. !o. :. S6926>63a2<8y, <=5;5 Ba4 2o ;5>@<a<6o2 >;oC D5<6<6o25;4H 3o@24584.
4he Solicitor 9eneral ar'ued that the intent of the Constitution is to 'ive full A643;5<6o2a;y DoB5;4 to the President in
deter$inin' the necessit( of callin' out the ar$ed forces. /e e$phasi+ed that none of the petitioners has sho#n that
PP 1816 #as #ithout factual bases. Chile he explained that it is not respondents. tas* to state the facts behind the
Auestioned Procla$ation, ho#ever, the( are presentin' the sa$e, narrated hereunder, for the elucidation of the issues.
n ,anuar( 16, 388?, Captain !athaniel Rabon+a and =irst 2ieutenants Sonn( Sar$iento, 2a#rence San ,uan and
Patricio Du$idan', $e$bers of the Ma'dalo 9roup indicted in the a*#ood $utin(, escaped their detention cell in
=ort Donifacio, 4a'ui' Cit(. In a public state$ent, the( vo#ed to re$ain defiant and to elude arrest at all costs. 4he(
called upon the people to 1show and proclaim our displeasure at the sham regime. Let us demonstrate our disgust, not
only by going to the streets in protest, but also by wearing red bands on our left arms.1
:
n =ebruar( 16, 388?, the authorities 'ot hold of a docu$ent entitled 1Oplan Hackle I 1 #hich detailed plans for
bo$bin's and attac*s durin' the Philippine Militar( "cade$( "lu$ni /o$eco$in' in Da'uio Cit(. 4he plot #as to
assassinate selected tar'ets includin' so$e cabinet $e$bers and President "rro(o herself.
?
Epon the advice of her
securit(, President "rro(o decided not to attend the "lu$ni /o$eco$in'. 4he next da(, at the hei'ht of the
celebration, a bo$b #as found and detonated at the PM" parade 'round.
n =ebruar( 31, 388?, 2t. San ,uan #as recaptured in a co$$unist safehouse in Datan'as province. =ound in his
possession #ere t#o 537 flash dis*s containin' $inutes of the $eetin's bet#een $e$bers of the Ma'dalo 9roup and
the !ational People.s "r$( 5!P"7, a tape recorder, audio cassette cartrid'es, dis*ettes, and copies of subversive
docu$ents.
6
Prior to his arrest, 2t. San ,uan announced throu'h DFR/ that the 1agdalo!s "#"ay would be on
$ebruary %&, %''(, the %'th )nni*ersary of Edsa I.+
n =ebruar( 3<, 388?, P!P Chief "rturo 2o$ibao intercepted infor$ation that $e$bers of the P!P- Special "ction
=orce #ere plannin' to defect. 4hus, he i$$ediatel( ordered S"= Co$$andin' 9eneral Marcelino =ranco, ,r. to
+disa*ow+ an( defection. 4he latter pro$ptl( obe(ed and issued a public state$ent0 1)ll ,)$ units are under the
effecti*e control of responsible and trustworthy officers with pro*en integrity and un-uestionable loyalty.1
n the sa$e da(, at the house of for$er Con'ress$an Pepin' Co&uan'co, President Cor( "Auino.s brother,
business$en and $id-level 'overn$ent officials plotted $oves to brin' do#n the "rro(o ad$inistration. !ell(
Sinda(en of 4IME Ma'a+ine reported that Pastor Sa(con, lon'ti$e "rro(o critic, called a E.S. 'overn$ent official
about his 'roup.s plans if President "rro(o is ousted. Sa(con also phoned a $an code-na$ed Delta. Sa(con identified
hi$ as DG9en. Danilo 2i$, Co$$ander of the "r$(.s elite Scout Ran'er. 2i$ said 1it was all systems go for the
planned mo*ement against )rroyo.1
@
DG9en. Danilo 2i$ and Dri'ade Co$$ander Col. "riel Huerubin confided to 9en. 9eneroso Sen'a, Chief of Staff of
the "r$ed =orces of the Philippines 5"=P7, that a hu'e nu$ber of soldiers #ould &oin the rallies to provide a critical
$ass and ar$ed co$ponent to the "nti-"rro(o protests to be held on =ebruar( 3>, 388:. "ccordin' to these t#o 537
officers, there #as no #a( the( could possibl( stop the soldiers because the( too, #ere brea*in' the chain of co$$and
to &oin the forces foist to unseat the President. /o#ever, 9en. Sen'a has re$ained faithful to his Co$$ander-in-Chief
and to the chain of co$$and. /e i$$ediatel( too* custod( of DG9en. 2i$ and directed Col. Huerubin to return to the
Philippine Marines /eadAuarters in =ort Donifacio.
Earlier, the CPP-!P" called for intensification of political and revolutionar( #or* #ithin the $ilitar( and the police
establish$ents in order to for'e alliances #ith its $e$bers and *e( officials. !P" spo*es$an 9re'orio 1Ia Ro'er1
Rosal declared0 1.he Communist Party and re*olutionary mo*ement and the entire people look forward to the
possibility in the coming year of accomplishing its immediate task of bringing down the )rroyo regime/ of rendering it
to weaken and unable to rule that it will not take much longer to end it.1
J
n the other hand, Cesar Renerio, spo*es$an for the !ational De$ocratic =ront 5!D=7 at !orth Central Mindanao,
publicl( announced0 1)nti#)rroyo groups within the military and police are growing rapidly, hastened by the
:
economic difficulties suffered by the families of )$P officers and enlisted personnel who undertake counter#insurgency
operations in the field.1 /e clai$ed that #ith the forces of the national de$ocratic $ove$ent, the anti-"rro(o
conservative political parties, coalitions, plus the 'roups that have been reinforcin' since ,une 388:, it is probable that
the President.s ouster is nearin' its concludin' sta'e in the first half of 388?.
Respondents further clai$ed that the bo$bin' of teleco$$unication to#ers and cell sites in Dulacan and Dataan #as
also considered as additional factual basis for the issuance of PP 1816 and 9.. !o. :. So is the raid of an ar$(
outpost in Den'uet resultin' in the death of three 5<7 soldiers. "nd also the directive of the Co$$unist Part( of the
Philippines orderin' its front or'ani+ations to &oin :,888 Metro Manila radicals and 3:,888 $ore fro$ the provinces in
$ass protests.
18
D( $idni'ht of =ebruar( 3<, 388?, the President convened her securit( advisers and several cabinet $e$bers to assess
the 'ravit( of the fer$entin' peace and order situation. She directed both the "=P and the P!P to account for all their
$en and ensure that the chain of co$$and re$ains solid and undivided. 4o protect the (oun' students fro$ an(
possible trouble that $i'ht brea* loose on the streets, the President suspended classes in all levels in the entire
!ational Capital Re'ion.
Fo; <=56; Da;<, D5<6<6o25;4 36<5A <=5 5752<4 <=a< >o88oB5A a><5; <=5 644@a235 o> PP 1017 a2A G.O. No. *.
I$$ediatel(, the ffice of the President announced the cancellation of all pro'ra$s and activities related to the 38th
anniversar( celebration of Edsa People Power I% and revo*ed the per$its to hold rallies issued earlier b( the local
'overn$ents. ,ustice Secretar( Raul 9on+ales stated that political rallies, #hich to the President.s $ind #ere
or'ani+ed for purposes of destabili+ation, are cancelled.Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor announced that
1warrantless arrests and take#o*er of facilities, including media, can already be implemented.1
11

Endeterred b( the announce$ents that rallies and public asse$blies #ould not be allo#ed, 'roups of protesters
5$e$bers of 0ilusang ayo 1no KIMEL and !ational =ederation of 2abor Enions-0ilusang ayo 1no K!"=2E-
IMEL7, $arched fro$ various parts of Metro Manila #ith the intention of conver'in' at the EDS" shrine. 4hose #ho
#ere alread( near the EDS" site #ere violentl( dispersed b( hu'e clusters of anti-riot police. 4he #ell-trained
police$en used truncheons, bi' fiber 'lass shields, #ater cannons, and tear 'as to stop and brea* up the $archin'
'roups, and scatter the $assed participants. 4he sa$e police action #as used a'ainst the protesters $archin' for#ard
to Cubao, Hue+on Cit( and to the corner of Santolan Street and EDS". 4hat sa$e evenin', hundreds of riot police$en
bro*e up an EDS" celebration rall( held alon' "(ala "venue and Paseo de Roxas Street in Ma*ati Cit(.
13

"ccordin' to petitioner 0ilusang ayo 1no, the police cited PP 1816 as the 'round for the dispersal of their
asse$blies.
Durin' the dispersal of the rall(ists alon' EDS", police arrested 5#ithout #arrant7 petitioner Randolf S. David, a
professor at the Eniversit( of the Philippines and ne#spaper colu$nist. "lso arrested #as his co$panion, Ronald
2la$as, president of part(-list )kbayan.
"t around 13038 in the earl( $ornin' of =ebruar( 3:, 388?, operatives of the Cri$inal Investi'ation and Detection
9roup 5CID97 of the P!P, on the basis of PP 1816 and 9.. !o. :, raided the "aily .ribune offices in Manila. 4he
raidin' tea$ confiscated ne#s stories b( reporters, docu$ents, pictures, and $oc*-ups of the Saturda( issue.
Police$en fro$ Ca$p Cra$e in Hue+on Cit( #ere stationed inside the editorial and business offices of the
ne#spaper% #hile police$en fro$ the Manila Police District #ere stationed outside the buildin'.
1<

" fe# $inutes after the search and sei+ure at the "aily .ribune offices, the police surrounded the pre$ises of another
pro-opposition paper, Mala(a, and its sister publication, the tabloid "bante.
4he raid, accordin' to Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor, is +meant to show a 2strong presence,! to tell
media outlets not to conni*e or do anything that would help the rebels in bringing down this go*ernment.+ 4he P!P
#arned that it #ould ta*e over an( $edia or'ani+ation that #ould not follo# +standards set by the go*ernment during
the state of national emergency.+ Director 9eneral 2o$ibao stated that +if they do not follow the standards 3 and the
?
standards are # if they would contribute to instability in the go*ernment, or if they do not subscribe to what is in
4eneral Order 5o. 6 and Proc. 5o. 7'78 3 we will recommend a 2takeo*er.!+ !ational 4eleco$$unications.
Co$$issioner Ronald Solis ur'ed television and radio net#or*s to +cooperate+ #ith the 'overn$ent for the duration
of the state of national e$er'enc(. /e as*ed for +balanced reporting+ fro$ broadcasters #hen coverin' the events
surroundin' the coup atte$pt foiled b( the 'overn$ent. /e #arned that his a'enc( #ill not hesitate to reco$$end the
closure of an( broadcast outfit that violates rules set out for $edia covera'e #hen the national securit( is threatened.
1>

"lso, on =ebruar( 3:, 388?, the police arrested Con'ress$an Crispin Deltran, representin' the )nakpawis Part( and
Chair$an of 0ilusang ayo 1no 5IME7, #hile leavin' his far$house in Dulacan. 4he police sho#ed a #arrant for
his arrest dated 1J@:. Deltran.s la#(er explained that the #arrant, #hich ste$$ed fro$ a case of incitin' to rebellion
filed durin' the Marcos re'i$e, had lon' been Auashed. Deltran, ho#ever, is not a part( in an( of these petitions.
Chen $e$bers of petitioner IME #ent to Ca$p Cra$e to visit Deltran, the( #ere told the( could not be ad$itted
because of PP 1816 and 9.. !o. :. 4#o $e$bers #ere arrested and detained, #hile the rest #ere dispersed b( the
police.
9ayan una Representative Satur ca$po eluded arrest #hen the police #ent after hi$ durin' a public foru$ at the
Sulo /otel in Hue+on Cit(. Dut his t#o drivers, identified as Roel and "rt, #ere ta*en into custod(.
Retired Ma&or 9eneral Ra$on MontaMo, for$er head of the Philippine Constabular(, #as arrested #hile #ith his #ife
and 'olf$ates at the rchard 9olf and Countr( Club in Das$ariMas, Cavite.
"tte$pts #ere $ade to arrest )nakpawis Representative Satur ca$po, Representative Rafael Mariano, 9ayan una
Representative 4eodoro CasiMo and 9abriela Representative 2i+a Ma+a. 9ayan una Representative ,osel -irador
#as arrested at the P"2 4ic*et ffice in Davao Cit(. 2ater, he #as turned over to the custod( of the /ouse of
Representatives #here the 1Datasan :1 decided to sta( indefinitel(.
2et it be stressed at this point that the alle'ed violations of the ri'hts of Representatives Deltran, Satur ca$po, et al.,
are not bein' raised in these petitions.
n March <, 388?, President "rro(o issued PP 1831 declarin' that the state of national e$er'enc( has ceased to exist.
In the interi$, these seven 567 petitions challen'in' the constitutionalit( of PP 1816 and 9.. !o. : #ere filed #ith
this Court a'ainst the above-na$ed respondents. 4hree 5<7 of these petitions i$pleaded President "rro(o as
respondent.
In G.R. No. 171396, petitioners Randolf S. David, et al. assailed PP 1816 on the 'rounds that -1. it encroaches on the
e$er'enc( po#ers of Con'ress% -2. itis a subterfu'e to avoid the constitutional reAuire$ents for the i$position of
$artial la#% and -3. it violates the constitutional 'uarantees of freedo$ of the press, of speech and of asse$bl(.
In G.R. No. 171(09, petitioners !ine+ Cacho-livares and .ribune Publishin' Co., Inc. challen'ed the CID9.s act of
raidin' the "aily .ribune offices as a clear case of 1censorship1 or 1prior restraint.1 4he( also clai$ed that the ter$
1e$er'enc(1 refers onl( to tsuna$i, t(phoon, hurricane and si$ilar occurrences, hence, there is 1absolutely no
emergency1 that #arrants the issuance of PP 1816.
In G.R. No. 171()*, petitioners herein are Representative =rancis ,oseph 9. Escudero, and t#ent( one 5317 other
$e$bers of the /ouse of Representatives, includin' Representatives Satur ca$po, Rafael Mariano, 4eodoro CasiMo,
2i+a Ma+a, and ,osel -irador. 4he( asserted that PP 1816 and 9.. !o. : constitute 1usurpation of legislati*e
powers1% 1*iolation of freedom of e:pression1 and 1a declaration of martial law.1 4he( alle'ed that President "rro(o
1'ra*ely abused her discretion in calling out the armed forces without clear and *erifiable factual basis of the
possibility of lawless *iolence and a showing that there is necessity to do so.1
6
In G.R. No. 171()3,petitioners IME, !"=2E-IME, and their $e$bers averred that PP 1816 and 9.. !o. : are
unconstitutional because -1. the( arro'ate unto President "rro(o the po#er to enact la#s and decrees% -2. their
issuance #as #ithout factual basis% and -3. the( violate freedo$ of expression and the ri'ht of the people to peaceabl(
asse$ble to redress their 'rievances.
In G.R. No. 171(00, petitioner "lternative 2a# 9roups, Inc. 5"29I7 alle'ed that PP 1816 and 9.. !o. : are
unconstitutional because the( violate -a. Section >
1:
of "rticle II, -:. Sections 1,
1?
3,
16
and >
1@
of "rticle III, -3. Section
3<
1J
of "rticle -I, and -A. Section 16
38
of "rticle BII of the Constitution.
In G.R. No. 171()9, petitioners ,ose "nsel$o I. Cadi+ et al., alle'ed that PP 1816 is an 1arbitrary and unlawful
e:ercise by the President of her artial Law powers.1 "nd assu$in' that PP 1816 is not reall( a declaration of Martial
2a#, petitioners ar'ued that 1it amounts to an e:ercise by the President of emergency powers without congressional
appro*al.1 In addition, petitioners asserted that PP 1816 1goes beyond the nature and function of a proclamation as
defined under the ;e*ised )dministrati*e Code.+
"nd lastl(, in G.R. No. 171(2(,petitioner2oren D. 2e'arda $aintained that PP 1816 and 9.. !o. : are
1unconstitutional for being *iolati*e of the freedom of e:pression, including its cognate rights such as freedom of the
press and the right to access to information on matters of public concern, all guaranteed under )rticle III, ,ection & of
the 7<=8 Constitution.1 In this re'ard, she stated that these issuances prevented her fro$ full( prosecutin' her election
protest pendin' before the Presidential Electoral 4ribunal.
In respondents. Consolidated Co$$ent, the Solicitor 9eneral countered that0 first, the petitions should be dis$issed
for bein' $oot% second,petitioners in 9.R. !os. 161>88 5"29I7, 161>3> 52e'arda7, 161>@< 5IME et al.7, 161>@:
5Escudero et al.7 and 161>@J 5Cadi+ et al.7 have no le'al standin'% third, it is not necessar( for petitioners to i$plead
President "rro(o as respondent% fourth, PP 1816 has constitutional and le'al basis% and fifth, PP 1816 does not violate
the people.s ri'ht to free expression and redress of 'rievances.
n March 6, 388?, the Court conducted oral ar'u$ents and heard the parties on the above interloc*in' issues #hich
$a( be su$$ari+ed as follo#s0
A. PROCEDURAL1
1. Chether the issuance of PP 1831 renders the petitions $oot and acade$ic.
2. Chether petitioners in 171()* 5Escudero et al.7, G.R. No4. 171(00 5"29I7, 171()3 5IME et al.7, 171()9
5Cadi+ et al.7, and 171(2( 52e'arda7 have le'al standin'.
%. SU%STANTIVE1
1. Chetherthe Supre$e Court can revie# the factual bases of PP 1816.
2. Chether PP 1816 and 9.. !o. : are unconstitutional.
a. =acial Challen'e
:. Constitutional Dasis
3. "s "pplied Challen'e
A. PROCEDURAL
=irst, #e $ust resolve the procedural roadbloc*s.
@
I- Moot and Academic Principle
ne of the 'reatest contributions of the "$erican s(ste$ to this countr( is the concept of &udicial revie# enunciated in
arbury *. adison.
31
4his concept rests on the extraordinar( si$ple foundation --
4he Constitution is the supre$e la#. It #as ordained b( the people, the ulti$ate source of all political authorit(. It
confers li$ited po#ers on the national 'overn$ent. x x x I> <=5 9o75;2C52< 3o2436o@48y o; @23o2436o@48y o75;4<5D4
<=545 86C6<a<6o24 <=5;5 C@4< :5 4oC5 a@<=o;6<y 3oCD5<52< <o =o8A 6< 62 3o2<;o8, <o <=Ba;< 6<4 @23o24<6<@<6o2a8
a<<5CD<, a2A <=@4 <o 762A63a<5 a2A D;545;75 6276o8a<5 <=5 B688 o> <=5 D5oD85 a4 5GD;5445A 62 <=5 Co24<6<@<6o2. T=64
DoB5; <=5 3o@;<4 5G5;3645. T=64 64 <=5 :59622629 a2A <=5 52A o> <=5 <=5o;y o> ?@A636a8 ;5765B.
33

Dut the po#er of &udicial revie# does not repose upon the courts a 1self-startin' capacit(.1
3<
Courts $a( exercise such
po#er onl( #hen the follo#in' reAuisites are present0 first, there $ust be an actual case or controvers(% second,
petitioners have to raise a Auestion of constitutionalit(% third, the constitutional Auestion $ust be raised at the earliest
opportunit(% and fourth, the decision of the constitutional Auestion $ust be necessar( to the deter$ination of the case
itself.
3>

Respondents $aintain that the first and second reAuisites are absent, hence, #e shall li$it our discussion thereon.
"n actual case or controvers( involves a conflict of le'al ri'ht, an opposite le'al clai$s susceptible of &udicial
resolution. It is 1definite and concrete, touchin' the le'al relations of parties havin' adverse le'al interest%1 a real and
substantial controvers( ad$ittin' of specific relief.
3:
4he Solicitor 9eneral refutes the existence of such actual case or
controvers(, contendin' that the present petitions #ere rendered 1$oot and acade$ic1 b( President "rro(o.s issuance
of PP 1831.
Such contention lac*s $erit.
" $oot and acade$ic case is one that ceases to present a &usticiable controvers( b( virtue of supervenin' events,
3?
so
that a declaration thereon #ould be of no practical use or value.
36
9enerall(, courts decline &urisdiction over such case
3@
or dis$iss it on 'round of $ootness.
3J

4he Court holds that President "rro(o.s issuance of PP 1831 did not render the present petitions $oot and acade$ic.
Durin' the ei'ht 5@7 da(s that PP 1816 #as operative, the police officers, accordin' to petitioners, co$$itted ille'al
acts in i$ple$entin' it. A;5 PP 1017 a2A G.O. No. * 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 o; 7a86AI Do <=5y ?@4<6>y <=545 a88595A 68859a8
a3<4I 4hese are the vital issues that $ust be resolved in the present petitions. It $ust be stressed that 1a2
@23o24<6<@<6o2a8 a3< 64 2o< a 8aB, 6< 3o2>5;4 2o ;69=<4, 6< 6CDo454 2o A@<654, 6< a>>o;A4 2o D;o<53<6o20 6< 64 62 859a8
3o2<5CD8a<6o2, 62oD5;a<675.1
<8

4he 1$oot and acade$ic1 principle is not a $a'ical for$ula that can auto$aticall( dissuade the courts in resolvin' a
case. Courts #ill decide cases, other#ise $oot and acade$ic, if0 first, there is a 'rave violation of the Constitution%
<1

second, the exceptional character of the situation and the para$ount public interest is involved%
<3
third, #hen
constitutional issue raised reAuires for$ulation of controllin' principles to 'uide the bench, the bar, and the public%
<<

and fourth, the case is capable of repetition (et evadin' revie#.
<>

"ll the fore'oin' exceptions are present here and &ustif( this Court.s assu$ption of &urisdiction over the instant
petitions. Petitioners alle'ed that the issuance of PP 1816 and 9.. !o. : violates the Constitution. 4here is no
Auestion that the issues bein' raised affect the public.s interest, involvin' as the( do the people.s basic ri'hts to
freedo$ of expression, of asse$bl( and of the press. Moreover, the Court has the dut( to for$ulate 'uidin' and
controllin' constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules. It has the s($bolic function of educatin' the bench and the bar,
and in the present petitions, <=5 C686<a;y a2A <=5 Do8635, on the extent of the protection 'iven b( constitutional
'uarantees.
<:
"nd lastl(, respondents. contested actions are capable of repetition. Certainl(, the petitions are sub&ect to
&udicial revie#.
J
In their atte$pt to prove the alle'ed $ootness of this case, respondents cited Chief ,ustice "rte$io -. Pan'aniban.s
Separate pinion in ,anlakas *. E:ecuti*e ,ecretary.
<?
/o#ever, the( failed to ta*e into account the Chief ,ustice.s
ver( state$ent that an other#ise 1$oot1 case $a( still be decided 1pro*ided the party raising it in a proper case has
been and>or continues to be pre?udiced or damaged as a direct result of its issuance.1 4he present case falls ri'ht
#ithin this exception to the $ootness rule pointed out b( the Chief ,ustice.
II- Legal Standing
In vie# of the nu$ber of petitioners suin' in various personalities, the Court dee$s it i$perative to have a $ore than
passin' discussion on le'al standin' or locus standi.
Locus standi is defined as 1a ri'ht of appearance in a court of &ustice on a 'iven Auestion.1
<6
In private suits, standin' is
'overned b( the 1real-parties-in interest1 rule as contained in Section 3, Rule < of the 1JJ6 Rules of Civil Procedure,
as a$ended. It provides that 1575;y a3<6o2 C@4< :5 D;o453@<5A o; A5>52A5A 62 <=5 2aC5 o> <=5 ;5a8 Da;<y 62
62<5;54<.1 "ccordin'l(, the 1real-part(-in interest1 is 1<=5 Da;<y B=o 4<a2A4 <o :5 :525>6<5A o; 62?@;5A :y <=5
?@A9C52< 62 <=5 4@6< o; <=5 Da;<y 52<6<85A <o <=5 a7a684 o> <=5 4@6<.1
<@
Succinctl( put, the plaintiff.s standin' is based
on his o#n ri'ht to the relief sou'ht.
4he difficult( of deter$inin' locus standi arises in D@:863 4@6<4. /ere, the plaintiff #ho asserts a 1public ri'ht1 in
assailin' an alle'edl( ille'al official action, does so as a representative of the 'eneral public. /e $a( be a person #ho
is affected no differentl( fro$ an( other person. /e could be suin' as a 1stran'er,1 or in the cate'or( of a 1citi+en,1 or
Ntaxpa(er.1 In either case, he has to adeAuatel( sho# that he is entitled to see* &udicial protection. In other #ords, he
has to $a*e out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securin' of relief as a 1citi+en1 or
1taxpa(er.
Case la# in $ost &urisdictions no# allo#s both 1citi+en1 and 1taxpa(er1 standin' in public actions. 4he distinction #as
first laid do#n in 9eauchamp *. ,ilk,
<J
#here it #as held that the plaintiff in a taxpa(er.s suit is in a different cate'or(
fro$ the plaintiff in a citi+en.s suit. I2 <=5 >o;C5;, <=5 D8a62<6>> 64 a>>53<5A :y <=5 5GD52A6<@;5 o> D@:863 >@2A4,
B=685 62 <=5 8a<<5;, =5 64 :@< <=5 C5;5 624<;@C52< o> <=5 D@:863 3o235;2. "s held b( the !e# Oor* Supre$e Court in
People e: rel Case *. Collins0
>8
1I2 Ca<<5; o> C5;5 D@:863 ;69=<, =oB575;J<=5 D5oD85 a;5 <=5 ;5a8 Da;<654JI< 64 a<
85a4< <=5 ;69=<, 6> 2o< <=5 A@<y, o> 575;y 36<6E52 <o 62<5;>5;5 a2A 455 <=a< a D@:863 o>>5235 :5 D;oD5;8y D@;4@5A a2A
D@264=5A, a2A <=a< a D@:863 9;657a235 :5 ;5C5A65A.1 Cith respect to taxpa(er.s suits, .err *. @ordan
>1
held that 1<=5
;69=< o> a 36<6E52 a2A a <aGDay5; <o Ca62<a62 a2 a3<6o2 62 3o@;<4 <o ;54<;a62 <=5 @28aB>@8 @45 o> D@:863 >@2A4 <o
=64 62?@;y 3a22o< :5 A5265A.1
/o#ever, to prevent &ust about an( person fro$ see*in' &udicial interference in an( official polic( or act #ith #hich
he disa'reed #ith, and thus hinders the activities of 'overn$ental a'encies en'a'ed in public service, the Enited State
Supre$e Court laid do#n the $ore strin'ent 1A6;53< 62?@;y1 <54< in E: Parte Le*itt,
>3
later reaffir$ed in .ileston *.
1llman.
><
4he sa$e Court ruled that for a private individual to invo*e the &udicial po#er to deter$ine the validit( of
an executive or le'islative action, =5 C@4< 4=oB <=a< =5 =a4 4@4<a625A a A6;53< 62?@;y a4 a ;54@8< o> <=a< a3<6o2, a2A
6< 64 2o< 4@>>63652< <=a< =5 =a4 a 9525;a8 62<5;54< 3oCCo2 <o a88 C5C:5;4 o> <=5 D@:863.
4his Court adopted the KA6;53< 62?@;yK <54< in our &urisdiction. In People *. Aera,
>>
it held that the person #ho
i$pu'ns the validit( of a statute $ust have 1a D5;4o2a8 a2A 4@:4<a2<6a8 62<5;54< 62 <=5 3a45 4@3= <=a< =5 =a4
4@4<a625A, o; B688 4@4<a62 A6;53< 62?@;y a4 a ;54@8<.1 4he Aera doctrine #as upheld in a litan( of cases, such as,
Custodio *. President of the ,enate,
>:
anila ;ace Horse .rainers! )ssociation *. "e la $uente,
>?
Pascual *. ,ecretary
of Public Borks
>6
and )nti#Chinese League of the Philippines *. $eli:.
>@
/o#ever, bein' a $ere procedural technicalit(, the reAuire$ent of locus standi $a( be #aived b( the Court in the
exercise of its discretion. 4his #as done in the 19(9 EC5;9523y PoB5;4 Ca454, )raneta *. "inglasan,
>J
#here the
1<;a24352A52<a8 6CDo;<a2351 of the cases pro$pted the Court to act liberall(. Such liberalit( #as neither a rarit( nor
accidental. In )-uino *. Comelec,
:8
this Court resolved to pass upon the issues raised due to the 1>a;&;5a3=629
6CD863a<6o241 of the petition not#ithstandin' its cate'orical state$ent that petitioner therein had no personalit( to file
the suit. Indeed, there is a chain of cases #here this liberal polic( has been observed, allo#in' ordinar( citi+ens,
18
$e$bers of Con'ress, and civic or'ani+ations to prosecute actions involvin' the constitutionalit( or validit( of la#s,
re'ulations and rulin's.
:1

4hus, the Court has adopted a rule that even #here the petitioners have failed to sho# direct in&ur(, the( have been
allo#ed to sue under the principle of 1<;a24352A52<a8 6CDo;<a235.1 Pertinent are the follo#in' cases0
-1. Cha*eC *. Public Estates )uthority,
:3
#here the Court ruled that <=5 52>o;35C52< o> <=5 3o24<6<@<6o2a8
;69=< <o 62>o;Ca<6o2 a2A <=5 5L@6<a:85 A6>>@46o2 o> 2a<@;a8 ;54o@;354 a;5 Ca<<5;4 o> <;a24352A52<a8
6CDo;<a235 B=63= 38o<=5 <=5 D5<6<6o25; B6<= locus standi0
(2. 9agong )lyansang akabayan *. Damora,
:<
#herein the Court held that K96752 <=5 <;a24352A52<a8
6CDo;<a235 o> <=5 644@54 627o875A, <=5 Co@;< Cay ;58aG <=5 4<a2A629 ;5L@6;5C52<4 a2A a88oB <=5 4@6< <o
D;o4D5; A54D6<5 <=5 8a3F o> A6;53< 62?@;y <o <=5 Da;<654 455F629 ?@A636a8 ;5765BK of the -isitin' =orces
"'ree$ent%
-3. Lim *. E:ecuti*e ,ecretary,
:>
#hile the Court noted that the petitioners $a( not file suit in their capacit( as
taxpa(ers absent a sho#in' that 1Dali*atan 83-811 involves the exercise of Con'ress. taxin' or spendin'
po#ers, it reiterated its rulin' in 9agong )lyansang akabayan *. Damora,
::
<=a< 62 3a454 o> <;a24352A52<a8
6CDo;<a235, <=5 3a454 C@4< :5 45<<85A D;oCD<8y a2A A5>626<58y a2A 4<a2A629 ;5L@6;5C52<4 Cay :5
;58aG5A.
D( #a( of su$$ar(, the follo#in' rules $a( be culled fro$ the cases decided b( this Court. 4axpa(ers, voters,
concerned citi+ens, and le'islators $a( be accorded standin' to sue, provided that the follo#in' reAuire$ents are $et0
-1. the cases involve constitutional issues%
-2. for <aGDay5;4, there $ust be a clai$ of ille'al disburse$ent of public funds or that the tax $easure is
unconstitutional%
-3. for 7o<5;4, there $ust be a sho#in' of obvious interest in the validit( of the election la# in Auestion%
-(. for 3o235;25A 36<6E524, there $ust be a sho#in' that the issues raised are of transcendental i$portance
#hich $ust be settled earl(% and
-*. for 859648a<o;4, there $ust be a clai$ that the official action co$plained of infrin'es upon their
prero'atives as le'islators.
Si'nificantl(, recent decisions sho# a certain tou'henin' in the Court.s attitude to#ard le'al standin'.
In 0ilosbayan, Inc. *. orato,
:?
the Court ruled that the status of 0ilosbayan as a people.s or'ani+ation does not 'ive it
the reAuisite personalit( to Auestion the validit( of the on-line lotter( contract, $ore so #here it does not raise an(
issue of constitutionalit(. Moreover, it cannot sue as a taxpa(er absent an( alle'ation that public funds are bein'
$isused. !or can it sue as a concerned citi+en as it does not alle'e an( specific in&ur( it has suffered.
In .elecommunications and 9roadcast )ttorneys of the Philippines, Inc. *. Comelec,
:6
the Court reiterated the 1direct
in&ur(1 test #ith respect to concerned citi+ens. cases involvin' constitutional issues. It held that 1there $ust be a
sho#in' that the citi+en personall( suffered so$e actual or threatened in&ur( arisin' fro$ the alle'ed ille'al official
act.1
In Lacson *. PereC,
:@
the Court ruled that one of the petitioners, Laban ng "emokratikong Pilipino 52DP7, is not a real
part(-in-interest as it had not de$onstrated an( in&ur( to itself or to its leaders, $e$bers or supporters.
11
In ,anlakas *. E:ecuti*e ,ecretary,
:J
the Court ruled that onl( the petitioners #ho are $e$bers of Con'ress have
standin' to sue, as the( clai$ that the President.s declaration of a state of rebellion 64 a @4@;Da<6o2 o> <=5 5C5;9523y
DoB5;4 o> Co29;544, <=@4 6CDa6;629 <=56; 859648a<675 DoB5;4. "s to petitioners ,anlakas, Partido anggagawa, and
,ocial @ustice ,ociety, the Court declared the$ to be devoid of standin', eAuatin' the$ #ith the 2DP in Lacson.
!o#, the application of the above principles to the present petitions.
4he locus standi of petitioners in G.R. No. 171396, particularl( David and 2la$as, is be(ond doubt. 4he sa$e holds
true #ith petitioners in G.R. No. 171(09, Cacho-livares and .ribune Publishin' Co. Inc. 4he( alle'ed 1direct in&ur(1
resultin' fro$ 1ille'al arrest1 and 1unla#ful search1 co$$itted b( police operatives pursuant to PP 1816. Ri'htl( so,
the Solicitor 9eneral does not Auestion their le'al standin'.
In G.R. No. 171()*, the opposition Con'ress$en alle'ed there #as usurpation of le'islative po#ers. 4he( also raised
the issue of #hether or not the concurrence of Con'ress is necessar( #henever the alar$in' po#ers incident to Martial
2a# are used. Moreover, it is in the interest of &ustice that those affected b( PP 1816 can be represented b( their
Con'ress$en in brin'in' to the attention of the Court the alle'ed violations of their basic ri'hts.
In G.R. No. 171(00, 5"29I7, this Court applied the liberalit( rule in Philconsa *. Enri-ueC,
?8
0apatiran 5g ga
5aglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. *. .an,
?1
)ssociation of ,mall Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. *.
,ecretary of )grarian ;eform,
?3
9asco *. Philippine )musement and 4aming Corporation,
?<
and .aEada *. .u*era,
?>

that #hen the issue concerns a public ri'ht, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citi+en and has an interest in the
execution of the la#s.
In G.R. No. 171()3, IME.s assertion that PP 1816 and 9.. !o. : violated its ri'ht to peaceful asse$bl( $a( be
dee$ed sufficient to 'ive it le'al standin'. O;9a26Ea<6o24 Cay :5 9;a2<5A 4<a2A629 <o a445;< <=5 ;69=<4 o> <=56;
C5C:5;4.
?:
Ce ta*e &udicial notice of the announce$ent b( the ffice of the President bannin' all rallies and
cancelin' all per$its for public asse$blies follo#in' the issuance of PP 1816 and 9.. !o. :.
In G.R. No. 171()9, petitioners, CadiC et al., #ho are national officers of the Inte'rated Dar of the Philippines 5IDP7
have no le'al standin', havin' failed to alle'e an( direct or potential in&ur( #hich the IDP as an institution or its
$e$bers $a( suffer as a conseAuence of the issuance of PP !o. 1816 and 9.. !o. :. In Integrated 9ar of the
Philippines *. Damora,
??
the Court held that the $ere invocation b( the IDP of its dut( to preserve the rule of la# and
nothin' $ore, #hile undoubtedl( true, is not sufficient to clothe it #ith standin' in this case. 4his is too 'eneral an
interest #hich is shared b( other 'roups and the #hole citi+enr(. /o#ever, in vie# of the transcendental i$portance of
the issue, this Court declares that petitioner have locus standi.
In G.R. No. 171(2(, 2oren 2e'arda has no personalit( as a taxpa(er to file the instant petition as there are no
alle'ations of ille'al disburse$ent of public funds. 4he fact that she is a for$er Senator is of no conseAuence. She can
no lon'er sue as a le'islator on the alle'ation that her prero'atives as a la#$a*er have been i$paired b( PP 1816 and
9.. !o. :. /er clai$ that she is a $edia personalit( #ill not li*e#ise aid her because there #as no sho#in' that the
enforce$ent of these issuances prevented her fro$ pursuin' her occupation. /er sub$ission that she has pendin'
electoral protest before the Presidential Electoral 4ribunal is li*e#ise of no relevance. She has not sufficientl( sho#n
that PP 1816 #ill affect the proceedin's or result of her case. Dut considerin' once $ore the transcendental i$portance
of the issue involved, this Court $a( relax the standin' rules.
It $ust al#a(s be borne in $ind that the Auestion of locus standi is but corollar( to the bi''er Auestion of proper
exercise of &udicial po#er. 4his is the underl(in' le'al tenet of the 1liberalit( doctrine1 on le'al standin'. It cannot be
doubted that the validit( of PP !o. 1816 and 9.. !o. : is a &udicial Auestion #hich is of para$ount i$portance to the
=ilipino people. 4o paraphrase ,ustice 2aurel, the #hole of Philippine societ( no# #aits #ith bated breath the rulin' of
this Court on this ver( critical $atter. 4he petitions thus call for the application of the 1<;a24352A52<a8 6CDo;<a2351
doctrine, a relaxation of the standin' reAuire$ents for the petitioners in the 1PP 1816 cases.17a**phil.net
4his Court holds that all the petitioners herein have locus standi.
13
Incidentall(, it is not proper to i$plead President "rro(o as respondent. Settled is the doctrine that the President,
durin' his tenure of office or actual incu$benc(,
?6
$a( not be sued in any civil or cri$inal case, and there is no need
to provide for it in the Constitution or la#. It #ill de'rade the di'nit( of the hi'h office of the President, the /ead of
State, if he can be dra''ed into court liti'ations #hile servin' as such. =urther$ore, it is i$portant that he be freed
fro$ an( for$ of harass$ent, hindrance or distraction to enable hi$ to full( attend to the perfor$ance of his official
duties and functions. Enli*e the le'islative and &udicial branch, onl( one constitutes the executive branch and an(thin'
#hich i$pairs his usefulness in the dischar'e of the $an( 'reat and i$portant duties i$posed upon hi$ b( the
Constitution necessaril( i$pairs the operation of the 9overn$ent. /o#ever, this does not $ean that the President is
not accountable to an(one. 2i*e an( other official, he re$ains accountable to the people
?@
but he $a( be re$oved fro$
office onl( in the $ode provided b( la# and that is b( i$peach$ent.
?J

%. SU%STANTIVE
I. Reiew o! "actual #ases
Petitioners $aintain that PP 1816 has no factual basis. /ence, it #as not 1necessar(1 for President "rro(o to issue such
Procla$ation.
4he issue of #hether the Court $a( revie# the factual bases of the President.s exercise of his Co$$ander-in-Chief
po#er has reached its distilled point - fro$ the indul'ent da(s of 9arcelon *. 9aker
68
and ontenegro *. Castaneda
61
to
the volatile era of Lansang *. 4arcia,
63
)-uino, @r. *. Enrile,
6<
and 9arcia-Padilla v. Enrile.
6>
4he tu'-of-#ar al#a(s
cuts across the line definin' 1political Auestions,1 particularl( those Auestions 1in re'ard to #hich full discretionar(
authorit( has been dele'ated to the le'islative or executive branch of the 'overn$ent.1
6:
9arcelon and ontenegro
#ere in unison in declarin' that the a@<=o;6<y <o A536A5 B=5<=5; a2 5G69523y =a4 a;6452 :58o294 <o <=5 P;546A52<
and =64 A53646o2 64 >62a8 a2A 3o238@4675 o2 <=5 3o@;<4. Lansang too* the opposite vie#. 4here, the $e$bers of the
Court #ere unani$ous in the conviction that the Court has the authorit( to inAuire into the existence of factual bases in
order to deter$ine their constitutional sufficienc(. F;oC <=5 D;6236D85 o> 45Da;a<6o2 o> DoB5;4, 6< 4=6><5A <=5 >o3@4
<o <=5 4y4<5C o> 3=53F4 a2A :a8a2354, K@2A5; B=63= <=5 P;546A52< 64 4@D;5C5, G G G o28y i! a2A w$en =5 a3<4
B6<=62 <=5 4D=5;5 a88o<<5A <o =6C :y <=5 %a463 LaB, a2A <=5 a@<=o;6<y <o A5<5;C625 B=5<=5; o; 2o< =5 =a4 4o
a3<5A 64 754<5A 62 <=5 $@A636a8 D5Da;<C52<, w$ic$ in t$is respect, 64, 62 <@;2, 3o24<6<@<6o2a88y supreme.1
6?
In 1J6<,
the unani$ous Court of Lansang #as divided in )-uino *. Enrile.
66
4here, the Court #as al$ost evenl( divided on the
issue of #hether the validit( of the i$position of Martial 2a# is a political or &usticiable Auestion.
6@
4hen ca$e
4arcia#Padilla *. Enrile #hich 'reatl( diluted Lansang. It declared that there is a need to re-exa$ine the latter case,
ratiocinatin' that 162 <6C54 o> Ba; o; 2a<6o2a8 5C5;9523y, <=5 P;546A52< C@4< :5 96752 a:4o8@<5 3o2<;o8 >o; <=5
75;y 86>5 o> <=5 2a<6o2 a2A <=5 9o75;2C52< 64 62 9;5a< D5;68. T=5 P;546A52<, 6< 62<o25A, 64 a24B5;a:85 o28y <o =64
3o24365235, <=5 P5oD85, a2A GoA.1
6J

4he Integrated 9ar of the Philippines *. Damora
@8
-- a recent case $ost pertinent to these cases at bar && echoed a
principle si$ilar to Lansang. Chile the Court considered the President.s 1callin'-out1 po#er as a discretionar( po#er
solel( vested in his #isdo$, it stressed that 1<=64 Ao54 2o< D;5752< a2 5GaC62a<6o2 o> B=5<=5; 4@3= DoB5; Ba4
5G5;3645A B6<=62 D5;C6446:85 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 86C6<4 o; B=5<=5; 6< Ba4 5G5;3645A 62 a Ca225; 3o24<6<@<629 9;a75
a:@45 o> A643;5<6o2.14his rulin' is $ainl( a result of the Court.s reliance on Section 1, "rticle -III of 1J@6
Constitution #hich fortifies the authorit( of the courts to deter$ine in an appropriate action the validit( of the acts of
the political depart$ents. Ender the ne# definition of &udicial po#er, the courts are authori+ed not onl( 1to settle
actual controversies involvin' ri'hts #hich are le'all( de$andable and enforceable,1 but also 1<o A5<5;C625 B=5<=5;
o; 2o< <=5;5 =a4 :552 a 9;a75 a:@45 o> A643;5<6o2 aCo@2<629 <o 8a3F o; 5G3544 o> ?@;64A63<6o2 o2 <=5 Da;< o> a2y
:;a23= o; 624<;@C52<a86<y o> <=5 9o75;2C52<.1 4he latter part of the authorit( represents a broadenin' of &udicial
po#er to enable the courts of &ustice to revie# #hat #as before a forbidden territor(, to #it, the discretion of the
political depart$ents of the 'overn$ent.
@1
It spea*s of &udicial prero'ative not onl( in ter$s of DoB5; but also of
A@<y.
@3

"s to ho# the Court $a( inAuire into the President.s exercise of po#er, Lansang adopted the test that 1&udicial inAuir(
can go no further than to satisf( the Court not that the President.s decision is correct,1 but that 1the President did not
act arbitrarily.1 4hus, the standard laid do#n is not correctness, but arbitrariness.
@<
In Integrated 9ar of the
Philippines, this Court further ruled that 16< 64 623@C:52< @Do2 <=5 D5<6<6o25; <o 4=oB <=a< <=5 P;546A52<H4 A53646o2
1<
64 <o<a88y :5;5>< o> >a3<@a8 :a4641 and that if he fails, b( #a( of proof, to support his assertion, then 1<=64 Co@;<
3a22o< @2A5;<aF5 a2 62A5D52A52< 62754<69a<6o2 :5yo2A <=5 D85aA6294.1
Petitioners failed to sho# that President "rro(o.s exercise of the callin'-out po#er, b( issuin' PP 1816, is totall(
bereft of factual basis. " readin' of the Solicitor 9eneral.s Consolidated Co$$ent and Me$orandu$ sho#s a detailed
narration of the events leadin' to the issuance of PP 1816, #ith supportin' reports for$in' part of the records.
Mentioned are the escape of the Ma'dalo 9roup, their audacious threat of the agdalo "#"ay, the defections in the
$ilitar(, particularl( in the Philippine Marines, and the reprovin' state$ents fro$ the co$$unist leaders. 4here #as
also the Minutes of the Intelli'ence Report and Securit( 9roup of the Philippine "r$( sho#in' the 'ro#in' alliance
bet#een the !P" and the $ilitar(. Petitioners presented nothin' to refute such events. 4hus, absent an( contrar(
alle'ations, the Court is convinced that the President #as &ustified in issuin' PP 1816 callin' for $ilitar( aid.
Indeed, &ud'in' the seriousness of the incidents, President "rro(o #as not expected to si$pl( fold her ar$s and do
nothin' to prevent or suppress #hat she believed #as la#less violence, invasion or rebellion. /o#ever, the exercise of
such po#er or dut( $ust not stifle libert(.
II. %onstitutionality o! PP &'&( and ).*. +o. ,
Do3<;6254 o> S575;a8 Po86<63a8 T=5o;64<4
o2 <=5 PoB5; o> <=5 P;546A52< 62 T6C54 o> EC5;9523y
4his case brin's to fore a contentious sub&ect -- the po#er of the President in ti$es of e$er'enc(. " 'li$pse at the
various political theories relatin' to this sub&ect provides an adeAuate bac*drop for our ensuin' discussion.
,ohn 2oc*e, describin' the architecture of civil 'overn$ent, called upon the En'lish doctrine of prero'ative to cope
#ith the proble$ of e$er'enc(. In ti$es of dan'er to the nation, positive la# enacted b( the le'islature $i'ht be
inadeAuate or even a fatal obstacle to the pro$ptness of action necessar( to avert catastrophe. In these situations, the
Cro#n retained a prero'ative 1DoB5; <o a3< a33o;A629 <o A643;5<6o2 >o; <=5 D@:863 9ooA, B6<=o@< <=5 D;o43;6D<6o2
o> <=5 8aB a2A 4oC5<6C54 5752 a9a624< 6<.1
@>
Dut 2oc*e reco'ni+ed that this $oral restraint $i'ht not suffice to avoid
abuse of prero'ative po#ers. /=o 4=a88 ?@A95 <=5 255A >o; ;54o;<629 <o <=5 D;5;o9a<675 a2A =oB Cay 6<4 a:@45 :5
a7o6A5AI /ere, 2oc*e readil( ad$itted defeat, su''estin' that K<=5 D5oD85 =a75 2o o<=5; ;5C5Ay 62 <=64, a4 62 a88
o<=5; 3a454 B=5;5 <=5y =a75 2o ?@A95 o2 5a;<=, :@< <o aDD5a8 <o !5a752.1
@:

,ean-,acAues Rousseau also assu$ed the need for te$porar( suspension of de$ocratic processes of 'overn$ent in
ti$e of e$er'enc(. "ccordin' to hi$0
4he inflexibilit( of the la#s, #hich prevents the$ fro$ adoptin' the$selves to circu$stances, $a(, in certain cases,
render the$ disastrous and $a*e the$ brin' about, at a ti$e of crisis, the ruin of the StateP
It is #ron' therefore to #ish to $a*e political institutions as stron' as to render it i$possible to suspend their
operation. Even Sparta allo#ed its la# to lapse...
If the peril is of such a *ind that the paraphernalia of the la#s are an obstacle to their preservation, the $ethod is to
no$inate a supre$e la#(er, #ho shall silence all the la#s and suspend for a $o$ent the soverei'n authorit(. In such a
case, there is no doubt about the 'eneral #ill, and it clear that the people.s first intention is that the State shall not
perish.
@?

Rosseau did not fear the abuse of the e$er'enc( dictatorship or 14@D;5C5 Ca964<;a3y1 as he ter$ed it. =or hi$, it
#ould $ore li*el( be cheapened b( 1indiscreet use.1 /e #as un#illin' to rel( upon an 1aDD5a8 <o =5a752.1 Instead, he
relied upon a tenure of office of prescribed duration to avoid perpetuation of the dictatorship.
@6
,ohn Stuart Mill concluded his ardent defense of representative 'overn$ent0 1I aC >a; >;oC 3o2A5C2629, 62 3a454 o>
5G<;5C5 2535446<y, <=5 a44@CD<6o2 o> a:4o8@<5 DoB5; 62 <=5 >o;C o> a <5CDo;a;y A63<a<o;4=6D.1
@@

1>
!icollo Machiavelli.s vie# of e$er'enc( po#ers, as one ele$ent in the #hole sche$e of li$ited 'overn$ent,
furnished an ironic contrast to the 2oc*ean theor( of prero'ative. /e reco'ni+ed and atte$pted to brid'e this chas$ in
de$ocratic political theor(, thus0
!o#, in a #ell-ordered societ(, it should never be necessar( to resort to extra )constitutional $easures% for althou'h
the( $a( for a ti$e be beneficial, (et the precedent is pernicious, for if the practice is once established for 'ood
ob&ects, the( #ill in a little #hile be disre'arded under that pretext but for evil purposes. 4hus, no republic #ill ever be
perfect if she has not b( la# provided for ever(thin', havin' a re$ed( for ever( e$er'enc( and fixed rules for
appl(in' it.
@J

Machiavelli ) in contrast to 2oc*e, Rosseau and Mill ) sou'ht to incorporate into the constitution a re'ulari+ed s(ste$
of standb( e$er'enc( po#ers to be invo*ed #ith suitable chec*s and controls in ti$e of national dan'er. /e atte$pted
forthri'htl( to $eet the proble$ of co$binin' a capacious reserve of po#er and speed and vi'or in its application in
ti$e of e$er'enc(, #ith effective constitutional restraints.
J8
Conte$porar( political theorists, addressin' the$selves to the proble$ of response to e$er'enc( b( constitutional
de$ocracies, have e$plo(ed the doctrine of constitutional dictatorship.
J1
=rederic* M. Cat*ins sa# 12o ;5a4o2 B=y
a:4o8@<64C 4=o@8A 2o< :5 @45A a4 a C5a24 >o; <=5 A5>5245 o> 86:5;a8 624<6<@<6o24,1 provided it 145;754 <o D;o<53<
54<a:864=5A 624<6<@<6o24 >;oC <=5 Aa295; o> D5;Ca252< 62?@;y 62 a D5;6oA o> <5CDo;a;y 5C5;9523y a2A 64
>o88oB5A :y a D;oCD< ;5<@;2 <o <=5 D;576o@4 >o;C4 o> Do86<63a8 86>5.1
J3
/e reco'ni+ed the t#o 537 *e( ele$ents of
the proble$ of e$er'enc( 'overnance, as #ell as all constitutional 'overnance0 623;5a4629 aAC6264<;a<675 DoB5;4 o>
<=5 5G53@<675, B=685 a< <=5 4aC5 <6C5 K6CDo4629 86C6<a<6o2 @Do2 <=a< DoB5;.1
J<
Cat*ins placed his real faith in a
sche$e of constitutional dictatorship. 4hese are the conditions of success of such a dictatorship0 KT=5 D5;6oA o>
A63<a<o;4=6D C@4< :5 ;58a<6758y 4=o;<JD63<a<o;4=6D 4=o@8A a8Bay4 :5 4<;63<8y 8596<6Ca<5 62 3=a;a3<5;JF62a8
a@<=o;6<y <o A5<5;C625 <=5 255A >o; A63<a<o;4=6D 62 a2y 96752 3a45 C@4< 2575; ;54< B6<= <=5 A63<a<o; =6C458>P1
J>

and the ob&ective of such an e$er'enc( dictatorship should be 14<;63< Do86<63a8 3o245;7a<64C.1
Carl ,. =riedrich cast his anal(sis in ter$s si$ilar to those of Cat*ins.
J:
1It is a proble$ of concentratin' po#er ) in a
'overn$ent #here po#er has consciousl( been divided ) to cope #ithP situations of unprecedented $a'nitude and
'ravit(. 4here $ust be a broad 'rant of po#ers, sub&ect to eAuall( stron' li$itations as to #ho shall exercise such
po#ers, #hen, for ho# lon', and to #hat end.1
J?
=riedrich, too, offered criteria for &ud'in' the adeAuac( of an( of
sche$e of e$er'enc( po#ers, to #it0 KT=5 5C5;9523y 5G53@<675 C@4< :5 aDDo62<5A :y 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 C5a24 , 6.5.,
=5 C@4< :5 8596<6Ca<50 =5 4=o@8A 2o< 52?oy DoB5; <o A5<5;C625 <=5 5G64<5235 o> a2 5C5;9523y0 5C5;9523y
DoB5;4 4=o@8A :5 5G5;3645A @2A5; a 4<;63< <6C5 86C6<a<6o20 a2A 8a4<, <=5 o:?53<675 o> 5C5;9523y a3<6o2 C@4< :5
<=5 A5>5245 o> <=5 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 o;A5;.1
J6

Clinton 2. Rossiter, after surve(in' the histor( of the e$plo($ent of e$er'enc( po#ers in 9reat Dritain, =rance,
Cei$ar, 9er$an( and the Enited States, reverted to a description of a sche$e of 1constitutional dictatorship1 as
solution to the vexin' proble$s presented b( e$er'enc(.
J@
2i*e Cat*ins and =riedrich, he stated a priori the
conditions of success of the 1constitutional dictatorship,1 thus0
1. !o 'eneral re'i$e or particular institution of constitutional dictatorship should be initiated unless it is
necessar( or even indispensable to the preservation of the State and its constitutional orderP
2. Pthe decision to institute a constitutional dictatorship should never be in the hands of the $an or $en #ho
#ill constitute the dictatorP
3. !o 'overn$ent should initiate a constitutional dictatorship #ithout $a*in' specific provisions for its
ter$inationP
(. Pall uses of e$er'enc( po#ers and all read&ust$ents in the or'ani+ation of the 'overn$ent should be
effected in pursuit of constitutional or le'al reAuire$entsP
1:
*. P no dictatorial institution should be adopted, no ri'ht invaded, no re'ular procedure altered an( $ore
than is absolutel( necessar( for the conAuest of the particular crisis . . .
6. 4he $easures adopted in the prosecution of the a constitutional dictatorship should never be per$anent in
character or effectP
7. 4he dictatorship should be carried on b( persons representative of ever( part of the citi+enr( interested in
the defense of the existin' constitutional order. . .
). Elti$ate responsibilit( should be $aintained for ever( action ta*en under a constitutional dictatorship. . .
9. 4he decision to ter$inate a constitutional dictatorship, li*e the decision to institute one should never be in
the hands of the $an or $en #ho constitute the dictator. . .
10. !o constitutional dictatorship should extend be(ond the ter$ination of the crisis for #hich it #as
institutedP
11. Pthe ter$ination of the crisis $ust be follo#ed b( a co$plete return as possible to the political and
'overn$ental conditions existin' prior to the initiation of the constitutional dictatorshipP
JJ

Rossiter accorded to le'islature a far 'reater role in the oversi'ht exercise of e$er'enc( po#ers than did Cat*ins. /e
#ould secure to Con'ress final responsibilit( for declarin' the existence or ter$ination of an e$er'enc(, and he places
'reat faith in the effectiveness of con'ressional investi'atin' co$$ittees.
188
,cott and Cotter, in anal(+in' the above conte$porar( theories in li'ht of recent experience, #ere one in sa(in' that,
1<=5 4@9954<6o2 <=a< A5Co3;a3654 4@;;52A5; <=5 3o2<;o8 o> 9o75;2C52< <o a2 a@<=o;6<a;6a2 ;@85; 62 <6C5 o> 9;a75
Aa295; <o <=5 2a<6o2 64 not :a45A @Do2 4o@2A 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 <=5o;y.1 4o appraise e$er'enc( po#er in ter$s of
constitutional dictatorship serves $erel( to distort the proble$ and hinder realistic anal(sis. It $atters not #hether the
ter$ 1dictator1 is used in its nor$al sense 5as applied to authoritarian rulers7 or is e$plo(ed to e$brace all chief
executives ad$inisterin' e$er'enc( po#ers. /o#ever used, 1constitutional dictatorship1 cannot be divorced fro$ the
i$plication of suspension of the processes of constitutionalis$. 4hus, the( favored instead the 1concept of
constitutionalis$1 articulated b( Charles /. McIl#ain0
" concept of constitutionalis$ #hich is less $isleadin' in the anal(sis of proble$s of e$er'enc( po#ers, and #hich is
consistent #ith the findin's of this stud(, is that for$ulated b( Charles /. McIl#ain. Chile it does not b( an( $eans
necessaril( exclude so$e indeter$inate li$itations upon the substantive po#ers of 'overn$ent, full e$phasis is
placed upon D;o35A@;a8 86C6<a<6o24, and Do86<63a8 ;54Do246:686<y. McIl#ain clearl( reco'ni+ed the need to repose
adeAuate po#er in 'overn$ent. "nd in discussin' the $eanin' of constitutionalis$, he insisted that the =64<o;63a8 a2A
D;oD5; <54< o> 3o24<6<@<6o2a864C Ba4 <=5 5G64<5235 o> aA5L@a<5 D;o354454 >o; F55D629 9o75;2C52< ;54Do246:85. /e
refused to eAuate constitutionalis$ #ith the enfeeblin' of 'overn$ent b( an exa''erated e$phasis upon separation of
po#ers and substantive li$itations on 'overn$ental po#er. /e found that the reall( effective chec*s on despotis$
have consisted not in the #ea*enin' of 'overn$ent but, but rather in the 86C6<629 o> 6<% bet#een #hich there is a 'reat
and ver( si'nificant difference. I2 a44o36a<629 3o24<6<@<6o2a864C B6<= K86C6<5AK a4 A64<629@64=5A >;oC KB5aFK
9o75;2C52<, M3I8Ba62 C5a2< 9o75;2C52< 86C6<5A <o <=5 o;A5;8y D;o35A@;5 o> 8aB a4 oDDo45A <o <=5 D;o354454 o>
>o;35. T=5 <Bo >@2AaC52<a8 3o;;58a<675 585C52<4 o> 3o24<6<@<6o2a864C >o; B=63= a88 8o75;4 o> 86:5;<y C@4< y5<
>69=< a;5 <=5 859a8 86C6<4 <o a;:6<;a;y DoB5; a2A a 3oCD85<5 Do86<63a8 ;54Do246:686<y o> 9o75;2C52< <o <=5
9o75;25A.
181
In the final anal(sis, the various approaches to e$er'enc( of the above political theorists )- fro$ 2oc*.s 1theor( of
prero'ative,1 to Cat*ins. doctrine of 1constitutional dictatorship1 and, eventuall(, to McIl#ain.s 1principle of
constitutionalis$1 --- ulti$atel( ai$ to solve one real proble$ in e$er'enc( 'overnance, i.e., <=a< o> a88o<<629
623;5a4629 a;5a4 o> A643;5<6o2a;y DoB5; <o <=5 C=65> EG53@<675, B=685 624@;629 <=a< 4@3= DoB5;4 B688 :5
5G5;3645A B6<= a 45245 o> Do86<63a8 ;54Do246:686<y a2A @2A5; 5>>53<675 86C6<a<6o24 a2A 3=53F4.
1?
ur Constitution has fairl( coped #ith this proble$. =resh fro$ the fetters of a repressive re'i$e, the 1J@?
Constitutional Co$$ission, in draftin' the 1J@6 Constitution, endeavored to create a 'overn$ent in the concept of
,ustice ,ac*son.s 1balanced po#er structure.1
183
Executive, le'islative, and &udicial po#ers are dispersed to the
President, the Con'ress, and the Supre$e Court, respectivel(. Each is supre$e #ithin its o#n sphere. %@< 2o25 =a4
<=5 Co2oDo8y o> DoB5; 62 <6C54 o> 5C5;9523y. Ea3= :;a23= 64 96752 a ;o85 <o 45;75 a4 86C6<a<6o2 o; 3=53F @Do2
<=5 o<=5;. 4his s(ste$ does not B5aF52 the President, it &ust 86C6<4 his po#er, usin' the lan'ua'e of McIl#ain. In
other #ords, in ti$es of e$er'enc(, our Constitution reasonabl( de$ands that #e repose a certain a$ount of faith in
the basic inte'rit( and #isdo$ of the Chief Executive but, at the sa$e ti$e, 6< o:86954 =6C <o oD5;a<5 B6<=62
3a;5>@88y D;543;6:5A D;o35A@;a8 86C6<a<6o24.
a. KFa36a8 C=a885295K
Petitioners contend that PP 1816 is void on its face because of its 1overbreadth.1 4he( clai$ that its enforce$ent
encroached on both unprotected and protected ri'hts under Section >, "rticle III of the Constitution and sent a
1chillin' effect1 to the citi+ens.
" facial revie# of PP 1816, usin' the overbreadth doctrine, is uncalled for.
$irst and foremost, the overbreadth doctrine is an anal(tical tool developed for testin' 1on their faces1 statutes in >;55
4D553= 3a454, also *no#n under the "$erican 2a# as =irst "$end$ent cases.
18<

" plain readin' of PP 1816 sho#s that it is not pri$aril( directed to speech or even speech-related conduct. It is
actuall( a call upon the "=P to prevent or suppress all for$s of 8aB8544 76o85235. In 1nited ,tates *. ,alerno,
18>
the ES
Supre$e Court held that 1B5 =a75 2o< ;53o926E5A a2 Mo75;:;5aA<=H Ao3<;625 o@<46A5 <=5 86C6<5A 3o2<5G< o> <=5
F6;4< AC52AC52<K ->;55AoC o> 4D553=..
Moreover, the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testin' the validit( of a la# that 1reflects le'iti$ate state
interest in $aintainin' co$prehensive control over har$ful, constitutionall( unprotected conduct.1 Endoubtedl(,
la#less violence, insurrection and rebellion are considered 1har$ful1 and 1constitutionall( unprotected conduct.1 In
9roadrick *. Oklahoma,
18:
it #as held0
It re$ains a N$atter of no little difficult(. to deter$ine #hen a la# $a( properl( be held void on its face and #hen
Nsuch su$$ar( action. is inappropriate. %@< <=5 D8a62 6CDo;< o> o@; 3a454 64, a< <=5 75;y 85a4<, <=a< >a36a8
o75;:;5aA<= aA?@A63a<6o2 64 a2 5G35D<6o2 <o o@; <;aA6<6o2a8 ;@854 o> D;a3<635 a2A <=a< 6<4 >@23<6o2, a 86C6<5A o25
a< <=5 o@<45<, a<<52@a<54 a4 <=5 o<=5;B645 @2D;o<53<5A :5=a76o; <=a< 6< >o;:6A4 <=5 S<a<5 <o 4a23<6o2 Co754 >;oC
MD@;5 4D553=H <oBa;A 3o2A@3< and <=a< 3o2A@3< ,5752 6> 5GD;544675 , >a884 B6<=62 <=5 43oD5 o> o<=5;B645 7a86A
3;6C62a8 8aB4 <=a< ;5>853< 8596<6Ca<5 4<a<5 62<5;54<4 62 Ca62<a62629 3oCD;5=524675 3o2<;o84 o75; =a;C>@8,
3o24<6<@<6o2a88y @2D;o<53<5A 3o2A@3<.
4hus, clai$s of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involvin' statutes #hich, :y <=56; <5;C4, see* to re'ulate
onl( 14DoF52 Bo;A41 and a'ain, that 1o75;:;5aA<= 38a6C4, 6> 52<5;<a625A a< a88, =a75 :552 3@;<a685A B=52 627oF5A
a9a624< o;A62a;y 3;6C62a8 8aB4 <=a< a;5 4o@9=< <o :5 aDD865A <o D;o<53<5A 3o2A@3<.1
18?
/ere, the incontrovertible
fact re$ains that PP 1816 pertains to a spectru$ of 3o2A@3<, not free speech, #hich is $anifestl( sub&ect to state
re'ulation.
,econd, facial invalidation of la#s is considered as 1Ca26>54<8y 4<;o29 C5A63625,1 to be used 14Da;6298y a2A o28y a4
a 8a4< ;54o;<,1 and is 19525;a88y A64>a7o;5A%1
186
4he reason for this is obvious. E$bedded in the traditional rules
'overnin' constitutional ad&udication is the principle that a person to #ho$ a la# $a( be applied #ill not be heard to
challen'e a la# on the 'round that it $a( conceivabl( be applied unconstitutionall( to others, i.e., 62 o<=5; 46<@a<6o24
2o< :5>o;5 <=5 Co@;<.
18@
" #riter and scholar in Constitutional 2a# explains further0
T=5 Co4< A64<623<675 >5a<@;5 o> <=5 o75;:;5aA<= <53=26L@5 64 <=a< 6< Ca;F4 a2 5G35D<6o2 <o 4oC5 o> <=5 @4@a8
;@854 o> 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 86<69a<6o2. O;A62a;68y, a Da;<63@8a; 86<69a2< 38a6C4 <=a< a 4<a<@<5 64 @23o24<6<@<6o2a8 a4
aDD865A <o =6C o; =5;0 6> <=5 86<69a2< D;57a684, <=5 3o@;<4 3a;75 aBay <=5 @23o24<6<@<6o2a8 a4D53<4 o> <=5 8aB :y
16
627a86Aa<629 6<4 6CD;oD5; aDD863a<6o24 o2 a 3a45 <o 3a45 :a464. Mo;5o75;, 3=a885295;4 <o a 8aB a;5 2o< D5;C6<<5A
<o ;a645 <=5 ;69=<4 o> <=6;A Da;<654 a2A 3a2 o28y a445;< <=56; oB2 62<5;54<4. I2 o75;:;5aA<= a2a8y464, <=o45 ;@854
9675 Bay0 3=a8852954 a;5 D5;C6<<5A <o ;a645 <=5 ;69=<4 o> <=6;A Da;<654% and the court invalidates the entire statute
1on its face,1 not $erel( 1as applied for1 so that the overbroad la# beco$es unenforceable until a properl( authori+ed
court construes it $ore narro#l(. 4he factor that $otivates courts to depart fro$ the nor$al ad&udicator( rules is the
concern #ith the 1chillin'%1 deterrent effect of the overbroad statute on third parties not coura'eous enou'h to brin'
suit. 4he Court assu$es that an overbroad la#.s 1ver( existence $a( cause others not before the court to refrain fro$
constitutionall( protected speech or expression.1 "n overbreadth rulin' is desi'ned to re$ove that deterrent effect on
the speech of those third parties.
In other #ords, a facial challen'e usin' the overbreadth doctrine #ill reAuire the Court to exa$ine PP 1816 and
pinpoint its fla#s and defects, not on the basis of its actual operation to petitioners, but on the assu$ption or prediction
that its ver( existence $a( cause o<=5;4 2o< :5>o;5 <=5 Co@;< to refrain fro$ constitutionall( protected speech or
expression. In Founger *. Harris,
18J
it #as held that0
K4Lhe tas* of anal(+in' a proposed statute, pinpointin' its deficiencies, and reAuirin' correction of these deficiencies
before the statute is put into effect, is rarel( if ever an appropriate tas* for the &udiciar(. 4he co$bination of the
;58a<675 ;5Co<52544 o> <=5 3o2<;o75;4y, the 6CDa3< o2 <=5 859648a<675 D;o3544 o> <=5 ;5865> 4o@9=<, and above all <=5
4D53@8a<675 a2A aCo;D=o@4 2a<@;5 o> <=5 ;5L@6;5A 8625&:y&8625 a2a8y464 o> A5<a685A 4<a<@<54,...ordinaril( results in
a *ind of case that is B=o88y @24a<64>a3<o;y for decidin' constitutional Auestions, #hichever #a( the( $i'ht be
decided.
"nd third, a facial challen'e on the 'round of overbreadth is the $ost difficult challen'e to $ount successfull(, since
the challen'er $ust establish that <=5;5 3a2 :5 2o 624<a235 B=52 <=5 a44a685A 8aB Cay :5 7a86A. /ere, petitioners did
not even atte$pt to sho# #hether this situation exists.
Petitioners li*e#ise see* a facial revie# of PP 1816 on the 'round of va'ueness. 4his, too, is un#arranted.
Related to the 1overbreadth1 doctrine is the 1void for va'ueness doctrine1 #hich holds that 1a 8aB 64 >a36a88y 627a86A 6>
C52 o> 3oCCo2 62<588695235 C@4< 253544a;68y 9@544 a< 6<4 C5a2629 a2A A6>>5; a4 <o 6<4 aDD863a<6o2.1
118
It is sub&ect
to the sa$e principles 'overnin' overbreadth doctrine. =or one, it is also an anal(tical tool for testin' 1on their faces1
4<a<@<54 62 >;55 4D553= 3a454. "nd li*e overbreadth, it is said that a liti'ant $a( challen'e a statute on its face onl( if
it is 7a9@5 62 a88 6<4 Do446:85 aDD863a<6o24. A9a62, D5<6<6o25;4 A6A 2o< 5752 a<<5CD< <o 4=oB <=a< PP 1017 64 7a9@5
62 a88 6<4 aDD863a<6o2. 4he( also failed to establish that $en of co$$on intelli'ence cannot understand the $eanin'
and application of PP 1816.
:. Co24<6<@<6o2a8 %a464 o> PP 1017
!o# on the constitutional foundation of PP 1816.
4he operative portion of PP 1816 $a( be divided into three i$portant provisions, thus0
"irst proision-
1b( virtue of the po#er vested upon $e b( Section 1@, "rtilce -II P do hereb( co$$and the "r$ed =orces of the
Philippines, to $aintain la# and order throu'hout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all for$s of la#less violence as
#ell an( act of insurrection or rebellion1
Second proision-
1and to enforce obedience to all the la#s and to all decrees, orders and re'ulations pro$ul'ated b( $e personall( or
upon $( direction%1
1@
.$ird proision-
1as provided in Section 16, "rticle BII of the Constitution do hereb( declare a State of !ational E$er'enc(.1
"irst Proision- %alling-out Power
4he first provision pertains to the President.s callin'-out po#er. In ,anlakas *. E:ecuti*e ,ecretary,
111
this Court,
throu'h Mr. ,ustice Dante . 4in'a, held that Section 1@, "rticle -II of the Constitution reproduced as follo#s0
S53. 1). 4he President shall be the Co$$ander-in-Chief of all ar$ed forces of the Philippines and B=52575; 6<
:53oC54 253544a;y, =5 Cay 3a88 o@< 4@3= a;C5A >o;354 <o D;5752< o; 4@DD;544 8aB8544 76o85235, 627a46o2 o;
;5:5886o2. In case of invasion or rebellion, #hen the public safet( reAuires it, he $a(, for a period not exceedin' sixt(
da(s, suspend the privile'e of the #rit of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or an( part thereof under $artial la#.
Cithin fort(-ei'ht hours fro$ the procla$ation of $artial la# or the suspension of the privile'e of the #rit of habeas
corpus, the President shall sub$it a report in person or in #ritin' to the Con'ress. 4he Con'ress, votin' &ointl(, b( a
vote of at least a $a&orit( of all its Me$bers in re'ular or special session, $a( revo*e such procla$ation or
suspension, #hich revocation shall not be set aside b( the President. Epon the initiative of the President, the Con'ress
$a(, in the sa$e $anner, extend such procla$ation or suspension for a period to be deter$ined b( the Con'ress, if the
invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safet( reAuires it.
4he Con'ress, if not in session, shall #ithin t#ent(-four hours follo#in' such procla$ation or suspension, convene in
accordance #ith its rules #ithout need of a call.
4he Supre$e Court $a( revie#, in an appropriate proceedin' filed b( an( citi+en, the sufficienc( of the factual bases
of the procla$ation of $artial la# or the suspension of the privile'e of the #rit or the extension thereof, and $ust
pro$ul'ate its decision thereon #ithin thirt( da(s fro$ its filin'.
" state of $artial la# does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functionin' of the civil
courts or le'islative asse$blies, nor authori+e the confer$ent of &urisdiction on $ilitar( courts and a'encies over
civilians #here civil courts are able to function, nor auto$aticall( suspend the privile'e of the #rit.
4he suspension of the privile'e of the #rit shall appl( onl( to persons &udiciall( char'ed for rebellion or offenses
inherent in or directl( connected #ith invasion.
Durin' the suspension of the privile'e of the #rit, an( person thus arrested or detained shall be &udiciall( char'ed
#ithin three da(s, other#ise he shall be released.
'rants the President, as Co$$ander-in-Chief, a 1seAuence1 of 'raduated po#ers. =ro$ the $ost to the least beni'n,
these are0 the callin'-out po#er, the po#er to suspend the privile'e of the #rit of habeas corpus, and the po#er to
declare Martial 2a#. Citin' Integrated 9ar of the Philippines *. Damora,
113
the Court ruled that the onl( criterion for
the exercise of the callin'-out po#er is that 1B=52575; 6< :53oC54 253544a;y,1 the President $a( call the ar$ed
forces 1<o D;5752< o; 4@DD;544 8aB8544 76o85235, 627a46o2 o; ;5:5886o2.1 )re these conditions present in the instant
cases; "s stated earlier, considerin' the circu$stances then prevailin', President "rro(o found it necessar( to issue PP
1816. #in' to her ffice.s vast intelli'ence net#or*, she is in the best position to deter$ine the actual condition of
the countr(.
Ender the callin'-out po#er, the President $a( su$$on the ar$ed forces to aid hi$ in suppressin' 8aB8544 76o85235,
627a46o2 a2A ;5:5886o2. 4his involves ordinar( police action. Dut ever( act that 'oes be(ond the President.s callin'-
out po#er is considered ille'al or ultra *ires. =or this reason, a President $ust be careful in the exercise of his po#ers.
/e cannot invo*e a 'reater po#er #hen he #ishes to act under a lesser po#er. 4here lies the #isdo$ of our
Constitution, the 'reater the po#er, the 'reater are the li$itations.
1J
It is pertinent to state, ho#ever, that there is a distinction bet#een the President.s authorit( to declare a 1state of
rebellion1 5in ,anlakas7 and the authorit( to proclai$ a state of national e$er'enc(. Chile President "rro(o.s
authorit( to declare a 1state of rebellion1 e$anates fro$ her po#ers as Chief Executive, the statutor( authorit( cited in
,anlakas #as Section >, Chapter 3, Doo* II of the Revised "d$inistrative Code of 1J@6, #hich provides0
SEC. >. ) Procla$ations. ) "cts of the President fixin' a date or declarin' a status or condition of public $o$ent or
interest, upon the existence of #hich the operation of a specific la# or re'ulation is $ade to depend, shall be
pro$ul'ated in procla$ations #hich shall have the force of an executive order.
President "rro(o.s declaration of a 1state of rebellion1 #as $erel( an act declarin' a status or condition of public
$o$ent or interest, a declaration allo#ed under Section > cited above. Such declaration, in the #ords of ,anlakas, is
har$less, #ithout le'al si'nificance, and dee$ed not #ritten. In these cases, PP 1816 is $ore than that. In declarin' a
state of national e$er'enc(, President "rro(o did not onl( rel( on Section 1@, "rticle -II of the Constitution, a
provision callin' on the "=P to prevent or suppress la#less violence, invasion or rebellion. She also relied on Section
16, "rticle BII, a provision on the State.s extraordinar( po#er to ta*e over privatel(-o#ned public utilit( and business
affected #ith public interest. Indeed, PP 1816 calls for the exercise of an aB54oC5 DoB5;. bviousl(, such
Procla$ation cannot be dee$ed har$less, #ithout le'al si'nificance, or not #ritten, as in the case of ,anlakas.
So$e of the petitioners vehe$entl( $aintain that PP 1816 is actuall( a declaration of Martial 2a#. It is no so. Chat
defines the character of PP 1816 are its #ordin's. It is plain therein that #hat the President invo*ed #as her callin'-out
po#er.
4he declaration of Martial 2a# is a 1#arnKin'L to citi+ens that the $ilitar( po#er has been called upon b( the
executive to assist in the $aintenance of la# and order, and that, #hile the e$er'enc( lasts, the( $ust, upon pain of
arrest and punish$ent, not co$$it an( acts #hich #ill in an( #a( render $ore difficult the restoration of order and
the enforce$ent of la#.1
11<

In his 1,tatement before the ,enate Committee on @ustice1 on March 1<, 388?, Mr. ,ustice -icente -. Mendo+a,
11>
an
authorit( in constitutional la#, said that of the three po#ers of the President as Co$$ander-in-Chief, the po#er to
declare Martial 2a# poses the $ost severe threat to civil liberties. It is a stron' $edicine #hich should not be resorted
to li'htl(. It cannot be used to stifle or persecute critics of the 'overn$ent. It is placed in the *eepin' of the President
for the purpose of enablin' hi$ to secure the people fro$ har$ and to restore order so that the( can en&o( their
individual freedo$s. In fact, Section 1@, "rt. -II, provides0
" state of $artial la# does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functionin' of the civil
courts or le'islative asse$blies, nor authori+e the confer$ent of &urisdiction on $ilitar( courts and a'encies over
civilians #here civil courts are able to function, nor auto$aticall( suspend the privile'e of the #rit.
,ustice Mendo+a also stated that PP 1816 is not a declaration of Martial 2a#. It is no $ore than a call b( the President
to the ar$ed forces to prevent or suppress la#less violence. "s such, it cannot be used to &ustif( acts that onl( under a
valid declaration of Martial 2a# can be done. Its use for an( other purpose is a perversion of its nature and scope, and
an( act done contrar( to its co$$and is ultra *ires.
,ustice Mendo+a further stated that specificall(, 5a7 arrests and sei+ures #ithout &udicial #arrants% 5b7 ban on public
asse$blies% 5c7 ta*e-over of ne#s $edia and a'encies and press censorship% and 5d7 issuance of Presidential Decrees,
are po#ers #hich can be exercised b( the President as Co$$ander-in-Chief o28y #here there is a valid declaration of
Martial 2a# or suspension of the #rit of habeas corpus.
Dased on the above disAuisition, it is clear that PP 1816 is not a declaration of Martial 2a#. I< 64 C5;58y a2 5G5;3645 o>
P;546A52< A;;oyoH4 3a88629&o@< DoB5; for the ar$ed forces to assist her in preventin' or suppressin' la#less
violence.
Second Proision- /.a0e %are/ Power
38
4he second provision pertains to the po#er of the President to ensure that the la#s be faithfull( executed. 4his is based
on Section 16, "rticle -II #hich reads0
SEC. 17. 4he President shall have control of all the executive depart$ents, bureaus, and offices. !5 4=a88 524@;5 <=a<
<=5 8aB4 :5 >a6<=>@88y 5G53@<5A.
"s the Executive in #ho$ the executive po#er is vested,
11:
the pri$ar( function of the President is to enforce the la#s
as #ell as to for$ulate policies to be e$bodied in existin' la#s. /e sees to it that all la#s are enforced b( the officials
and e$plo(ees of his depart$ent. Defore assu$in' office, he is reAuired to ta*e an oath or affir$ation to the effect that
as President of the Philippines, he #ill, a$on' others, 1execute its la#s.1
11?
In the exercise of such function, the
President, if needed, $a( e$plo( the po#ers attached to his office as the Co$$ander-in-Chief of all the ar$ed forces
of the countr(,
116
includin' the Philippine !ational Police
11@
under the Depart$ent of Interior and 2ocal 9overn$ent.
11J
Petitioners, especiall( Representatives =rancis ,oseph 9. Escudero, Satur ca$po, Rafael Mariano, 4eodoro CasiMo,
2i+a Ma+a, and ,osel -irador ar'ue that PP 1816 is unconstitutional as it arro'ated upon President "rro(o the po#er to
enact la#s and decrees in violation of Section 1, "rticle -I of the Constitution, #hich vests the po#er to enact la#s in
Con'ress. 4he( assail the clause 1<o 52>o;35 o:5A65235 <o a88 <=5 8aB4 a2A <o a88 A53;554, o;A5;4 a2A ;59@8a<6o24
D;oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5;4o2a88y o; @Do2 Cy A6;53<6o2.1
Q
Petitioners. contention is understandable. " readin' of PP 1816 operative clause sho#s that it #as lifted
138
fro$ =or$er
President Marcos. Procla$ation !o. 18@1, #hich partl( reads0
NO/, T!EREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines b( virtue of the po#ers vested
upon $e b( "rticle -II, Section 18, Para'raph 537 of the Constitution, do hereb( place the entire Philippines as defined
in "rticle 1, Section 1 of the Constitution under $artial la# and, in $( capacit( as their Co$$ander-in-Chief, Ao
=5;5:y 3oCCa2A <=5 A;C5A Fo;354 o> <=5 P=686DD6254, <o Ca62<a62 8aB a2A o;A5; <=;o@9=o@< <=5 P=686DD6254,
D;5752< o; 4@DD;544 a88 >o;C4 o> 8aB8544 76o85235 a4 B588 a4 a2y a3< o> 624@;;53<6o2 o; ;5:5886o2 a2A <o 52>o;35
o:5A65235 <o a88 <=5 8aB4 a2A A53;554, o;A5;4 a2A ;59@8a<6o24 D;oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5;4o2a88y o; @Do2 Cy
A6;53<6o2.
Ce all *no# that it #as PP 18@1 #hich 'ranted President Marcos le'islative po#er. Its enablin' clause states0 K<o
52>o;35 o:5A65235 <o a88 <=5 8aB4 a2A A53;554, o;A5;4 a2A ;59@8a<6o24 D;oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5;4o2a88y o; @Do2 Cy
A6;53<6o2.K Epon the other hand, the enablin' clause of PP 1816 issued b( President "rro(o is0 <o 52>o;35 o:5A65235
<o a88 <=5 8aB4 a2A to all A53;554, o;A5;4 a2A ;59@8a<6o24 D;oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5;4o2a88y o; @Do2 Cy A6;53<6o2.1
Is it within the domain of President )rroyo to promulgate +decrees+G
PP 1816 states in part0 1to enforce obedience to all the la#s and A53;554 x x x D;oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5;4o2a88y o;
@Do2 Cy A6;53<6o2.1
4he President is 'ranted an rdinance Po#er under Chapter 3, Doo* III of Executive rder !o. 3J3 5"d$inistrative
Code of 1J@67. She $a( issue an( of the follo#in'0
Sec. 3. E:ecuti*e Orders. R "cts of the President providin' for rules of a 'eneral or per$anent character in
i$ple$entation or execution of constitutional or statutor( po#ers shall be pro$ul'ated in executive orders.
Sec. <. )dministrati*e Orders. R "cts of the President #hich relate to particular aspect of 'overn$ental operations in
pursuance of his duties as ad$inistrative head shall be pro$ul'ated in ad$inistrative orders.
31
Sec. >. Proclamations. R "cts of the President fixin' a date or declarin' a status or condition of public $o$ent or
interest, upon the existence of #hich the operation of a specific la# or re'ulation is $ade to depend, shall be
pro$ul'ated in procla$ations #hich shall have the force of an executive order.
Sec. :. emorandum Orders. R "cts of the President on $atters of ad$inistrative detail or of subordinate or
te$porar( interest #hich onl( concern a particular officer or office of the 9overn$ent shall be e$bodied in
$e$orandu$ orders.
Sec. ?. emorandum Circulars. R "cts of the President on $atters relatin' to internal ad$inistration, #hich the
President desires to brin' to the attention of all or so$e of the depart$ents, a'encies, bureaus or offices of the
9overn$ent, for infor$ation or co$pliance, shall be e$bodied in $e$orandu$ circulars.
Sec. 6. 4eneral or ,pecial Orders. R "cts and co$$ands of the President in his capacit( as Co$$ander-in-Chief of
the "r$ed =orces of the Philippines shall be issued as 'eneral or special orders.
President "rro(o.s ordinance po#er is li$ited to the fore'oin' issuances. She cannot issue A53;554 si$ilar to those
issued b( =or$er President Marcos under PP 18@1. Presidential Decrees are la#s #hich are of the sa$e cate'or( and
bindin' force as statutes because the( #ere issued b( the President in the exercise of his le'islative po#er durin' the
period of Martial 2a# under the 1J6< Constitution.
131

T=64 Co@;< ;@854 <=a< <=5 a44a685A PP 1017 64 @23o24<6<@<6o2a8 624o>a; a4 6< 9;a2<4 P;546A52< A;;oyo <=5 a@<=o;6<y
<o D;oC@89a<5 KA53;554.K 2e'islative po#er is peculiarl( #ithin the province of the 2e'islature. Section 1, "rticle -I
cate'oricall( states that 1N<O=5 859648a<675 DoB5; 4=a88 :5 754<5A 62 <=5 Co29;544 o> <=5 P=686DD6254 B=63= 4=a88
3o2464< o> a S52a<5 a2A a !o@45 o> R5D;5452<a<6754.1 4o be sure, neither Martial 2a# nor a state of rebellion nor a
state of e$er'enc( can &ustif( President "rro(o.s exercise of le'islative po#er b( issuin' decrees.
Can President )rroyo enforce obedience to all decrees and laws through the military;
"s this Court stated earlier, President "rro(o has no authorit( to enact decrees. It follo#s that these decrees are void
and, therefore, cannot be enforced. Cith respect to 1la#s,1 she cannot call the $ilitar( to enforce or i$ple$ent certain
la#s, such as custo$s la#s, la#s 'overnin' fa$il( and propert( relations, la#s on obli'ations and contracts and the
li*e. She can onl( order the $ilitar(, under PP 1816, to enforce la#s pertinent to its dut( <o 4@DD;544 8aB8544 76o85235.
.$ird Proision- Power to .a0e *er
4he pertinent provision of PP 1816 states0
x x x and to enforce obedience to all the la#s and to all decrees, orders, and re'ulations pro$ul'ated b( $e personall(
or upon $( direction% a2A a4 D;o76A5A 62 S53<6o2 17, A;<6385 'II o> <=5 Co24<6<@<6o2 Ao =5;5:y A538a;5 a 4<a<5 o>
2a<6o2a8 5C5;9523y.
4he i$port of this provision is that President "rro(o, durin' the state of national e$er'enc( under PP 1816, can call
the $ilitar( not onl( to enforce obedience 1to all the la#s and to all decrees x x x1 but also to act pursuant to the
provision of Section 16, "rticle BII #hich reads0
S53. 17. In ti$es of national e$er'enc(, #hen the public interest so reAuires, the State $a(, durin' the e$er'enc( and
under reasonable ter$s prescribed b( it, te$poraril( ta*e over or direct the operation of an( privatel(-o#ned public
utilit( or business affected #ith public interest.
Bhat could be the reason of President )rroyo in in*oking the abo*e pro*ision when she issued PP 7'78G
33
4he ans#er is si$ple. Durin' the existence of the state of national e$er'enc(, PP 1816 purports to 'rant the President,
#ithout an( authorit( or dele'ation fro$ Con'ress, to ta*e over or direct the operation of an( privatel(-o#ned public
utilit( or business affected #ith public interest.
4his provision #as first introduced in the 1J6< Constitution, as a product of the 1$artial la#1 thin*in' of the 1J61
Constitutional Convention.
133
In effect at the ti$e of its approval #as President Marcos. 2etter of Instruction !o. 3
dated Septe$ber 33, 1J63 instructin' the Secretar( of !ational Defense to ta*e over 1the management, control and
operation of the anila Electric Company, the Philippine Long "istance .elephone Company, the 5ational
Baterworks and ,ewerage )uthority, the Philippine 5ational ;ailways, the Philippine )ir Lines, )ir anila HandI
$ilipinas Orient )irways . . . for the successful prosecution by the 4o*ernment of its effort to contain, sol*e and end
the present national emergency.1
Petitioners, particularl( the $e$bers of the /ouse of Representatives, clai$ that President "rro(o.s inclusion of
Section 16, "rticle BII in PP 1816 is an encroach$ent on the le'islature.s e$er'enc( po#ers.
4his is an area that needs delineation.
" distinction $ust be dra#n bet#een the President.s authorit( to A538a;5 1a state of national e$er'enc(1 and to
5G5;3645 e$er'enc( po#ers. 4o the first, as elucidated b( the Court, Section 1@, "rticle -II 'rants the President such
po#er, hence, no le'iti$ate constitutional ob&ection can be raised. Dut to the second, $anifold constitutional issues
arise.
Section 3<, "rticle -I of the Constitution reads0
SEC. 23. -1. 4he Con'ress, b( a vote of t#o-thirds of both /ouses in &oint session asse$bled, votin' separatel(, shall
have the 4o85 DoB5; <o A538a;5 <=5 5G64<5235 o> a 4<a<5 o> Ba;.
-2. In ti$es of #ar or o<=5; 2a<6o2a8 5C5;9523y, the Con'ress $a(, b( la#, authori+e the President, for a li$ited
period and sub&ect to such restrictions as it $a( prescribe, to exercise po#ers necessar( and proper to carr( out a
declared national polic(. Enless sooner #ithdra#n b( resolution of the Con'ress, such po#ers shall cease upon the
next ad&ourn$ent thereof.
It $a( be pointed out that the second para'raph of the above provision refers not onl( to #ar but also to 1o<=5;
2a<6o2a8 5C5;9523y.1 If the intention of the =ra$ers of our Constitution #as to #ithhold fro$ the President the
authorit( to declare a 1state of national e$er'enc(1 pursuant to Section 1@, "rticle -II 5callin'-out po#er7 and 'rant it
to Con'ress 5li*e the declaration of the existence of a state of #ar7, then the =ra$ers could have provided so. Clearl(,
the( did not intend that Con'ress should first authori+e the President before he can declare a 1state of national
e$er'enc(.1 4he lo'ical conclusion then is that President "rro(o could validl( declare the existence of a state of
national e$er'enc( even in the absence of a Con'ressional enact$ent.
Dut the 5G5;3645 of e$er'enc( po#ers, such as the ta*in' over of privatel( o#ned public utilit( or business affected
#ith public interest, is a different $atter. 4his reAuires a dele'ation fro$ Con'ress.
Courts have often said that constitutional provisions in pari materia are to be construed to'ether. ther#ise stated,
different clauses, sections, and provisions of a constitution #hich relate to the sa$e sub&ect $atter #ill be construed
to'ether and considered in the li'ht of each other.
13<
Considerin' that Section 16 of "rticle BII and Section 3< of
"rticle -I, previousl( Auoted, relate to national e$er'encies, the( $ust be read to'ether to deter$ine the li$itation of
the exercise of e$er'enc( po#ers.
G525;a88y, Co29;544 64 <=5 ;5Do46<o;y o> 5C5;9523y DoB5;4. 4his is evident in the tenor of Section 3< 537, "rticle -I
authori+in' it to dele'ate such po#ers to the President. C5;<a628y, a :oAy 3a22o< A5859a<5 a DoB5; 2o< ;5Do45A @Do2
6<. /o#ever, *no#in' that durin' 'rave e$er'encies, it $a( not be possible or practicable for Con'ress to $eet and
3<
exercise its po#ers, the =ra$ers of our Constitution dee$ed it #ise to allo# Con'ress to 'rant e$er'enc( po#ers to
the President, sub&ect to certain conditions, thus0
-1. 4here $ust be a Ba; or o<=5; 5C5;9523y.
-2. 4he dele'ation $ust be for a 86C6<5A D5;6oA o28y.
-3. 4he dele'ation $ust be 4@:?53< <o 4@3= ;54<;63<6o24 a4 <=5 Co29;544 Cay D;543;6:5.
-(. 4he e$er'enc( po#ers $ust be exercised to 3a;;y o@< a 2a<6o2a8 Do863y declared b( Con'ress.
13>
Section 16, "rticle BII $ust be understood as an aspect of the e$er'enc( po#ers clause. 4he ta*in' over of private
business affected #ith public interest is &ust another facet of the e$er'enc( po#ers 'enerall( reposed upon Con'ress.
4hus, #hen Section 16 states that the 1<=5 S<a<5 Cay, A@;629 <=5 5C5;9523y a2A @2A5; ;5a4o2a:85 <5;C4
D;543;6:5A :y 6<, <5CDo;a;68y <aF5 o75; o; A6;53< <=5 oD5;a<6o2 o> a2y D;67a<58y oB25A D@:863 @<686<y o; :@462544
a>>53<5A B6<= D@:863 62<5;54<,1 it refers to Con'ress, not the President. !o#, #hether or not the President $a(
exercise such po#er is dependent on #hether Con'ress $a( dele'ate it to hi$ pursuant to a la# prescribin' the
reasonable ter$s thereof. Foungstown ,heet J .ube Co. et al. *. ,awyer,
13:
held0
It is clear that if the President had authorit( to issue the order he did, it $ust be found in so$e provision of the
Constitution. "nd it is not clai$ed that express constitutional lan'ua'e 'rants this po#er to the President. 4he
contention is that presidential po#er should be i$plied fro$ the a''re'ate of his po#ers under the Constitution.
Particular reliance is placed on provisions in "rticle II #hich sa( that 14he executive Po#er shall be vested in a
President . . . .%1 that 1he shall ta*e Care that the 2a#s be faithfull( executed%1 and that he 1shall be Co$$ander-in-
Chief of the "r$( and !av( of the Enited States.
4he order cannot properl( be sustained as an exercise of the President.s $ilitar( po#er as Co$$ander-in-Chief of the
"r$ed =orces. 4he 9overn$ent atte$pts to do so b( citin' a nu$ber of cases upholdin' broad po#ers in $ilitar(
co$$anders en'a'ed in da(-to-da( fi'htin' in a theater of #ar. Such cases need not concern us here. E752 <=o@9=
K<=5a<5; o> Ba;K :5 a2 5GDa2A629 3o235D<, B5 3a22o< B6<= >a6<=>@82544 <o o@; 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 4y4<5C =o8A <=a<
<=5 CoCCa2A5;&62&C=65> o> <=5 A;C5A Fo;354 =a4 <=5 @8<6Ca<5 DoB5; a4 4@3= <o <aF5 Do445446o2 o> D;67a<5
D;oD5;<y 62 o;A5; <o F55D 8a:o; A64D@<54 >;oC 4<oDD629 D;oA@3<6o2. T=64 64 a ?o: >o; <=5 2a<6o2H4 8aBCaF5;4, 2o<
>o; 6<4 C686<a;y a@<=o;6<654.
No; 3a2 <=5 456E@;5 o;A5; :5 4@4<a625A :53a@45 o> <=5 4575;a8 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 D;o7646o24 <=a< 9;a2< 5G53@<675
DoB5; <o <=5 P;546A52<. I2 <=5 >;aC5Bo;F o> o@; Co24<6<@<6o2, <=5 P;546A52<H4 DoB5; <o 455 <=a< <=5 8aB4 a;5
>a6<=>@88y 5G53@<5A ;5>@<54 <=5 6A5a <=a< =5 64 <o :5 a 8aBCaF5;. T=5 Co24<6<@<6o2 86C6<4 =64 >@23<6o24 62 <=5
8aBCaF629 D;o3544 <o <=5 ;53oCC52A629 o> 8aB4 =5 <=62F4 B645 a2A <=5 75<o629 o> 8aB4 =5 <=62F4 :aA. A2A <=5
Co24<6<@<6o2 64 256<=5; 46852< 2o; 5L@67o3a8 a:o@< B=o 4=a88 CaF5 8aB4 B=63= <=5 P;546A52< 64 <o 5G53@<5. T=5
>6;4< 453<6o2 o> <=5 >6;4< a;<6385 4ay4 <=a< KA88 859648a<675 PoB5;4 =5;562 9;a2<5A 4=a88 :5 754<5A 62 a Co29;544 o>
<=5 U26<5A S<a<54. . .1
13?
Petitioner Cacho#Oli*ares, et al. contends that the ter$ 1e$er'enc(1 under Section 16, "rticle BII refers to
1<4@2aC6,1 1<yD=oo2,1 1=@;;63a251and146C68a; o33@;;52354.1 4his is a li$ited vie# of 1e$er'enc(.1
E$er'enc(, as a 'eneric ter$, connotes the existence of conditions suddenl( intensif(in' the de'ree of existin' dan'er
to life or #ell-bein' be(ond that #hich is accepted as nor$al. I$plicit in this definitions are the ele$ents of intensit(,
variet(, and perception.
136
E$er'encies, as perceived b( le'islature or executive in the Enited Sates since 1J<<, have
been occasioned b( a #ide ran'e of situations, classifiable under three 5<7 principal heads0 a. 53o2oC63,
13@
:. 2a<@;a8
A64a4<5;,
13J
and 3. 2a<6o2a8 453@;6<y.
1<8

3>
1E$er'enc(,1 as conte$plated in our Constitution, is of the sa$e breadth. It $a( include rebellion, econo$ic crisis,
pestilence or epide$ic, t(phoon, flood, or other si$ilar catastrophe of nation#ide proportions or effect.
1<1
4his is
evident in the Records of the Constitutional Co$$ission, thus0
MR. 9"SC!. Oes. Chat is the Co$$ittee.s definition of 1national e$er'enc(1 #hich appears in Section 1<, pa'e
:; It reads0
Chen the co$$on 'ood so reAuires, the State $a( te$poraril( ta*e over or direct the operation of an( privatel(
o#ned public utilit( or business affected #ith public interest.
MR. -I22E9"S. Chat I $ean is threat fro$ 5G<5;2a8 a99;5446o2, for exa$ple, 3a8aC6<654 or 2a<@;a8 A64a4<5;4.
MR. 9"SC!. 4here is a Auestion b( Co$$issioner de los Re(es. Chat about stri*es and riots;
MR. -I22E9"S. Stri*es, no% those #ould not be covered b( the ter$ 1national e$er'enc(.1
MR. DE!9F!. Enless the( are of such proportions such that the( #ould paral(+e 'overn$ent service.
1<3
x x x x x x
MR. 4I!9S!. Ma( I as* the co$$ittee if 1national e$er'enc(1 refers to C686<a;y 2a<6o2a8 5C5;9523y or could
this be 53o2oC63 5C5;9523y;1
MR. -I22E9"S. Oes, it could refer to :o<= C686<a;y o; 53o2oC63 A648o3a<6o24.
MR. 4I!9S!. 4han* (ou ver( $uch.
1<<
It $a( be ar'ued that #hen there is national e$er'enc(, Con'ress $a( not be able to convene and, therefore, unable to
dele'ate to the President the po#er to ta*e over privatel(-o#ned public utilit( or business affected #ith public interest.
In )raneta *. "inglasan,
1<>
this Court e$phasi+ed that le'islative po#er, throu'h #hich extraordinar( $easures are
exercised, re$ains in Con'ress even in ti$es of crisis.
1x x x
"fter all the criticis$s that have been $ade a'ainst the efficienc( of the s(ste$ of the separation of po#ers, the fact
re$ains that the Constitution has set up this for$ of 'overn$ent, #ith all its defects and shortco$in's, in preference to
the co$$in'lin' of po#ers in one $an or 'roup of $en. 4he =ilipino people b( adoptin' parlia$entar( 'overn$ent
have 'iven notice that the( share the faith of other de$ocrac(-lovin' peoples in this s(ste$, #ith all its faults, as the
ideal. 4he point is, under this fra$e#or* of 'overn$ent, le'islation is preserved for Con'ress all the ti$e, not
exceptin' periods of crisis no $atter ho# serious. !ever in the histor( of the Enited States, the basic features of #hose
Constitution have been copied in ours, have specific functions of the le'islative branch of enactin' la#s been
surrendered to another depart$ent ) unless #e re'ard as le'islatin' the carr(in' out of a le'islative polic( accordin' to
prescribed standards% no, not even #hen that Republic #as fi'htin' a total #ar, or #hen it #as en'a'ed in a life-and-
death stru''le to preserve the Enion. 4he truth is that under our concept of constitutional 'overn$ent, in ti$es of
extre$e perils $ore than in nor$al circu$stances Nthe various branches, executive, le'islative, and &udicial,. 'iven the
abilit( to act, are called upon Nto perfor$ the duties and dischar'e the responsibilities co$$itted to the$ respectivel(.1
=ollo#in' our interpretation of Section 16, "rticle BII, invo*ed b( President "rro(o in issuin' PP 1816, this Court
rules that such Procla$ation does not authori+e her durin' the e$er'enc( to te$poraril( ta*e over or direct the
operation of an( privatel( o#ned public utilit( or business affected #ith public interest #ithout authorit( fro$
Con'ress.
3:
2et it be e$phasi+ed that #hile the President alone can declare a state of national e$er'enc(, ho#ever, #ithout
le'islation, he has no po#er to ta*e over privatel(-o#ned public utilit( or business affected #ith public interest. 4he
President cannot decide #hether exceptional circu$stances exist #arrantin' the ta*e over of privatel(-o#ned public
utilit( or business affected #ith public interest. !or can he deter$ine #hen such exceptional circu$stances have
ceased. 2i*e#ise, B6<=o@< 859648a<6o2, the President has no po#er to point out the t(pes of businesses affected #ith
public interest that should be ta*en over. In short, the President has no absolute authorit( to exercise all the po#ers of
the State under Section 16, "rticle -II in the absence of an e$er'enc( po#ers act passed b( Con'ress.
3. KAS APPLIED C!ALLENGEK
ne of the $isfortunes of an e$er'enc(, particularl(, that #hich pertains to securit(, is that $ilitar( necessit( and the
'uaranteed ri'hts of the individual are often not co$patible. ur histor( reveals that in the crucible of conflict, $an(
ri'hts are curtailed and tra$pled upon. /ere, the ;69=< a9a624< @2;5a4o2a:85 45a;3= a2A 456E@;50 <=5 ;69=< a9a624<
Ba;;a2<8544 a;;54<0 and <=5 >;55AoC o> 4D553=, o> 5GD;5446o2, o> <=5 D;544, a2A o> a445C:8y under the Dill of
Ri'hts suffered the 'reatest blo#.
f the seven 567 petitions, three 5<7 indicate 1direct in&ur(.1
In G.R. No. 171396, petitioners David and 2la$as alle'ed that, on =ebruar( 3>, 388?, the( #ere arrested #ithout
#arrants on their #a( to EDS" to celebrate the 38th "nniversar( of People Power I. 4he arrestin' officers cited PP
1816 as basis of the arrest.
In G.R. No. 171(09, petitioners Cacho-livares and .ribune Publishin' Co., Inc. clai$ed that on =ebruar( 3:, 388?,
the CID9 operatives 1raided and ransac*ed #ithout #arrant1 their office. 4hree police$en #ere assi'ned to 'uard
their office as a possible 1source of destabili+ation.1 "'ain, the basis #as PP 1816.
"nd in G.R. No. 171()3, petitioners IME and !"=2E-IME et al. alle'ed that their $e$bers #ere 1turned a#a(
and dispersed1 #hen the( #ent to EDS" and later, to "(ala "venue, to celebrate the 38th "nniversar( of People
Power I.
" perusal of the 1direct in&uries1 alle'edl( suffered b( the said petitioners sho#s that the( resulted fro$ the
6CD85C52<a<6o2, pursuant to 9.. !o. :, of PP 1816.
Can this Court ad?udge as unconstitutional PP 7'78 and 4.O. 5o 6 on the basis of these illegal actsG In 'eneral, does
the illegal implementation of a law render it unconstitutionalG
Settled is the rule that courts are not at libert( to declare statutes invalid a8<=o@9= <=5y Cay :5 a:@45A a2A
C64a:@45A
1<:
and Cay a>>o;A a2 oDDo;<@26<y >o; a:@45 62 <=5 Ca225; o> aDD863a<6o2.
1<?
4he validit( of a statute or
ordinance is to be deter$ined fro$ its 'eneral purpose and its efficienc( to acco$plish the end desired, 2o< >;oC 6<4
5>>53<4 62 a Da;<63@8a; 3a45.
1<6
PP 1816 is $erel( an invocation of the President.s callin'-out po#er. Its 'eneral
purpose is to co$$and the "=P to suppress all for$s of la#less violence, invasion or rebellion. It had acco$plished
the end desired #hich pro$pted President "rro(o to issue PP 1831. Dut there is nothin' in PP 1816 allo#in' the
police, expressl( or i$pliedl(, to conduct ille'al arrest, search or violate the citi+ens. constitutional ri'hts.
!o#, $a( this Court ad&ud'e a la# or ordinance unconstitutional on the 'round that its i$ple$entor co$$itted ille'al
acts; 4he ans#er is no. 4he criterion b( #hich the validit( of the statute or ordinance is to be $easured is the essential
basis for the exercise of po#er, a2A 2o< a C5;5 6236A52<a8 ;54@8< a;64629 >;oC 6<4 5G5;<6o2.
1<@
4his is lo'ical. ,ust
i$a'ine the absurdit( of situations #hen la#s $a(be declared unconstitutional &ust because the officers i$ple$entin'
the$ have acted arbitraril(. If this #ere so, &ud'in' fro$ the blunders co$$itted b( police$en in the cases passed
upon b( the Court, $a&orit( of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code #ould have been declared unconstitutional a
lon' ti$e a'o.
3?
President "rro(o issued 9.. !o. : to carr( into effect the provisions of PP 1816. 9eneral orders are 1acts and
co$$ands of the President in his capacit( as Co$$ander-in-Chief of the "r$ed =orces of the Philippines.1 4he( are
internal rules issued b( the executive officer to his subordinates precisel( for the D;oD5; and 5>>63652< aAC6264<;a<6o2
o> 8aB. Such rules and re'ulations create no relation except bet#een the official #ho issues the$ and the official #ho
receives the$.
1<J
4he( are based on and are the product of, a relationship in #hich po#er is their source, and
obedience, their ob&ect.
1>8
=or these reasons, one reAuire$ent for these rules to be valid is that the( $ust be
;5a4o2a:85, 2o< a;:6<;a;y o; 3aD;636o@4.
9.. !o. : $andates the "=P and the P!P to i$$ediatel( carr( out the 1253544a;y a2A aDD;oD;6a<5 a3<6o24 a2A
C5a4@;54 <o 4@DD;544 a2A D;5752< a3<4 o> <5;;o;64C a2A 8aB8544 violence.1
Enli*e the ter$ 1la#less violence1 #hich is unar'uabl( extant in our statutes and the Constitution, and #hich is
invariabl( associated #ith 1invasion, insurrection or rebellion,1 the phrase 1acts of terroris$1 is still an a$orphous and
va'ue concept. Con'ress has (et to enact a la# definin' and punishin' acts of terroris$.
In fact, this 1definitional predica$ent1 or the 1absence of an a'reed definition of terroris$1 confronts not onl( our
countr(, but the international co$$unit( as #ell. 4he follo#in' observations are Auite apropos0
In the actual unipolar context of international relations, the 1fi'ht a'ainst terroris$1 has beco$e one of the basic
slo'ans #hen it co$es to the &ustification of the use of force a'ainst certain states and a'ainst 'roups operatin'
internationall(. 2ists of states 1sponsorin' terroris$1 and of terrorist or'ani+ations are set up and constantl( bein'
updated accordin' to criteria that are not al#a(s *no#n to the public, but are clearl( deter$ined b( strate'ic interests.
4he basic proble$ underl(in' all these $ilitar( actions ) or threats of the use of force as the $ost recent b( the Enited
States a'ainst IraA ) consists in the absence of an a'reed definition of terroris$.
Re$ar*able confusion persists in re'ard to the le'al cate'ori+ation of acts of violence either b( states, b( ar$ed
'roups such as liberation $ove$ents, or b( individuals.
4he dile$$a can b( su$$ari+ed in the sa(in' 1ne countr(.s terrorist is another countr(.s freedo$ fi'hter.1 4he
apparent contradiction or lac* of consistenc( in the use of the ter$ 1terroris$1 $a( further be de$onstrated b( the
historical fact that leaders of national liberation $ove$ents such as !elson Mandela in South "frica, /abib
Dour'ouiba in 4unisia, or "h$ed Den Della in "l'eria, to $ention onl( a fe#, #ere ori'inall( labeled as terrorists b(
those #ho controlled the territor( at the ti$e, but later beca$e internationall( respected states$en.
Chat, then, is the definin' criterion for terrorist acts ) the differentia specifica distin'uishin' those acts fro$
eventuall( le'iti$ate acts of national resistance or self-defense;
Since the ti$es of the Cold Car the Enited !ations r'ani+ation has been tr(in' in vain to reach a consensus on the
basic issue of definition. 4he or'ani+ation has intensified its efforts recentl(, but has been unable to brid'e the 'ap
bet#een those #ho associate 1terroris$1 #ith an( violent act b( non-state 'roups a'ainst civilians, state functionaries
or infrastructure or $ilitar( installations, and those #ho believe in the concept of the le'iti$ate use of force #hen
resistance a'ainst forei'n occupation or a'ainst s(ste$atic oppression of ethnic andGor reli'ious 'roups #ithin a state
is concerned.
4he dile$$a facin' the international co$$unit( can best be illustrated b( reference to the contradictin'
cate'ori+ation of or'ani+ations and $ove$ents such as Palestine 2iberation r'ani+ation 5P27 ) #hich is a terrorist
'roup for Israel and a liberation $ove$ent for "rabs and Musli$s ) the Iash$iri resistance 'roups ) #ho are
terrorists in the perception of India, liberation fi'hters in that of Pa*istan ) the earlier Contras in !icara'ua ) freedo$
fi'hters for the Enited States, terrorists for the Socialist ca$p ) or, $ost drasticall(, the "f'hani Mu&ahedeen 5later to
beco$e the 4aliban $ove$ent70 durin' the Cold Car period the( #ere a 'roup of freedo$ fi'hters for the Cest,
nurtured b( the Enited States, and a terrorist 'an' for the Soviet Enion. ne could 'o on and on in enu$eratin'
exa$ples of conflictin' cate'ori+ations that cannot be reconciled in an( #a( ) because of opposin' political interests
that are at the roots of those perceptions.
36
/o#, then, can those contradictin' definitions and conflictin' perceptions and evaluations of one and the sa$e 'roup
and its actions be explained; In our anal(sis, the basic reason for these stri*in' inconsistencies lies in the diver'ent
interest of states. Dependin' on #hether a state is in the position of an occup(in' po#er or in that of a rival, or
adversar(, of an occup(in' po#er in a 'iven territor(, the definition of terroris$ #ill 1fluctuate1 accordin'l(. " state
$a( eventuall( see itself as protector of the ri'hts of a certain ethnic 'roup outside its territor( and #ill therefore
spea* of a 1liberation stru''le,1 not of 1terroris$1 #hen acts of violence b( this 'roup are concerned, and vice-versa.
4he Enited !ations r'ani+ation has been unable to reach a decision on the definition of terroris$ exactl( because of
these conflictin' interests of soverei'n states that deter$ine in each and ever( instance ho# a particular ar$ed
$ove$ent 5i.e. a non-state actor7 is labeled in re'ard to the terrorists-freedo$ fi'hter dichoto$(. " 1polic( of double
standards1 on this vital issue of international affairs has been the unavoidable conseAuence.
4his 1definitional predica$ent1 of an or'ani+ation consistin' of soverei'n states ) and not of peoples, in spite of the
e$phasis in the Prea$ble to the Enited !ations CharterS ) has beco$e even $ore serious in the present 'lobal po#er
constellation0 one superpo#er exercises the decisive role in the Securit( Council, for$er 'reat po#ers of the Cold Car
era as #ell as $ediu$ po#ers are increasin'l( bein' $ar'inali+ed% and the proble$ has beco$e even $ore acute since
the terrorist attac*s of 11 Septe$ber 3881 I the Enited States.
1>1
4he absence of a la# definin' 1acts of terroris$1 $a( result in abuse and oppression on the part of the police or
$ilitar(. "n illustration is #hen a 'roup of persons are $erel( en'a'ed in a drin*in' spree. Oet the $ilitar( or the
police $a( consider the act as an act of terroris$ and i$$ediatel( arrest the$ pursuant to 9.. !o. :. bviousl(, this
is abuse and oppression on their part. It $ust be re$e$bered that an act can onl( be considered a cri$e if there is a
la# definin' the sa$e as such and i$posin' the correspondin' penalt( thereon.
So far, the #ord 1terroris$1 appears onl( once in our cri$inal la#s, i.e., in P.D. !o. 1@<: dated ,anuar( 1?, 1J@1
enacted b( President Marcos durin' the Martial 2a# re'i$e. 4his decree is entitled 1Codif(in' 4he -arious 2a#s on
"nti-Subversion and Increasin' 4he Penalties for Me$bership in Subversive r'ani+ations.1 4he #ord 1terroris$1 is
$entioned in the follo#in' provision0 14hat one #ho conspires #ith an( other person for the purpose of overthro#in'
the 9overn$ent of the Philippines x x x b( force, violence, <5;;o;64C, x x x shall be punished b( reclusion temporal x
x x.1
P.D. !o. 1@<: #as repealed b( E.. !o. 1?6 5#hich outla#s the Co$$unist Part( of the Philippines7 enacted b(
President Cora+on "Auino on Ma( :, 1J@:. 4hese t#o 537 la#s, ho#ever, do not define 1acts of terroris$.1 Since there
is no la# definin' 1acts of terroris$,1 it is President "rro(o alone, under 9.. !o. :, #ho has the discretion to
deter$ine #hat acts constitute terroris$. /er &ud'$ent on this aspect is absolute, #ithout restrictions. ConseAuentl(,
there can be indiscri$inate arrest #ithout #arrants, brea*in' into offices and residences, ta*in' over the $edia
enterprises, prohibition and dispersal of all asse$blies and 'atherin's unfriendl( to the ad$inistration. "ll these can be
effected in the na$e of 9.. !o. :. 4hese acts 'o far be(ond the callin'-out po#er of the President. Certainl(, the(
violate the due process clause of the Constitution. 4hus, this Court declares that the 1acts of terroris$1 portion of 9..
!o. : is unconstitutional.
Si'nificantl(, there is nothin' in 9.. !o. : authori+in' the $ilitar( or police to co$$it acts be(ond #hat are
253544a;y a2A aDD;oD;6a<5 <o 4@DD;544 a2A D;5752< 8aB8544 76o85235, the li$itation of their authorit( in pursuin'
the rder. ther#ise, such acts are considered ille'al.
Ce first exa$ine G.R. No. 171396 5"a*id et al.7
4he Constitution provides that 1the ri'ht of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects a'ainst
unreasonable search and sei+ure of #hatever nature and for an( purpose shall be iniolable1 and no search #arrant or
Ba;;a2< o> a;;54< shall issue except upon probable cause to be deter$ined personall( b( the &ud'e after exa$ination
under oath or affir$ation of the co$plainant and the #itnesses he $a( produce, and particularl( describin' the place
to be searched and the persons or thin's to be sei+ed.1
1>3
4he plain i$port of the lan'ua'e of the Constitution is that
searches, sei+ures and arrests are 2o;Ca88y unreasonable unless authori+ed b( a validl( issued search #arrant or
#arrant of arrest. 4hus, the funda$ental protection 'iven b( this provision is that bet#een person and police $ust
3@
stand the protective authorit( of a $a'istrate clothed #ith po#er to issue or refuse to issue search #arrants or #arrants
of arrest.
1><
In the Drief "ccount
1>>
sub$itted b( petitioner David, certain facts are established0 first, he #as arrested #ithout
#arrant% second, the P!P operatives arrested hi$ on the basis of PP 1816% third, he #as brou'ht at Ca$p Iarin'al,
Hue+on Cit( #here he #as fin'erprinted, photo'raphed and boo*ed li*e a cri$inal suspect% fourth,he #as treated
brusAuel( b( police$en #ho 1held his head and tried to push hi$1 inside an un$ar*ed car% fifth, he #as char'ed #ith
-iolation of %a<a4 PaC:a24a %68a29 No. ))0
1>:
and I236<629 <o S5A6<6o2% si:th, he #as detained for seven 567 hours%
and se*enth,he #as eventuall( released for insufficienc( of evidence.
Section :, Rule 11< of the Revised Rules on Cri$inal Procedure provides0
Sec. :. Arrest wit$out warrant2 w$en law!ul. - " peace officer or a private person $a(, #ithout a #arrant, arrest a
person0
-a. Chen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actuall( co$$ittin', or is atte$ptin' to
co$$it an offense.
-:. Chen an offense has &ust been co$$itted and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
*no#led'e of facts or circu$stances that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it% and
x x x.
!either of the t#o 537 exceptions $entioned above &ustifies petitioner David.s #arrantless arrest. Durin' the inAuest
for the char'es of i236<629 <o 45A6<6o2 and 76o8a<6o2 o> %P ))0, all that the arrestin' officers could invo*e #as their
observation that so$e rall(ists #ere #earin' t-shirts #ith the invective +Oust 4loria 5ow+ and their erroneous
assu$ption that petitioner David #as the leader of the rall(.
1>?
ConseAuentl(, the InAuest Prosecutor ordered his
i$$ediate release on the 'round of insufficienc( of evidence. /e noted that petitioner David #as not #earin' the
sub&ect t-shirt and even if he #as #earin' it, such fact is insufficient to char'e hi$ #ith i236<629 <o 45A6<6o2. =urther,
he also stated that there is insufficient evidence for the char'e of 76o8a<6o2 o> %P ))0 as it #as not even *no#n
#hether petitioner David #as the leader of the rall(.
1>6

Dut #hat $ade it doubl( #orse for petitioners David et al. is that not onl( #as their ri'ht a'ainst #arrantless arrest
violated, but also their ri'ht to peaceabl( asse$ble.
Section > of "rticle III 'uarantees0
!o la# shall be passed abrid'in' the freedo$ of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the ri'ht of the people
peaceabl( to asse$ble and petition the 'overn$ent for redress of 'rievances.
1"sse$bl(1 $eans a ri'ht on the part of the citi+ens to $eet peaceabl( for consultation in respect to public affairs. It is
a necessar( conseAuence of our republican institution and co$ple$ents the ri'ht of speech. "s in the case of freedo$
of expression, this ri'ht is not to be li$ited, $uch less denied, except on a sho#in' of a 385a; a2A D;5452< Aa295; of a
substantive evil that Con'ress has a ri'ht to prevent. In other #ords, li*e other ri'hts e$braced in the freedo$ of
expression, the ri'ht to asse$ble is not sub&ect to previous restraint or censorship. It $a( not be conditioned upon the
prior issuance of a per$it or authori+ation fro$ the 'overn$ent authorities except, of course, if the asse$bl( is
intended to be held in a public place, a per$it for the use of such place, and not for the asse$bl( itself, $a( be validl(
reAuired.
4he rin'in' truth here is that petitioner David, et al. #ere arrested #hile the( #ere exercisin' their ri'ht to peaceful
asse$bl(. 4he( #ere not co$$ittin' an( cri$e, neither #as there a sho#in' of a clear and present dan'er that
#arranted the li$itation of that ri'ht. "s can be 'leaned fro$ circu$stances, the char'es of 6236<629 <o 45A6<6o2 and
76o8a<6o2 o> %P ))0 #ere $ere afterthou'ht. Even the Solicitor 9eneral, durin' the oral ar'u$ent, failed to &ustif( the
3J
arrestin' officers. conduct. In "e @onge *. Oregon,
1>@
it #as held that peaceable asse$bl( cannot be $ade a cri$e,
thus0
Peaceable asse$bl( for la#ful discussion cannot be $ade a cri$e. 4he holdin' of $eetin's for peaceable political
action cannot be proscribed. 4hose #ho assist in the conduct of such $eetin's cannot be branded as cri$inals on that
score. 4he Auestion, if the ri'hts of free speech and peaceful asse$bl( are not to be preserved, is not as to the auspices
under #hich the $eetin' #as held but as to its purpose% not as to the relations of the spea*ers, but #hether their
utterances transcend the bounds of the freedo$ of speech #hich the Constitution protects. If the persons asse$blin'
have co$$itted cri$es else#here, if the( have for$ed or are en'a'ed in a conspirac( a'ainst the public peace and
order, the( $a( be prosecuted for their conspirac( or other violations of valid la#s. %@< 6< 64 a A6>>5;52< Ca<<5; B=52
<=5 S<a<5, 624<5aA o> D;o453@<629 <=5C >o; 4@3= o>>52454, 456E54 @Do2 C5;5 Da;<636Da<6o2 62 a D5a35a:85 a445C:8y
a2A a 8aB>@8 D@:863 A643@446o2 a4 <=5 :a464 >o; a 3;6C62a8 3=a;95.
n the basis of the above principles, the Court li*e#ise considers the dispersal and arrest of the $e$bers of IME et
al. 59.R. !o. 161>@<7 un#arranted. "pparentl(, their dispersal #as done $erel( on the basis of MalacaMan'.s
directive cancelin' all per$its previousl( issued b( local 'overn$ent units. 4his is arbitrar(. 4he #holesale
cancellation of all per$its to rall( is a blatant disre'ard of the principle that 1>;55AoC o> a445C:8y 64 2o< <o :5
86C6<5A, C@3= 8544 A5265A, 5G35D< o2 a 4=oB629 o> a clear and present danger o> a 4@:4<a2<675 5768 <=a< <=5 S<a<5
=a4 a ;69=< <o D;5752<.1
1>J
4olerance is the rule and li$itation is the exception. nl( upon a sho#in' that an asse$bl(
presents a clear and present dan'er that the State $a( den( the citi+ens. ri'ht to exercise it. Indeed, respondents failed
to sho# or convince the Court that the rall(ists co$$itted acts a$ountin' to la#less violence, invasion or rebellion.
Cith the blan*et revocation of per$its, the distinction bet#een protected and unprotected asse$blies #as eli$inated.
Moreover, under DP @@8, the authorit( to re'ulate asse$blies and rallies is lod'ed #ith the local 'overn$ent units.
4he( have the po#er to issue per$its and to revo*e such per$its a><5; A@5 2o<635 a2A =5a;629 on the deter$ination
of the presence of clear and present dan'er. /ere, petitioners #ere not even notified and heard on the revocation of
their per$its.
1:8
4he first ti$e the( learned of it #as at the ti$e of the dispersal. Such absence of notice is a fatal
defect. Chen a person.s ri'ht is restricted b( 'overn$ent action, it behooves a de$ocratic 'overn$ent to see to it that
the restriction is fair, reasonable, and accordin' to procedure.
G.R. No. 171(09, 5Cacho-livares, et al.7 presents another facet of freedo$ of speech i.e., the freedo$ of the press.
Petitioners. narration of facts, #hich the Solicitor 9eneral failed to refute, established the follo#in'0 first, the "aily
.ribune!s offices #ere searched #ithout #arrant%second, the police operatives sei+ed several $aterials for publication%
third, the search #as conducted at about 1088 o. cloc* in the $ornin' of =ebruar( 3:, 388?% fourth, the search #as
conducted in the absence of an( official of the "aily .ribune except the securit( 'uard of the buildin'% and fifth,
police$en stationed the$selves at the vicinit( of the "aily .ribune offices.
4hereafter, a #ave of #arnin' ca$e fro$ 'overn$ent officials. Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor #as
Auoted as sa(in' that such raid #as KC5a2< <o 4=oB a M4<;o29 D;545235,H <o <588 C5A6a o@<85<4 2o< <o 3o22675 o; Ao
a2y<=629 <=a< Bo@8A =58D <=5 ;5:584 62 :;629629 AoB2 <=64 9o75;2C52<.K Director 9eneral 2o$ibao further stated
that K6> <=5y Ao 2o< >o88oB <=5 4<a2Aa;A4 ,a2A <=5 4<a2Aa;A4 a;5 6> <=5y Bo@8A 3o2<;6:@<5 <o 624<a:686<y 62 <=5
9o75;2C52<, o; 6> <=5y Ao 2o< 4@:43;6:5 <o B=a< 64 62 G525;a8 O;A5; No. * a2A P;o3. No. 1017 , B5 B688
;53oCC52A a N<aF5o75;..1 !ational 4eleco$$unications Co$$issioner Ronald Solis ur'ed television and radio
net#or*s to +cooperate+ #ith the 'overn$ent for the duration of the state of national e$er'enc(. !5 Ba;25A <=a< =64
a9523y B688 2o< =546<a<5 <o ;53oCC52A <=5 38o4@;5 o> a2y :;oaA3a4< o@<>6< <=a< 76o8a<54 ;@854 45< o@< >o; C5A6a
3o75;a95 A@;629 <6C54 B=52 <=5 2a<6o2a8 453@;6<y 64 <=;5a<525A.
1:1
4he search is ille'al. Rule 13? of 4he Revised Rules on Cri$inal Procedure la(s do#n the steps in the conduct of
search and sei+ure. S53<6o2 ( reAuires that a 45a;3= Ba;;a2< be issued upon probable cause in connection #ith one
specific offence to be deter$ined personall( b( the &ud'e after exa$ination under oath or affir$ation of the
co$plainant and the #itnesses he $a( produce. S53<6o2 ) $andates that the search of a house, roo$, or an( other
pre$ise be $ade 62 <=5 D;545235 o> <=5 8aB>@8 o33@Da2< thereof or an( $e$ber of his fa$il( or in the absence of the
latter, in the presence of t#o 537 #itnesses of sufficient a'e and discretion residin' in the sa$e localit(. "nd S53<6o2 9
states that the #arrant $ust direct that it be served in the Aay<6C5, unless the propert( is on the person or in the place
<8
ordered to be searched, in #hich case a direction $a( be inserted that it be served at an( ti$e of the da( or ni'ht. "ll
these rules #ere violated b( the CID9 operatives.
!ot onl( that, the search violated petitioners. freedo$ of the press. 4he best 'au'e of a free and de$ocratic societ(
rests in the de'ree of freedo$ en&o(ed b( its $edia. In the 9urgos *. Chief of ,taff
1:3
this Court held that --
"s heretofore stated, the pre$ises searched #ere the business and printin' offices of the 1etropolitan ail1 and the
1Be $orum1 ne#spapers. "s a conseAuence of the search and sei+ure, <=545 D;5C6454 B5;5 DaA8o3F5A a2A 45a85A,
B6<= <=5 >@;<=5; ;54@8< <=a< <=5 D;62<629 a2A D@:863a<6o2 o> 4a6A 25B4DaD5;4 B5;5 A643o2<62@5A.
S@3= 38o4@;5 64 62 <=5 2a<@;5 o> D;576o@4 ;54<;a62< o; 3524o;4=6D a:=o;;52< <o <=5 >;55AoC o> <=5 D;544
9@a;a2<55A @2A5; <=5 >@2AaC52<a8 8aB, a2A 3o24<6<@<54 a 76;<@a8 A526a8 o> D5<6<6o25;4P >;55AoC <o 5GD;544
<=5C458754 62 D;62<. T=64 4<a<5 o> :5629 64 Da<52<8y a2a<=5Ca<63 <o a A5Co3;a<63 >;aC5Bo;F B=5;5 a >;55, a85;<
a2A 5752 C686<a2< D;544 64 54452<6a8 >o; <=5 Do86<63a8 52869=<52C52< a2A 9;oB<= o> <=5 36<6E52;y.
Chile ad$ittedl(, the "aily .ribune #as not padloc*ed and sealed li*e the 1etropolitan ail1 and 1Be $orum1
ne#spapers in the above case, (et it cannot be denied that the CID9 operatives exceeded their enforce$ent duties. 4he
search and sei+ure of $aterials for publication, the stationin' of police$en in the vicinit( of the .he "aily .ribune
offices, and the arro'ant #arnin' of 'overn$ent officials to $edia, are plain censorship. It is that officious functionar(
of the repressive 'overn$ent #ho tells the citi+en that he $a( spea* onl( if allo#ed to do so, and no $ore and no less
than #hat he is per$itted to sa( on pain of punish$ent should he be so rash as to disobe(.
1:<
Endoubtedl(, the .he
"aily .ribune #as sub&ected to these arbitrar( intrusions because of its anti-'overn$ent senti$ents. 4his Court cannot
tolerate the blatant disre'ard of a constitutional ri'ht even if it involves the $ost defiant of our citi+ens. =reedo$ to
co$$ent on public affairs is essential to the vitalit( of a representative de$ocrac(. It is the dut( of the courts to be
#atchful for the constitutional ri'hts of the citi+en, and a'ainst an( stealth( encroach$ents thereon. 4he $otto should
al#a(s be obsta principiis.
1:>

Incidentall(, durin' the oral ar'u$ents, the Solicitor 9eneral ad$itted that the search of the .ribune!s offices and the
sei+ure of its $aterials for publication and other papers are ille'al% and that the sa$e are inad$issible 1for an(
purpose,1 thus0
,ES4ICE C"22E,0
Oou $ade Auite a $outhful of ad$ission #hen (ou said that the police$en, #hen inspected the 4ribune for the
purpose of 'atherin' evidence and (ou ad$itted that the police$en #ere able to 'et the clippin's. Is that not in
ad$ission of the ad$issibilit( of these clippin's that #ere ta*en fro$ the 4ribune;
S2ICI4R 9E!ER"2 DE!IP"O0
Ender the la# the( #ould see$ to be, if the( #ere ille'all( sei+ed, I thin* and I *no#, Oour /onor, and these are
inad$issible for an( purpose.
1::
x x x x x x x x x
SR. "SS. ,ES4ICE PE!0
4hese have been published in the past issues of the Dail( 4ribune% all (ou have to do is to 'et those past issues. So #h(
do (ou have to 'o there at 1 o.cloc* in the $ornin' and #ithout an( search #arrant; Did the( beco$e suddenl( part of
the evidence of rebellion or incitin' to sedition or #hat;
S29E! DE!IP"O0
Cell, it #as the police that did that, Oour /onor. !ot upon $( instructions.
<1
SR. "SS. ,ES4ICE PE!0
"re (ou sa(in' that the act of the police$an is ille'al, it is not based on an( la#, and it is not based on Procla$ation
1816.
S29E! DE!IP"O0
It is not based on Procla$ation 1816, Oour /onor, because there is nothin' in 1816 #hich sa(s that the police could 'o
and inspect and 'ather clippin's fro$ Dail( 4ribune or an( other ne#spaper.
SR. "SS. ,ES4ICE PE!0
Is it based on an( la#;
S29E! DE!IP"O0
"s far as I *no#, 2o, Oour /onor, fro$ the facts, 2o.
SR. "SS. ,ES4ICE PE!0
So, it has no basis, no le'al basis #hatsoever;
S29E! DE!IP"O0
Ma(be so, Oour /onor. Ma(be so, that is #h( I said, I don.t *no# if it is pre$ature to sa( this, B5 Ao 2o< 3o2Ao25
<=64. I> <=5 D5oD85 B=o =a75 :552 62?@;5A :y <=64 Bo@8A Ba2< <o 4@5 <=5C, <=5y 3a2 4@5 a2A <=5;5 a;5 ;5C5A654
>o; <=64.
1:?

2i*e#ise, the #arrantless arrests and sei+ures executed b( the police #ere, accordin' to the Solicitor 9eneral, ille'al
and cannot be condoned, thus0
C/IE= ,ES4ICE P"!9"!ID"!0
4here see$s to be so$e confusions if not contradiction in (our theor(.
S2ICI4R 9E!ER"2 DE!IP"O0
I don.t *no# #hether this #ill clarif(. 4he acts, the supposed ille'al or unla#ful acts co$$itted on the occasion of
1816, as I said, 6< 3a22o< :5 3o2Ao25A. Oou cannot bla$e the President for, as (ou said, a $isapplication of the la#.
4hese are acts of the police officers, that is their responsibilit(.
1:6
4he Dissentin' pinion states that PP 1816 and 9.. !o. : are constitutional in ever( aspect and 1should result in no
constitutional or statutor( breaches if applied accordin' to their letter.1
4he Court has passed upon the constitutionalit( of these issuances. Its ratiocination has been exhaustivel( presented.
"t this point, suffice it to reiterate that PP 1816 is li$ited to the callin' out b( the President of the $ilitar( to prevent
or suppress la#less violence, invasion or rebellion. Chen in i$ple$entin' its provisions, pursuant to 9.. !o. :, the
$ilitar( and the police co$$itted acts #hich violate the citi+ens. ri'hts under the Constitution, this Court has to
declare such acts unconstitutional and ille'al.
In this connection, Chief ,ustice "rte$io -. Pan'aniban.s concurrin' opinion, attached hereto, is considered an
inte'ral part of this ponencia.
<3
S U M M A T I O N
In su$, the liftin' of PP 1816 throu'h the issuance of PP 1831 ) a supervenin' event ) #ould have nor$all( rendered
this case $oot and acade$ic. /o#ever, #hile PP 1816 #as still operative, ille'al acts #ere co$$itted alle'edl( in
pursuance thereof. Desides, there is no 'uarantee that PP 1816, or one si$ilar to it, $a( not a'ain be issued. "lread(,
there have been $edia reports on "pril <8, 388? that alle'edl( PP 1816 #ould be rei$posed 1if the Ma( 1 rallies1
beco$e 1unrul( and violent.1 ConseAuentl(, the transcendental issues raised b( the parties should not be 1evaded%1
the( $ust no# be resolved to prevent future constitutional aberration.
4he Court finds and so holds that PP 1816 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call b( the President for the "=P
to prevent or suppress 8aB8544 76o85235. 4he procla$ation is sustained b( Section 1@, "rticle -II of the Constitution
and the relevant &urisprudence discussed earlier. /o#ever, PP 1816.s extraneous provisions 'ivin' the President
express or i$plied po#er 517 to issue decrees% 537 to direct the "=P to enforce obedience to a88 8aB4 even those not
related to la#less violence as #ell as decrees pro$ul'ated b( the President% and 5<7 to i$pose standards on $edia or
an( for$ of prior restraint on the press, are ultra *ires and @23o24<6<@<6o2a8. 4he Court also rules that under Section
16, "rticle BII of the Constitution, the President, in the absence of a le'islation, cannot ta*e over privatel(-o#ned
public utilit( and private business affected #ith public interest.
In the sa$e vein, the Court finds 9.. !o. : valid. It is an rder issued b( the President ) actin' as Co$$ander-in-
Chief ) addressed to subalterns in the "=P to carr( out the provisions of PP 1816. Si'nificantl(, it also provides a valid
standard ) that the $ilitar( and the police should ta*e onl( the 1253544a;y a2A aDD;oD;6a<5 a3<6o24 a2A C5a4@;54 <o
4@DD;544 a2A D;5752< a3<4 o> 8aB8544 76o85235.1Dut the #ords 1a3<4 o> <5;;o;64C1 found in 9.. !o. : have not been
le'all( defined and $ade punishable b( Con'ress and should thus be dee$ed deleted fro$ the said 9.. Chile
1terroris$1 has been denounced 'enerall( in $edia, no la# has been enacted to 'uide the $ilitar(, and eventuall( the
courts, to deter$ine the li$its of the "=P.s authorit( in carr(in' out this portion of 9.. !o. :.
n the basis of the relevant and uncontested facts narrated earlier, it is also pristine clear that 517 the #arrantless arrest
of petitioners Randolf S. David and Ronald 2la$as% 537 the dispersal of the rallies and #arrantless arrest of the IME
and !"=2E-IME $e$bers% 5<7 the i$position of standards on $edia or an( prior restraint on the press% and 5>7 the
#arrantless search of the .ribune offices and the #hi$sical sei+ures of so$e articles for publication and other
$aterials, are not authori+ed b( the Constitution, the la# and &urisprudence. !ot even b( the valid provisions of PP
1816 and 9.. !o. :.
ther than this declaration of invalidit(, this Court cannot i$pose an( civil, cri$inal or ad$inistrative sanctions on the
individual police officers concerned. 4he( have not been individuall( identified and 'iven their da( in court. 4he civil
co$plaints or causes of action andGor relevant cri$inal Infor$ations have not been presented before this Court.
Ele$entar( due process bars this Court fro$ $a*in' an( specific pronounce$ent of civil, cri$inal or ad$inistrative
liabilities.
It is B588 <o ;5C5C:5; <=a< C686<a;y DoB5; 64 a C5a24 <o a2 52A a2A 4@:4<a2<675 36768 ;69=<4 a;5 52A4 62
<=5C458754. !oB <o 9675 <=5 C686<a;y <=5 DoB5; 6< 255A4 <o D;o<53< <=5 R5D@:863 B6<=o@< @2253544a;68y <;aCD8629
62A676A@a8 ;69=<4 64 o25 o> <=5 5<5;2a8 :a8a23629 <a4F4 o> a A5Co3;a<63 4<a<5.Durin' e$er'enc(, 'overn$ental
action $a( var( in breadth and intensit( fro$ nor$al ti$es, (et the( should not be arbitrar( as to undul( restrain our
people.s libert(.
Perhaps, the vital lesson that #e $ust learn fro$ the theorists #ho studied the various co$petin' political philosophies
is that, it is possible to 'rant 'overn$ent the authorit( to cope #ith crises #ithout surrenderin' the t#o vital principles
of constitutionalis$0 <=5 Ca62<52a235 o> 859a8 86C6<4 <o a;:6<;a;y DoB5;, and Do86<63a8 ;54Do246:686<y o> <=5
9o75;2C52< <o <=5 9o75;25A.
1:@

/!EREFORE, the Petitions are partl( 'ranted. 4he Court rules that PP 1816 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it
constitutes a call b( President 9loria Macapa'al-"rro(o on the "=P <o D;5752< o; 4@DD;544 8aB8544 76o85235.
/o#ever, the provisions of PP 1816 co$$andin' the "=P to enforce la#s not related to la#less violence, as #ell as
decrees pro$ul'ated b( the President, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, the provision in PP 1816
<<
declarin' national e$er'enc( under Section 16, "rticle -II of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, but such
declaration does not authori+e the President to ta*e over privatel(-o#ned public utilit( or business affected #ith public
interest #ithout prior le'islation.
9.. !o. : is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard b( #hich the "=P and the P!P should i$ple$ent PP
1816, i.e. #hatever is 1253544a;y a2A aDD;oD;6a<5 a3<6o24 a2A C5a4@;54 <o 4@DD;544 a2A D;5752< a3<4 o> 8aB8544
76o85235.1 Considerin' that 1acts of terroris$1 have not (et been defined and $ade punishable b( the 2e'islature, such
portion of 9.. !o. : is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
4he #arrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald 2la$as% the dispersal and #arrantless arrest of the IME and
!"=2E-IME $e$bers durin' their rallies, in the absence of proof that these petitioners #ere co$$ittin' acts
constitutin' la#less violence, invasion or rebellion and violatin' DP @@8% the i$position of standards on $edia or an(
for$ of prior restraint on the press, as #ell as the #arrantless search of the .ribune offices and #hi$sical sei+ure of its
articles for publication and other $aterials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
!o costs.
S RDERED.
<>
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
E! D"!C

G.R. No. 10(961 O3<o:5; 7, 199(
CONGRESSMAN FRANCISCO %. ANIAG, $R., petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS a2A DEPARTMENT OF $USTICE SPECIAL TAS+ FORCE,
respondents.
;onolfo ,. Pasamba for petitioner.

%ELLOSILLO, $R., J.-
PE4I4I!ER assails in this petition 5for declarator( relief, certiorari and prohibition7 the follo#in'
resolutions of the Co$$ission on Elections0 Resolution !o. 3<36 dated 3? Dece$ber 1JJ1 for bein'
unconstitutional, and Resolution !o. J3-8@3J dated ? "pril 1JJ3 and Resolution !o. J3-8JJJ dated 3<
"pril 1JJ3, for #ant of le'al and factual bases.
4he factual bac*drop0 In preparation for the s(nchroni+ed national and local elections scheduled on 11 Ma(
1JJ3, the Co$$ission on Elections 5CME2EC7 issued on 11 Dece$ber 1JJ1 Resolution !o. 3<3<
other#ise referred to as the 19un Dan,1 pro$ul'atin' rules and re'ulations on bearin', carr(in' and
transportin' of firear$s or other deadl( #eapons, on securit( personnel or bod('uards, on bearin' ar$s b(
$e$bers of securit( a'encies or police or'ani+ations, and or'ani+ation or $aintenance of reaction forces
durin' the election period.
1
SubseAuentl(, on 3? Dece$ber 1JJ1 CME2EC issued Resolution !o. 3<36
providin' for the su$$ar( disAualification of candidates en'a'ed in 'unrunnin', usin' and transportin' of
firear$s, or'ani+in' special stri*e forces, and establishin' spot chec*points.
2
n 18 ,anuar( 1JJ3, pursuant to the 19un Dan,1 Mr. Serapio P. 4accad, Ser'eant-at-"r$s, /ouse of
Representatives, #rote petitioner #ho #as then Con'ress$an of the 1st District of Dulacan reAuestin' the
return of the t#o 537 firear$s
3
issued to hi$ b( the /ouse of Representatives. Epon bein' advised of the
reAuest on 1< ,anuar( 1JJ3 b( his staff, petitioner i$$ediatel( instructed his driver, Ernesto "rellano, to
pic* up the firear$s fro$ petitionerTs house at -alle -erde and return the$ to Con'ress.
Mean#hile, at about five oTcloc* in the afternoon of the sa$e da(, the Philippine !ational Police 5P!P7
headed b( Senior Superintendent Danilo Cordero set up a chec*point outside the Datasan Co$plex so$e
t#ent( 5387 $eters a#a( fro$ its entrance. "bout thirt( $inutes later, the police$en $annin' the outpost
fla''ed do#n the car driven b( "rellano as it approached the chec*point. 4he( searched the car and found
the firear$s neatl( pac*ed in their 'un cases and placed in a ba' in the trun* of the car. "rellano #as then
apprehended and detained. /e explained that he #as ordered b( petitioner to 'et the firear$s fro$ the
house and return the$ to Ser'eant-at-"r$s 4accad of the /ouse of Representatives.
<:
4hereafter, the police referred "rellanoTs case to the ffice of the Cit( Prosecutor for inAuest. 4he referral
did not include petitioner as a$on' those char'ed #ith an election offense. n 1: ,anuar( 1JJ3, the Cit(
Prosecutor ordered the release of "rellano after findin' the latterTs s#orn explanation $eritorious.
(
n 3@ ,anuar( 1JJ3, the Cit( Prosecutor invited petitioner to shed li'ht on the circu$stances $entioned in
"rellanoTs s#orn explanation. Petitioner not onl( appeared at the preli$inar( investi'ation to confir$
"rellanoTs state$ent but also #rote the Cit( Prosecutor ur'in' hi$ to exonerate "rellano. /e explained that
"rellano did not violate the firear$s ban as he in fact #as co$pl(in' #ith it #hen apprehended b(
returnin' the firear$s to Con'ress% and, that he #as petitionerTs driver, not a securit( officer nor a
bod('uard.
*
n ? March 1JJ3, the ffice of the Cit( Prosecutor issued a resolution #hich, a$on' other $atters,
reco$$ended that the case a'ainst "rellano be dis$issed and that the 1unofficial1 char'e a'ainst petitioner
be also dis$issed.
6
!evertheless, on ? "pril 1JJ3, upon reco$$endation of its 2a# Depart$ent, CME2EC issued Resolution
!o. J3-8@3J directin' the filin' of infor$ation a'ainst petitioner and "rellano for violation of Sec. 3?1, par.
5A7, of D.P. Dl'. @@1 other#ise *no#n as the $nibus Election Code, in relation to Sec. <3 of R.". !o.
61??%
7
and petitioner to sho# cause #h( he should not be disAualified fro$ runnin' for an elective
position, pursuant to CME2EC Resolution !o. 3<36, in relation to Sec. <3, << and <: of R.". 61??, and
Sec. :3, par. 5c7, of D.P. Dl'. @@1.
)
n 1< "pril 1JJ3, petitioner $oved for reconsideration and to hold in abe(ance the ad$inistrative
proceedin's as #ell as the filin' of the infor$ation in court.
9
n 3< "pril 1JJ3, the CME2EC denied
petitionerTs $otion for reconsideration.
10
/ence, this recourse.
Petitioner Auestions the constitutionalit( of Resolution !o. 3<36. /e ar'ues that the rules and re'ulations of
an ad$inistrative bod( $ust respect the li$its defined b( la#% that the $nibus Election Code provides for
the disAualification of an( personGcandidate fro$ runnin' for or holdin' a public office, i.e., an( person
#ho has either been declared b( co$petent authorit( as insane or inco$petent or has been sentenced b(
final &ud'$ent for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for an( offense for #hich he has been sentenced to
a penalt( of $ore than ei'hteen $onths or for a cri$e involvin' $oral turpitude% that 'unrunnin', usin' or
transportin' firear$s or si$ilar #eapons and other acts $entioned in the resolution are not #ithin the letter
or spirit of the provisions of the Code% that the resolution did a#a( #ith the reAuire$ent of final conviction
before the co$$ission of certain offenses% that instead, it created a presu$ption of 'uilt as a candidate $a(
be disAualified fro$ office in situations 5a7 #here the cri$inal char'e is still pendin', 5b7 #here there is no
pendin' cri$inal case, and 5c7 #here the accused has alread( been acAuitted, all contrar( to the reAuisite
Auantu$ of proof for one to be disAualified fro$ runnin' or holdin' public office under the $nibus
Election Code, i.e., proof be(ond reasonable doubt. "s a result, petitioner concludes, Resolution !o. 3<36
violates the funda$ental la# thus renderin' it fatall( defective.
Dut, the issue on the disAualification of petitioner fro$ runnin' in the
11 Ma( 1JJ3 s(nchroni+ed elections #as rendered $oot #hen he lost his bid for a seat in Con'ress in the
elections that ensued. ConseAuentl(, it is no# futile to discuss the i$plications of the char'e a'ainst hi$ on
his Aualification to run for public office.
/o#ever, there still re$ains an i$portant Auestion to be resolved, i.e., #hether he can be validl( prosecuted
for instructin' his driver to return to the Ser'eant-at-"r$s of the /ouse of Representatives the t#o firear$s
issued to hi$ on the basis of the evidence 'athered fro$ the #arrantless search of his car.
<?
Petitioner stron'l( protests a'ainst the $anner b( #hich the P!P conducted the search. "ccordin' to hi$,
#ithout a #arrant and #ithout infor$in' the driver of his funda$ental ri'hts the police$en searched his
car. 4he firear$s #ere not tuc*ed in the #aist nor #ithin the i$$ediate reach of "rellano but #ere neatl(
pac*ed in their 'un cases and #rapped in a ba' *ept in the trun* of the car. 4hus, the search of his car that
(ielded the evidence for the prosecution #as clearl( violative of Secs. 3 and <, par. 537, "rt. III, of the
Constitution.
11
Petitioner further $aintains that he #as neither i$pleaded as part( respondent in the preli$inar(
investi'ation before the ffice of the Cit( Prosecutor nor included in the char'e sheet. ConseAuentl(,
$a*in' hi$ a respondent in the cri$inal infor$ation #ould violate his constitutional ri'ht to due process.
Petitioner disputes the char'e that he violated Sec. << of R.". 61??, #hich prohibits an( candidate for
public office durin' the election period fro$ e$plo(in' or availin' hi$self or en'a'in' the services of
securit( personnel or bod('uards since, ad$ittedl(, "rellano #as not a securit( officer or bod('uard but a
civilian e$plo(ee assi'ned to hi$ as driver b( the /ouse of Representatives. Specificall(, petitioner further
ar'ues, "rellano #as instructed to return to Con'ress, as he did, the firear$s in co$pliance #ith the
directive of its Ser'eant-at-"r$s pursuant to the 19un Dan,1 thus, no la# #as in fact violated.
12
n 3: ,une 1JJ3, #e reAuired CME2EC to file its o#n co$$ent on the
petition
13
upon $anifestation of the Solicitor 9eneral that it could not ta*e the position of CME2EC and
pra(ed instead to be excused fro$ filin' the reAuired co$$ent.
1(
CME2EC clai$s that petitioner is char'ed #ith violation of Sec. 3?1, par. 5A7, in relation to Sec. 3?<, of
D.P. Dl'. @@1 #hich provides that 1the principals, acco$plices and accessories, as defined in the Revised
Penal Code, shall be cri$inall( liable for election offenses.1 It points out that it #as upon petitionerTs
instruction that "rellano brou'ht the firear$s in Auestion outside petitionerTs residence, sub$ittin' that his
ri'ht to be heard #as not violated as he #as invited b( the Cit( Prosecutor to explain the circu$stances
re'ardin' "rellanoTs possession of the firear$s. Petitioner also filed a s#orn #ritten explanation about the
incident. =inall(, CME2EC clai$s that violation of
the 19un Dan1 is mala prohibita, hence, the intention of the offender is i$$aterial.
1*
De that as it $a(, #e find no need to delve into the alle'ed constitutional infir$it( of Resolution !o. 3<36
since this petition $a( be resolved #ithout passin' upon this particular issue.
16
"s a rule, a valid search $ust be authori+ed b( a search #arrant dul( issued b( an appropriate authorit(.
/o#ever, this is not absolute. "side fro$ a search incident to a la#ful arrest, a #arrantless search had been
upheld in cases of $ovin' vehicles and the sei+ure of evidence in plain vie#,
17
as #ell as the search
conducted at police or $ilitar( chec*points #hich #e declared are not ille'al per se, and stressed that the
warrantless search is not *iolati*e of the Constitution for as long as the *ehicle is neither searched nor its
occupants sub?ected to a body search, and the inspection of the *ehicle is merely limited to a *isual search.
1)
Petitioner contends that the 'uns #ere not tuc*ed in "rellanoTs #aist nor placed #ithin his reach, and that
the( #ere neatl( pac*ed in 'un cases and placed inside a ba' at the bac* of the car. Si'nificantl(,
CME2EC did not rebut this clai$. 4he records do not sho# that the $anner b( #hich the pac*a'e #as
bundled led the P!P to suspect that it contained firear$s. 4here #as no $ention either of an( report
re'ardin' an( nervous, suspicious or unnatural reaction fro$ "rellano #hen the car #as stopped and
searched. 9iven these circu$stances and rel(in' on its visual observation, the P!P could not thorou'hl(
search the car la#full( as #ell as the pac*a'e #ithout violatin' the constitutional in&unction.
<6
"n extensive search #ithout #arrant could onl( be resorted to if the officers conductin' the search had
reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either the $otorist #as a la# offender or that
the( #ould find the instru$entalit( or evidence pertainin' to the co$$ission of a cri$e in the vehicle to be
searched.
19
4he existence of probable cause &ustif(in' the #arrantless search is deter$ined b( the facts of
each case.
20
4hus, #e upheld the validit( of the #arrantless search in situations #here the s$ell of
$ari&uana e$anated fro$ a plastic ba' o#ned b( the accused, or #here the accused #as actin'
suspiciousl(, and atte$pted to flee.
21
Ce also reco'ni+e the stop-and-search #ithout #arrant conducted b( police officers on the basis of prior
confidential infor$ation #hich #ere reasonabl( corroborated b( other attendant $atters, e.'., #here a
confidential report that a si+eable volu$e of $ari&uana #ould be transported alon' the route #here the
search #as conducted and appellants #ere cau'ht in flagrante delicto transportin' dru's at the ti$e of their
arrest%
22
#here apart fro$ the intelli'ence infor$ation, there #ere reports b( an undercover 1deep
penetration1 a'ent that appellants #ere brin'in' prohibited dru's into the countr(%
23
#here the infor$ation
that a Caucasian co$in' fro$ Sa'ada brin'in' prohibited dru's #as stren'thened b( the conspicuous bul'e
in accusedTs #aistline, and his suspicious failure to produce his passport and other identification papers%
2(

#here the ph(sical appearance of the accused fitted the description 'iven in the confidential infor$ation
about a #o$an transportin' $ari&uana%
2*
#here the accused carr(in' a bul'in' blac* leather ba' #ere
suspiciousl( Auiet and nervous #hen Aueried about its contents%
26
or #here the identit( of the dru' courier
#as alread( established b( police authorities #ho received confidential infor$ation about the probable
arrival of accused on board one of the vessels arrivin' in Du$a'uete Cit(.
27
In the case at bench, #e find that the chec*point #as set up t#ent( 5387 $eters fro$ the entrance to the
Datasan Co$plex to enforce Resolution
!o. 3<36. 4here #as no evidence to sho# that the police$en #ere i$pelled to do so because of a
confidential report leadin' the$ to reasonabl( believe that certain $otorists $atchin' the description
furnished b( their infor$ant #ere en'a'ed in 'unrunnin', transportin' firear$s or in or'ani+in' special
stri*e forces. !or, as adverted to earlier, #as there an( indication fro$ the pac*a'e or behavior of "rellano
that could have tri''ered the suspicion of the police$en. "bsent such &ustif(in' circu$stances specificall(
pointin' to the culpabilit( of petitioner and "rellano, the search could not be valid. 4he action then of the
police$en unreasonabl( intruded into petitionerTs privac( and the securit( of his propert(, in violation of
Sec. 3, "rt. III, of the Constitution. ConseAuentl(, the firear$s obtained in violation of petitionerTs ri'ht
a'ainst #arrantless search cannot be ad$itted for an( purpose in an( proceedin'.
It $a( be ar'ued that the see$in' acAuiescence of "rellano to the search constitutes an i$plied #aiver of
petitionerTs ri'ht to Auestion the reasonableness of the search of the vehicle and the sei+ure of the firear$s.
Chile Resolution !o. 3<36 authori+ed the settin' up of chec*points, it ho#ever stressed that 1'uidelines
shall be $ade to ensure that no infrin'e$ent of civil and political ri'hts results fro$ the i$ple$entation of
this authorit(,1 and that 1the places and $anner of settin' up of chec*points shall be deter$ined in
consultation #ith the Co$$ittee on =irear$s Dan and Securit( Personnel created under Sec. :, Resolution
!o. 3<3<.1
2)
4he facts sho# that P!P installed the chec*point at about five oTcloc* in the afternoon of 1<
,anuar( 1JJ3. 4he search #as $ade soon thereafter, or thirt( $inutes later. It #as not sho#n that ne#s of
i$pendin' chec*points #ithout necessaril( 'ivin' their locations, and the reason for the sa$e have been
announced in the $edia to fore#arn the citi+ens. !or did the infor$al chec*point that afternoon carr( si'ns
infor$in' the public of the purpose of its operation. "s a result, $otorists passin' that place did not have
an( in*lin' #hatsoever about the reason behind the instant exercise. Cith the authorities in control to stop
and search passin' vehicles, the $otorists did not have an( choice but to sub$it to the P!PTs scrutin(.
ther#ise, an( atte$pt to turnabout albeit innocent #ould raise suspicion and provide probable cause for
the police to arrest the $otorist and to conduct an extensive search of his vehicle.
<@
In the case of petitioner, onl( his driver #as at the car at that ti$e it #as stopped for inspection. "s
conceded b( CME2EC, driver "rellano did not *no# the purpose of the chec*point. In the face of
fourteen 51>7 ar$ed police$en conductin' the operation,
29
driver "rellano bein' alone and a $ere
e$plo(ee of petitioner could not have $arshalled the stren'th and the coura'e to protest a'ainst the
extensive search conducted in the vehicle. In such scenario, the 1i$plied acAuiescence,1 if there #as an(,
could not be $ore than a $ere passive confor$it( on "rellanoTs part to the search, and 1consent1 'iven
under inti$idatin' or coercive circu$stances is no consent #ithin the purvie# of the constitutional
'uarant(.
Moreover, the $anner b( #hich CME2EC proceeded a'ainst petitioner runs counter to the due process
clause of the Constitution. 4he facts sho# that petitioner #as not a$on' those char'ed b( the P!P #ith
violation of the $nibus Election Code. !or #as he sub&ected b( the Cit( Prosecutor to a preli$inar(
investi'ation for such offense. 4he non-disclosure b( the Cit( Prosecutor to the petitioner that he #as a
respondent in the preli$inar( investi'ation is violative of due process #hich reAuires that the procedure
established b( la# should be obe(ed.
30
CME2EC ar'ues that petitioner #as 'iven the chan'e to be heard because he #as invited to enli'hten the
Cit( Prosecutor re'ardin' the circu$stances leadin' to the arrest of his driver, and that petitioner in fact
sub$itted a s#orn letter of explanation re'ardin' the incident. 4his does not satisf( the reAuire$ent of due
process the essence of #hich is the reasonable opportunit( to be heard and to sub$it an( evidence one $a(
have in support of his defense.
31
Due process 'uarantees the observance of both substantive and procedural
ri'hts, #hatever the source of such ri'hts, be it the Constitution itself or onl( a statute or a rule of court.
32

In 4o *. Court of )ppeals,
33
#e held
that R
Chile the ri'ht to preli$inar( investi'ation is statutor( rather than constitutional in its
funda$ent, since it has in fact been established b( statute, it is a component part of due
process in criminal ?ustice. 4he ri'ht to have a preli$inar( investi'ation conducted before
bein' bound over to trial for a cri$inal offense and hence for$all( at ris* of incarceration
or so$e other penalt( is not a $ere for$al or technical ri'ht% it is a substanti*e right . . . .
K4Lhe ri'ht to an opportunit( to avoid a process painful to an(one save, perhaps, to
hardened cri$inals is a valuable ri'ht. 4o den( petitionerTs clai$ to a preli$inar(
investi'ation #ould be to deprive hi$ of the full $easure of his ri'ht to due process.
"pparentl(, petitioner #as $erel( invited durin' the preli$inar( investi'ation of "rellano to corroborate
the latterTs explanation. Petitioner then #as $ade to believe that he #as not a part( respondent in the case,
so that his #ritten explanation on the incident #as onl( intended to exculpate "rellano, not petitioner
hi$self. /ence, it cannot be seriousl( contended that petitioner #as full( 'iven the opportunit( to $eet the
accusation a'ainst hi$ as he #as not apprised that he #as hi$self a respondent #hen he appeared before
the Cit( Prosecutor.
=inall(, it $ust be pointed out too that petitionerTs filin' of a $otion for reconsideration #ith CME2EC
cannot be considered as a #aiver of his clai$ to a separate preli$inar( investi'ation for hi$self. 4he
$otion itself expresses petitionerTs vi'orous insistence on his ri'ht. PetitionerTs protestation started as soon
as he learned of his inclusion in the char'e, and did not ease up even after CME2ECTs denial of his $otion
for reconsideration. 4his is understandabl( so since the prohibition a'ainst carr(in' firear$s bears the
penalt( of i$prison$ent of not less than one 517 (ear nor $ore than six 5?7 (ears #ithout probation and
#ith disAualification fro$ holdin' public office, and deprivation of the ri'ht to suffra'e. "'ainst such
stron' stance, petitioner clearl( did not #aive his ri'ht to a preli$inar( investi'ation.
<J
C/ERE=RE, the instant petition is 9R"!4ED. 4he #arrantless search conducted b( the Philippine
!ational Police on 1< ,anuar( 1JJ3 is declared ille'al and the firear$s sei+ed durin' the #arrantless search
cannot be used as evidence in an( proceedin' a'ainst petitioner. ConseAuentl(, CME2EC Resolution !o.
J3-8@3J dated ? "pril 1JJ3 bein' violative of the Constitution is SE4 "SIDE.
4he te$porar( restrainin' order #e issued on : Ma( 1JJ3 is $ade per$anent.
S RDERED.
5ar*asa, C.@., ;omero, Kuiason, Puno, 0apunan and endoCa, @@., concur.
$eliciano, Padilla and 9idin, @@., are on lea*e.

>8
SOLIVEN, petitioner VS. $UDGE MA+ASIAR, respondent
167 SCRA 393
FACTS1
4his case is a PE4I4I! for certiorari and prohibition to revie# the decision of the Re'ional 4rial Court of
Manila
ISSUES1
1. Chether or not the petitioners #ere denied due process #hen infor$ation for libel #ere filed
a'ainst the$ althou'h the findin' of the existence of a prima facie case #as still under revie# b(
the Secretar( of ,ustice and, subseAuentl( b( the President
3. Chether or not the constitutional ri'hts of %58<;a2 5petitioner7 #ere violated #hen respondent R4C
&ud'e issued a #arrant for his arrest #ithout personall( exa$inin' the co$plainant and the
#itnesses, if an(, to deter$ine probable clause
<. Chether or not the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution, $a( initiate cri$inal
proceedin's a'ainst the petitioners throu'h filin' of a co$plaint-affidavit
DECISION1
=indin' no 'rave abuse of discretion a$ountin' to excess or lac* of &urisdiction on the part of the public
respondents, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petitions.
4he rder to $aintain the status -uo contained in the Resolution of the Court en banc is 2I=4ED.
RATIO1
%a3F9;o@2A o> <=5 >6;4< 644@5
M"RC/ <8, 1J@@0 Secretar( of ,ustice denied petitioner.s $otion for reconsideration
"PRI2 6, 1J@@0 " second $otion for reconsideration filed b( petitioner Deltran #as denied b( the
Secretar( of ,ustice
M"O 3, 1J@@0 n appeal, the President, throu'h Executive Secretar(, affir$ed the resolution of the
Secretar( of ,ustice
M"O 1?, 1J@@0 Motion for reconsideration #as denied b( the Executive Secretar(
Petitioner Deltran alle'es that he has been denied due process of la#.
-4his is ne'ated b( the fact that instead of sub$ittin' his counter-affidavits, he filed a UMotion to Declare
Proceedin's ClosedV, in effect, #aivin' his ri'ht to refute the co$plaint b( filin' counter-affidavits.
D@5 D;o3544 o> 8aB Ao54 2o< ;5L@6;5 <=a< <=5 ;54Do2A52< 62 a 3;6C62a8 3a45 a3<@a88y >685 =64 3o@2<5;&
a>>6Aa76<4 :5>o;5 <=5 D;586C62a;y 62754<69a<6o2 64 A55C5A 3oCD85<5A. A88 <=a< 64 ;5L@6;5A 64 <=a< <=5
;54Do2A52< :5 96752 <=5 oDDo;<@26<y <o 4@:C6< 3o@2<5;&a>>6Aa76<4 6> =5 64 4o C62A5A.
>1
S53o2A 644@5
4his calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of #arrants of arrest0
"rt. III, Sec.3. 4he ri'ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects a'ainst
unreasonable searches and sei+ures of #hatever nature and for an( purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search #arrant or #arrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be deter$ined personall( b(
the &ud'e after exa$ination under oath or affir$ation of the co$plainant and the #itnesses he $a( produce,
and particularl( describin' the place to be searched and the persons or thin's to be sei+ed.
Petitioner Deltran is convinced that the Constitution reAuires the &ud'e to personall( exa$ine the
co$plainant and his #itness in his deter$ination of probable cause for the issuance of #arrants of arrests.
-/o#ever, #hat the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibilit( of the issuin'
&ud'e to satisf( hi$self of the existence of probable cause. In doin' so, the &ud'e is not reAuired to
personall( exa$ine the co$plainant and his #itness.
Fo88oB629 <=5 54<a:864=5A Ao3<;625 o> D;o35A@;5, <=5 ?@A95 4=a881 -1. P5;4o2a88y 57a8@a<5 <=5 ;5Do;<
a2A 4@DDo;<629 Ao3@C52<4 4@:C6<<5A :y <=5 >643a8 ;59a;A629 <=5 5G64<5235 o> D;o:a:85 3a@45 -a2A o2
<=5 :a464, <=5;5o>, 644@5 a Ba;;a2< o> a;;54<.0 o; -2. I> o2 <=5 :a464 <=5;5o> =5 >62A4 2o D;o:a:85 3a@45,
=5 Cay A64;59a;A <=5 >643a8H4 ;5Do;< a2A ;5L@6;5 <=5 4@:C6446o2 o> 4@DDo;<629 a>>6Aa76<4 o> B6<254454
<o a6A =6C 62 a;;67629 a< a 3o238@46o2 a4 <o <=5 576A5235 o> D;o:a:85 3a@45.
T=6;A 644@5
Petitioner Deltran contends that proceedin's ensue b( virtue of the President.s filin' of her co$plaint-
affidavit, she $a( subseAuentl( have to be a #itness for the prosecution, brin'in' her under the trial court.s
&urisdiction. W4his #ould in an indirect #a( defeat her pri*ilege of immunity from suit, as b( testif(in' on
the #itness stand, she #ould be exposin' herself to possible conte$pt of court or per&ur(.
-4his privile'e of i$$unit( fro$ suit, pertains to the President b( virtue of the office and $a( be invo*ed
onl( b( the holder of the office% not b( an( other person in the President.s behalf.
-4he choice of #hether to exercise the privile'e or to #aive is solel( the President.s prero'ative. It is a
decision that cannot be assu$ed and i$posed b( an( other person 5"nd there is nothin' in our la#s that
#ould prevent the President fro$ #aivin' the privile'e7.
AAA6<6o2a8 I44@51
Deltran contends that he could not be held liable for libel because of the privile'ed character of the
publication. /e also sa(s that to allo# the libel case to proceed #ould produce a Uchillin' effectV on press
freedo$.
-Court reiterates that it is not a trier of facts "nd Court finds no basis at this sta'e to rule on the Uchillin'
effectV point.
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION 4uitierreC, @r., @.
>3
Concurs #ith the $a&orit( opinion insofar as it revolves around the three principal issues. Cith re'ard to
#hether or not the libel case #ould produce a Uchillin' effectV on press freedo$, 9utierre+ believes that this
particular issue is the $ost i$portant and should be resolved no# rather than later.
Huotable Auotes0 Len in public life may suffer under a hostile and un?ust accusation/ the wound can be
assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience.M )Enited States v. Dustos
L5o longer is there a inister of the Crown or a person in authority of such e:alted position that the citiCen
must speak of him only with bated breath.M )People v. Perfecto
><
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
=IRS4 DI-ISI!

G.R. No. 113630 May *, 199(
DIOSDADO $OSE ALLADO a2A RO%ERTO L. MENDOZA, petitioners,
vs.
!ON. RO%ERTO C. DIO+NO, P;546A629 $@A95, %;. 62, R596o2a8 T;6a8 Co@;<, MaFa<6, M5<;o
Ma268a, a2A PRESIDENTIAL ANTI&CRIME COMMISSION, respondents.
%ELLOSILLO, J.-
n balance at the fulcru$ once a'ain are the intrinsic ri'ht of the State to prosecute perceived trans'ressors
of the la#, #hich can be re'ulated, and the innate value of hu$an libert(, #hich can hardl( be #ei'hed.
So$e t#elve (ears a'o #e #ere confronted #ith a si$ilar proble$ #hen for$er Senator ,ovito R. Salon'a
invo*ed before this Court his 1ri'ht to life and libert( 'uaranteed b( the due process clause, alle'in' that no
prima facie case has been established to #arrant the filin' of an infor$ation for subversion a'ainst hi$.1
1

Ce resolved the issue then and sustained hi$. /e is no# bac* before us, this ti$e as counsel pleadin' the
cause of petitioners herein #ho, he clai$s, are in a situation far #orse than his predica$ent t#elve 5137
(ears a'o. /e postulates that no probable cause li*e#ise exists in this case, and #hat is #orse is that no bail
is reco$$ended.
4his petition 'ives us an opportunit( to revisit the concept and i$plication of probable cause, the existence
of #hich is necessar( for the prosecutor to have an accused held for trial and for a trial &ud'e to issue a
#arrant for his arrest. It is $andator( therefore that there be probable cause before an infor$ation is filed
and a #arrant of arrest issued. Enfortunatel(, ho#ever, at ti$es a cri$inal case is filed, a #arrant of arrest
issued and a person conseAuentl( incarcerated on unsubstantiated alle'ations that onl( fei'n probable cause.
Petitioners Diosdado ,ose "llado and Roberto 2. Mendo+a, alu$ni of the Colle'e of 2a#, Eniversit( of the
Philippines, are partners of the 2a# =ir$ of Salon'a, /ernande+ and "llado. In the practice of their
profession, and on the basis of an alle'ed extra&udicial confession of a securit( 'uard, the( have been
accused of the heinous cri$e of *idnappin' #ith $urder b( the Presidential "nti-Cri$e Co$$ission
5P"CC7 and ordered arrested #ithout bail b( respondent &ud'e.
4he focal source of the infor$ation a'ainst petitioners is the s#orn state$ent dated 1? Septe$ber 1JJ< of
Securit( 9uard Escolastico E$bal, a dischar'e of the Philippine Constabular(, i$plicatin' the$ as the
brains behind the alle'ed *idnappin' and sla(in' of one Eu'en "lexander -an 4#est, a 9er$an national.
2

In that extra&udicial confession, E$bal clai$ed that he and his co$panions #ere $et b( petitioners at
Silahis /otel and in exchan'e for P3.:M the for$er undertoo* to apprehend -an 4#est #ho alle'edl( had
an international #arrant of arrest a'ainst hi$. 4hus, on 1? ,une 1JJ3, after placin' hi$ under surveillance
for nearl( a $onth, E$bal, Ex-police$an Rolando 9a$atero, "=PCI9 "'ent Roberto Santia'o and SP3
Ser'io "ntonino abducted -an 4#est. 4he( bloc*ed his blue !issan Pathfinder under the "laban' overpass
and forced hi$ into their car. 4he( brou'ht hi$ to a 1safe house1 &ust behind the !e# Dilibid Prisons.
>>
E$bal #as tas*ed to #atch over their Auarr(. "fter four 5>7 da(s, 9a$atero, Santia'o and "ntonino
returned to the 1safe house1 to'ether #ith petitioners and SP3 Ro'er Dato, *no#n to E$bal also as
1Dato*.1 SP3 Dato fa*ed the interro'ation of -an 4#est, pretendin' it #as official, and then $ade hi$
si'n certain docu$ents. 4he follo#in' da(, 9a$atero shot -an 4#est in the chest #ith a bab( ar$alite, after
#hich "ntonino stabbed hi$ repeatedl(, cut off his private part, and later burned his cadaver into fine ashes
usin' 'asoline and rubber tires. E$bal could not recall the exact date #hen the incident happened, but he
#as certain it #as about a (ear a'o.
" da( after E$bal executed his extra&udicial confession, the operatives of the P"CC, ar$ed #ith a search
#arrant issued b( ,ud'e Roberto ". Darrios of the Re'ional 4rial Court of Manila, Dr. 11,
3
separatel(
raided the t#o 537 d#ellin's of Santia'o, one located at !o. 6 San'le( Street, and the other, alon'
"$alin'an Street, both in 9reen /ei'hts Subdivision, ParaMaAue. 4he raiders recovered a blue !issan
Pathfinder and assorted firear$s and a$$unition and placed Santia'o and his trusted aide, Efren Madolid,
under arrest. "lso arrested later that da( #ere "ntonio and Dato #ho #ere found to have in their possession
several firear$s and a$$unition and -an 4#estTs Cartier sun'lasses.
"fter evaluatin' the pieces of evidence 'athered b( P"CC operatives, Sr., Supt. Panfilo 2acson, Chief of
P"CC 4as* =orce /aba'at, referred the case to the Depart$ent of ,ustice for the institution of cri$inal
proceedin's a'ainst "=PCI9 "'ent Roberto Santia'o, SP1 Ser'io "ntonino, SP3 Ro'er Dato, Ex-
police$an Rolando 9a$atero, Efren Madolid, and petitioners herein, "tt(. Diosdado ,ose "llado and "tt(.
Roberto 2. Mendo+a, for ille'al possession of firear$s and a$$unition, carnappin', *idnappin' for ranso$
#ith $urder, and usurpation of authorit(.
(
In his letter to the State Prosecutor dated 16 Septe$ber 1JJ<, Sr.
Supt. 2acson char'ed that R
"tt(. Roberto 2. Mendo+a and "tt(. "llado of Salon'a, /ernande+ and "llado 2a#
ffices . . . planned and conspired #ith other suspects to abduct and *ill the 9er$an
national "lexander -an 4#est in order to eli$inate hi$ after forcin' the victi$ to si'n
several docu$ents transferrin' o#nership of several properties a$ountin' to several
$illion pesos and caused the #ithdra#al of P:M deposit fro$ the victi$Ts ban* account.
4hereafter, Senior State Prosecutor =erdinand prosecutor =erdinand R. "besa$is issued a subpoena to
petitioners infor$in' the$ that a co$plaint
#as filed a'ainst the$ b( P"CC 4=-/aba'at, directin' the$ to appear on
<8 Septe$ber 1JJ< at the Multi-Purpose /all of the Depart$ent of ,ustice and to sub$it their counter-
affidavits. "ttached to the subpoena #ere copies of the affidavits executed b( E$bal and $e$bers of the
tea$ #ho raided the t#o 537 d#ellin's of Santia'o.
*
!ot satisfied $erel( #ith the affidavits attached to the subpoena, petitioner Mendo+a $oved for the
production of other docu$ents for exa$ination and cop(in' to enable hi$ to full( prepare for his defense
and to sub$it an intelli'ible counter-affidavit.
6
Specificall(, petitioner Mendo+a #as interested in 5a7 the
1several docu$ents transferrin' o#nership of several properties a$ountin' to several $illion pesos and the
#ithdra#al of P:M deposits fro$ the victi$Ts ban* account,1 as stated in the co$plaint% 5b7 the co$plete
records of the P"CCTs investi'ation, includin' investi'ations on other suspects and their disposition,
P"CCTs rder of Dattle for 1JJ3 and earl( 1JJ<% and, 5c7 such other #ritten state$ents issued in the above-
entitled case, and all other docu$ents intended to be used in this case.
7
Petitioners li*e#ise sou'ht the
inhibition of the $e$bers of the panel of prosecutors, #hich #as created to conduct the preli$inar(
investi'ation, on the 'round that the( #ere $e$bers of the le'al staff assi'ned to P"CC and thus could not
act #ith i$partialit(.
>:
In its rder of 11 ctober 1JJ<,
)
the ne# panel of prosecutors co$posed of Senior State Prosecutor
Dernelito R. =ernande+ as Chair$an, #ith Ro'elio =. -ista and Purita M. De(nata as Me$bers, confir$ed
that the $otion for inhibition of the $e$bers of the old panel as #ell as the appeal to the Secretar( of
,ustice #as resolved on @ ctober 1JJ< resultin' in the creation of a ne# panel. 4hereafter, the ne# panel
'ranted the pra(er of petitioner Mendo+a for the production of additional docu$ents used or intended to be
used a'ainst hi$. Mean#hile, 4as* =orce /aba'at, in co$pliance #ith the order, sub$itted onl( copies of
the reAuest for verification of the firear$s sei+ed fro$ the accused, the result of the reAuest for verification,
and a Philippine .imes @ournal article on the case #ith a $ar'inal note of President =idel -. Ra$os
addressed to the Chief of the Philippine !ational Police directin' the sub$ission of a report and su$$ar(
of actions ta*en thereon.
!ot havin' been provided #ith the reAuested docu$ents, petitioners nevertheless sub$itted their respective
counter-affidavits den(in' the accusations a'ainst the$.
9
"fter a preli$inar( hearin' #here clarificator( Auestions #ere additionall( propounded, the case #as
dee$ed sub$itted for resolution. Dut before the ne# panel could resolve the case, SP3 Dato filed a
$anifestation statin' that he #as reconsiderin' the earlier #aiver of his ri'ht to file counter- affidavit,
10
and
1in the 'reater interest of truth, &ustice and fair pla(1 $oved for the ad$issions of his counter-affidavit
11

confessin' participation in the abduction and sla(in' of -an 4#est and i$plicatin' petitioners "llado and
Mendo+a. So$eti$e in ,anuar( 1JJ>, ho#ever, before petitioners could refute DatoTs counter-affidavit, he
$oved to suppress it on the 'round that it #as extracted throu'h inti$idation and duress.
n < =ebruar( 1JJ>, #ith the ne# penal failin' to act on the t#in $otions of SP3 Dato, petitioners heard
over the radio that the panel had issued a resolution findin' a prima facie case a'ainst the$ and that an
infor$ation had alread( been filed in court. Epon verification #ith the Depart$ent of ,ustice, ho#ever,
petitioners #ere infor$ed that the resolution #as not (et read( for release, but later that afternoon the( #ere
able to secure a cop( of the infor$ation for *idnappin' #ith $urder a'ainst the$
12
and the 1:-pa'e
undated resolution under the letterhead of P"CC, si'ned b( the panel of prosecutors, #ith the /ead of the
P"CC 4as* =orce reco$$endin' approval thereof.
13
4hat sa$e da(, the infor$ation #as filed before the
Re'ional 4rial Court of Ma*ati and raffled off to Dranch ?3 presided b( respondent ,ud'e Roberto C.
Dio*no.
n > =ebruar( 1JJ>, respondent &ud'e, in response to petitionersT reAuest, 'ave the$ until @ =ebruar( 1JJ>
to sub$it their opposition to the issuance of a #arrant of arrest a'ainst all the accused.
1(
n 6 =ebruar(
1JJ>, petitioners co$plied #ith the order of respondent &ud'e.
1*
4he follo#in' da(,
@ =ebruar( 1JJ>, petitioner "llado filed an appeal #ith the Secretar( of ,ustice see*in' revie# and reversal
of the undated resolution of the panel
of prosecutors,
16
#hich appeal #as adopted b( petitioner Mendo+a.
17
n
11 =ebruar( 1JJ>, petitioner "llado $oved to defer the proceedin's before the trial court pendin' resolution
of his appeal before the Secretar( of ,ustice.
1)
/o#ever, on even date, respondent &ud'e issued the assailed
#arrant of arrest a'ainst petitioners.
19
/ence, on 1: =ebruar( 1JJ>, petitioners filed #ith us the instant
petition for certiorari and prohibition #ith pra(er for a te$porar( restrainin' order.
n 1? =ebruar( 1JJ>, #e reAuired respondents to co$$ent on the petition and set the case for hearin' on
3@ =ebruar( 1JJ>. "fter the hearin', #e issued a te$porar( restrainin' order en&oinin' P"CC fro$
enforcin' the #arrant of arrest and respondent &ud'e fro$ conductin' further proceedin's on the case and,
instead, to elevate the records to us. Mean#hile, on 36 =ebruar( 1JJ>, petitioners voluntaril( surrendered at
the /eadAuarters of the Capital Co$$and 5C"PCM7, Philippine !ational Police 5P!P7, Ca$p Da'on'
Di#a, Dicutan, Metro Manila, and on 3J =ebruar( 1JJ>, the( #ere released on the basis of our te$porar(
restrainin' order.
>?
Petitioners, in their <<:-pa'e petition, inclusive of annexes, principall( contend that respondent &ud'e acted
#ith 'rave abuse of discretion and in excess of &urisdiction in 1#hi$sicall( holdin' that there is probable
cause a'ainst petitioners #ithout deter$inin' the ad$issibilit( of the evidence a'ainst petitioners and
#ithout even statin' the basis of his findin's,1
20
and in 1rel(in' on the Resolution of the Panel and their
certification that probable cause exists #hen the certification is fla#ed.1
21
Petitioners $aintain that the
records of the preli$inar( investi'ation #hich respondent &ud'e solel( relied upon failed to establish
probable cause a'ainst the$ to &ustif( the issuance of the #arrant of arrest. Petitioners li*e#ise assail the
prosecutorsT 1clear si'n of bias and i$partialit( 5sic7.1
22
n the other hand, the ffice of the Solicitor 9eneral ar'ues that the deter$ination of probable cause is a
function of the &ud'e #ho is $erel( reAuired to personall( appreciate certain facts to convince hi$ that the
accused probabl( co$$itted the cri$e char'ed.
Section 3, "rt. III, of the 1J@6 Constitution, la(s do#n the reAuire$ents for the issuance of a #arrant of
arrest, i.e., a #arrant of arrest shall issue onl( upon probable cause to be deter$ined personall( b( the &ud'e
after exa$ination under oath or affir$ation of the co$plainant and the #itnesses he $a( produce.
"s earl( as 1J1:, in 9uchanan *. Aiuda de Esteban,
23
this Court spea*in' throu'h "ssociate ,ustice
Sher$an Moreland defined probable cause as 1the existence of such facts and circu$stances as #ould
excite the belief, in a reasonable $ind, actin' on the facts #ithin the *no#led'e of the prosecutor, that the
person char'ed #as 'uilt( of the cri$e for #hich he #as prosecuted.1 4his definition is still relevant toda(
as #e continue to cite it in recent cases.
2(
/ence, probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a
#arrant of arrest has been defined as such facts and circu$stances #hich #ould lead a reasonable discreet
and prudent $an to believe that an offense has been co$$itted b( the person sou'ht to be arrested.
2*
"nd
as a protection a'ainst false prosecution and arrest, it is the *no#led'e of facts, actual or apparent, stron'
enou'h to &ustif( a reasonable $an in the belief that he #as la#ful 'rounds for arrestin' the accused.
26
Pilapil *. ,andiganbayan
27
sets a standard for deter$inin' the existence of probable cause. Chile it appears
in that case that #e have 'ranted the prosecutor and the trial &ud'e see$in'l( unli$ited latitude in
deter$inin' the existence of absence of probable cause b( affir$in' the lon'-standin' procedure that the(
can base their findin's $erel( on their personal opinion and reasonable belief, (et, this per$issiveness
should not be interpreted as 'ivin' the$ arbitrar( po#ers and lettin' the$ loose in the deter$ination of the
existence of probable cause, a delicate le'al Auestion #hich can result in the harass$ent and deprivation of
libert( of the person sou'ht to be char'ed or arrested. 4here #e said R
Probable cause is a reasonable 'round of presu$ption that a $atter is, or $a( be, #ell
founded, such a state of facts in the $ind of the prosecutor as #ould lead a person of
ordinar( caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or stron' suspicion, that a
thin' is so. 4he ter$ does not $ean 1actual and positive cause1 nor does it i$port absolute
certaint(. It is $erel( based on opinion and reasonable belief. 4hus, a findin' of probable
cause does not reAuire an inAuir( into #hether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. It is enou'h that it is it believed that the act or o$ission co$plained of
constitutes the offense char'ed. Precisel(, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the
prosecution in support of the char'e.
Chether an act #as done causin' undue in&ur( to the 'overn$ent and #hether the sa$e
#as done #ith $anifest partialit( or evident bad faith can onl( be $ade out b( proper and
sufficient testi$on(. !ecessaril(, a conclusion can be arrived at #hen the case has alread(
proceeded on sufficient proof.
2)
>6
"ccordin'l(, before issuin' a #arrant of arrest, the &ud'e $ust satisf( hi$self that based on the evidence
sub$itted there is sufficient proof that a cri$e has been co$$itted and that the person to be arrested is
probabl( 'uilt( thereof. In the rder of respondent &ud'e dated 11 =ebruar( 1JJ>, it is expressl( stated that
1KtLhis court after careful evaluation of the evidence on record, believes and rules that probable cause exists%
and therefore, a #arrant of arrest should be issued.1 /o#ever, #e are unable to see ho# respondent &ud'e
arrived at such rulin'. Ce have painsta*in'l( exa$ined the records and #e cannot find an( support for his
conclusion. n the contrar(, #e discern a nu$ber of reasons #h( #e consider the evidence sub$itted to be
insufficient for a findin' of probable cause a'ainst petitioners.
4he Presidential "nti-Cri$e Co$$ission relies heavil( on the s#orn state$ent of Securit( 9uard E$bal
#ho supposedl( confessed his participation in the alle'ed *idnappin' and $urder of -an 4#est. =or one,
there is serious doubt on -an 4#estTs reported death since the corpus delicti has not been established, nor
have his re$ains been recovered. E$bal clai$s that -an 4#est #as co$pletel( burned into ashes #ith the
use of 'asoline and rubber tires fro$ around ten oTcloc* in the evenin' to six oTcloc* the next $ornin'.
29

4his is hi'hl( i$probable, if not ridiculous. " hu$an bod( cannot be pulveri+ed into ashes b( si$pl(
burnin' it #ith the use of 'asoline and rubber tires in an open field. Even cre$atoria use entirel( closed
incinerators #here the corpse is sub&ected to intense heat.
30
4hereafter, the re$ains under'o a process
#here the bones are co$pletel( 'round to dust.
In the case of -an 4#est, there is not even an( insinuation that earnest efforts #ere exerted to recover traces
of his re$ains fro$ the scene of the alle'ed cre$ation.
31
Could it be that the 'overn$ent investi'ators did
to the place of cre$ation but could not find an(; r could it be that the( did not 'o at all because the( *ne#
that there #ould not be an( as no burnin' ever too* place; 4o alle'e then that the bod( of -an 4#est #as
co$pletel( burned to ashes in an open field #ith the use $erel( of tires and 'asoline is a tale too tall to
'ulp.
Stran'el(, if not a#*#ardl(, after -an 4#estTs reported abduction on
1? ,une 1JJ3 #hich cul$inated in his deci$ation b( cre$ation, his counsel continued to represent hi$
before &udicial and Auasi-&udicial proceedin's. 4hus on <1 ,ul( 1JJ3, his counsel filed in his behalf a
petition for revie# before this Court, doc*eted as 9.R. !os. 18?3:<, and on 1@ March 1JJ<, a
$e$orandu$ before the Securities and Exchan'e Co$$ission in SEC Case !o. <@J?. n
3? !ove$ber 1JJ<, durin' the preli$inar( investi'ation conducted b( the panel of prosecutors, counsel
a'ain $anifested that 1even then and even as of this ti$e, I stated in $( counter-affidavit that until the
$atter of death is to be established in the proper proceedin's, I shall continue to pursue $( duties and
responsibilities as counsel for Mr. -an 4#est.1
32
/ence, even "sst. Solicitor 9eneral Estoesta believes that
counsel of -an 4#est doubted the latterTs
death.
33
bviousl(, counsel hi$self does not believe that his client is in fact alread( dead other#ise his
obli'ation to his client #ould have ceased except to co$pl( #ith his dut( 1to infor$ the court pro$ptl( of
such death . . . and to 'ive the na$e and residence of his executor, ad$inistrator, 'uardian or other le'al
representative,1
3(
#hich he did not.
Ender the circu$stances, #e cannot discount petitionersT theor( that the supposed death of -an 4#est #ho
is reportedl( an international fu'itive fro$ &ustice, a fact substantiated b( petitioners and never refuted b(
P"CC, is a li*el( stor( to stop the international $anhunt for his arrest. In this re'ard, #e are re$inded of
the leadin' case of 1.,. *. ,amarin
3*
decided ninet(-t#o (ears a'o #here this Court ruled that #hen the
supposed victi$ is #holl( un*no#n, his bod( not found, and there is but one #itness #ho testifies to the
*illin', the corpus delicti is not sufficientl( proved.
4hen, the extra&udicial state$ent of E$bal suffers fro$ $aterial inconsistencies. In his s#orn state$ent, he
said that he to'ether #ith his cohorts #as $et b( petitioners in Silahis /otel #here the( hatched the plan to
>@
abduct -an 4#est.
36
/o#ever, durin' the preli$inar( investi'ation, he stated that he #as not part of the
actual $eetin' as he onl( #aited outside in the car for his co$panions #ho supposedl( discussed the plan
inside Silahis /otel.
37
E$bal also said that petitioners arrived #ith Dato and conducted a $oc* interro'ation of -an 4#est #ho
thereafter si'ned various docu$ents upon bein' co$pelled to do so.
3)
Durin' the clarificator( Auestionin',
ho#ever, E$bal chan'ed his stor( and said that he #as as*ed to 'o outside of the 1safe house1 at the ti$e
-an 4#est #as interro'ated and thus did not see if -an 4#est indeed si'ned certain docu$ents. Ch( E$bal
had to be sent out of the 1safe house,1
no explanation #as offered. Did these docu$ents reall( exist; r could the
non-existence of these docu$ents be the reason #h( P"CC #as not able to co$pl( #ith the order of the
prosecutors to produce the$ durin' the preli$inar( investi'ation; "nd then, #hat happened to the P3.:M
that #as supposedl( offered b( petitioners in exchan'e for the abduction of -an 4#est; 4hese and $ore
re$ain unans#ered.
Most perplexin' ho#ever is that #hile the #hole investi'ation #as supposedl( tri''ered off b( E$balTs
confession of 1? Septe$ber 1JJ<, the application of the P"CC operatives for a search #arrant to be served
in the
t#o 537 d#ellin's of Santia'o #as filed and 'ranted b( the Re'ional 4rial Court of Manila on 1: Septe$ber
1JJ<, a da( before E$bal executed his s#orn state$ent. In support of the application, the P"CC a'ents
clai$ed that E$bal had been in their custod( since 18 Septe$ber 1JJ<. Si'nificantl(, althou'h he #as said
to be alread( under their custod(, E$bal clai$s he #as never interro'ated until 1? Septe$ber 1JJ< and
onl( at the securit( barrac*s of -alle -erde -, Pasi', #here he #as a securit( 'uard.
39
4he alle'ed counter-affidavit of SP3 Dato, #hich the panel of prosecutors also considered in filin' the
char'es a'ainst petitioners, can hardl( be credited as its probative value has tre$endousl( #aned. 4he
records sho# that the alle'ed counter-affidavit, #hich is self-incri$inatin', #as filed after the panel had
considered the case sub$itted for resolution. "nd before petitioners could refute this counter-affidavit, Dato
$oved to suppress the sa$e on the 'round that it #as extracted throu'h duress and inti$idation.
=or sure, the credibilit( of E$bal is badl( battered. Certainl(, his bare alle'ations, even if the State invo*es
its inherent ri'ht to prosecute, are insufficient to &ustif( sendin' t#o la#(ers to &ail, or an(bod( for that
$atter. More i$portantl(, the P"CC operatives #ho applied for a #arrant to search the d#ellin's of
Santia'o never i$plicated petitioners. In fact the( clai$ed that accordin' to E$bal, it #as Santia'o, and
not petitioners, #ho $aster$inded the #hole affair.
(0
Chile there $a( be bits of evidence a'ainst
petitionersT
co-accused, i.e., referrin' to those sei+ed fro$ the d#ellin's of Santia'o, these do not in the least prove
petitionersT co$plicit( in the cri$e char'ed. Dased on the evidence thus far sub$itted there is nothin'
indeed, $uch less is there probable cause, to incri$inate petitioners. =or the$ to stand trial and be deprived
in the $eanti$e of their libert(, ho#ever brief, the la# appropriatel( exacts $uch $ore to sustain a #arrant
for their arrest R facts and circu$stances stron' enou'h in the$selves to support the belief that the( are
'uilt( of a cri$e that in fact happened. Huite obviousl(, this has not been $et.
-eril(, respondent &ud'e co$$itted 'rave abuse of discretion in issuin' the #arrant for the arrest of
petitioners it appearin' that he did not personall( exa$ine the evidence nor did he call for the co$plainant
and his #itnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. Instead, he $erel( relied on the certification of the
prosecutors that probable cause existed. =or, other#ise, he #ould have found out that the evidence thus far
presented #as utterl( insufficient to #arrant the arrest of petitioners. In this re'ard, #e restate the procedure
#e outlined in various cases #e have alread( decided.
>J
In ,oli*en *. akasiar,
(1
#e said that the &ud'e 5a7 shall personall( evaluate the report and the supportin'
docu$ents sub$itted b( the fiscal re'ardin' the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue
a #arrant of arrest% or, 5b7 if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, $a( disre'ard the fiscalTs
report and reAuire the sub$ission of supportin' affidavits of #itnesses to aid hi$ in arrivin' at a conclusion
on the existence of probable cause.
In People *. Inting,
(2
#e e$phasi+ed the i$portant features of the constitutional $andate0 5a7 4he
deter$ination of probable cause is a function of the &ud'e% it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to
ascertain. nl( the &ud'e and the &ud'e alone $a*es this deter$ination% 5b7 4he preli$inar( inAuir( $ade
b( a prosecutor does not bind the &ud'e. It $erel( assists hi$ in $a*in' the deter$ination of probable
cause. 4he &ud'e does not have to follo# #hat the prosecutor presents to hi$. D( itself, the prosecutorTs
certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcript of steno'raphic
notes 5if an(7, and all other supportin' docu$ents behind the prosecutorTs certification #hich are $aterial in
assistin' the &ud'e in his deter$ination of probable cause% and, 5c7 ,ud'es and prosecutors ali*e should
distin'uish the preli$inar( inAuir( #hich deter$ines probable cause for the issuance of a #arrant of arrest
fro$ the preli$inar( investi'ation proper #hich ascertains #hether the offender should be held for trial or
released. Even if the t#o inAuiries be conducted in the course of one and the sa$e proceedin', there should
be no confusion about their ob&ectives. 4he deter$ination of probable cause for the #arrant is $ade b( the
&ud'e. 4he preli$inar( investi'ation
proper R #hether or not there is reasonable 'round to believe that the accused is 'uilt( of the offense
char'ed and therefore, #hether or not he should be sub&ected to the expense, ri'ors and e$barrass$ent of
trial R is a function of the prosecutor.
In Lim *. $eli:,
(3
#here #e reiterated ,oli*en *. akasiar and People *. Inting, #e said R
K4Lhe ,ud'e does not have to personall( exa$ine the co$plainant and his #itnesses. 4he
Prosecutor can perfor$ the sa$e functions as a co$$issioner for the ta*in' of the
evidence. /o#ever, there should be a report and necessar( docu$ents supportin' the
=iscalTs bare certification. "ll these should be before the ,ud'e.
4he extent of the ,ud'eTs personal exa$ination of the report and its annexes depends on the
circu$stances of each case. Ce cannot deter$ine beforehand ho# cursor( or exhaustive the
,ud'eTs exa$ination should be. 4he ,ud'e has to exercise sound discretion for, after all, the
personal deter$ination is vested in the ,ud'e b( the Constitution. It can be as brief or as
detailed as the circu$stances of each case reAuire. 4o be sure, the &ud'e $ust 'o be(ond the
ProsecutorTs certification and investi'ation report #henever necessar(. /e should call for
the co$plainant and #itnesses the$selves to ans#er the courtTs probin' Auestions #hen the
circu$stances of the case so reAuire.
Clearl(, probable cause $a( not be established si$pl( b( sho#in' that a trial &ud'e sub&ectivel( believes
that he has 'ood 'rounds for his action. 9ood faith is not enou'h. If sub&ective 'ood faith alone #ere the
test, the constitutional protection #ould be de$eaned and the people #ould be 1secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects1 onl( in the fallible discretion of the &ud'e.
((
n the contrar(, the probable cause
test is an ob&ective one, for in order that there be probable cause the facts and circu$stances $ust be such as
#ould #arrant a belief b( a reasonabl( discreet and prudent $an that the accused is 'uilt( of the cri$e
#hich has &ust been co$$itted.
(*
4his, as #e said, is the standard. /ence, if upon the filin' of the
infor$ation in court the trial &ud'e, after revie#in' the infor$ation and the docu$ents attached thereto,
finds that no probable cause exists $ust either call for the co$plainant and the #itnesses the$selves or
si$pl( dis$iss the case. 4here is no reason to hold the accused for trial and further expose hi$ to an open
and public accusation of the cri$e #hen no probable cause exists.
:8
Dut then, it appears in the instant case that the prosecutors have si$ilarl( $isappropriated, if not abused,
their discretion. If the( reall( believed that petitioners #ere probabl( 'uilt(, the( should have ar$ed
the$selves #ith facts and circu$stances in support of that belief% for $ere belief is not enou'h. 4he(
should have presented sufficient and credible evidence to de$onstrate the existence of probable cause. =or
the prosecutin' officer 1is the representative not of an ordinar( part( to a controvers(, but of a soverei'nt(
#hose obli'ation to 'overn i$partiall( is as co$pellin' as its obli'ation to 'overn all% and #hose interest,
therefore, in a cri$inal prosecution is not that it shall #in a case, but that &ustice shall be done. "s such, he
is in a peculiar and ver( definite sense the servant of the la#, the t#ofold ai$ of #hich is that 'uilt shall not
escape or innocence suffer. /e $a( prosecute #ith earnestness and vi'or R indeed, he should do so. Dut,
#hile he $a( stri*e hard blo#s, he is not at libert( to stri*e foul ones. It is as $uch his dut( to refrain fro$
i$proper $ethods calculated to produce a #ron'ful conviction as it is to use ever( le'iti$ate $eans to
brin' about a &ust one1
(6
In the case at bench, the undue haste in the filin' of the infor$ation and the inordinate interest of the
'overn$ent cannot be i'nored. =ro$ the 'atherin' of evidence until the ter$ination of the preli$inar(
investi'ation, it appears that the state prosecutors #ere overl( ea'er to file the case and secure a #arrant for
the arrest of the accused #ithout bail and their conseAuent detention. E$balTs s#orn state$ent is laden #ith
inconsistencies and i$probabilities. DatoTs counter-affidavit #as considered #ithout 'ivin' petitioners the
opportunit( to refute the sa$e. 4he P"CC #hich 'athered the evidence appears to have had a hand in the
deter$ination of probable cause in the preli$inar( inAuir( as the undated resolution of the panel not onl(
bears the letterhead of P"CC but #as also reco$$ended for approval b( the head of the P"CC 4as* =orce.
4hen petitioners #ere 'iven the runaround in securin' a cop( of the resolution and the infor$ation a'ainst
the$.
Indeed, the tas* of riddin' societ( of cri$inals and $isfits and sendin' the$ to &ail in the hope that the(
#ill in the future refor$ and be productive $e$bers of the co$$unit( rests both on the &udiciousness of
&ud'es and the prudence of prosecutors. "nd, #hether it is a preli$inar( investi'ation b( the prosecutor,
#hich ascertains if the respondent should be held for trial, or a preli$inar( inAuir( b( the trial &ud'e #hich
deter$ines if an arrest #arrant should issue, the botto$line is that there is a standard in the deter$ination of
the existence of probable cause, i.e., there should be facts and circu$stances sufficientl( stron' in
the$selves to #arrant a prudent and cautious $an to believe that the accused is 'uilt( of the cri$e #ith
#hich he is char'ed. ,ud'es and prosecutors are not off on a frolic of their o#n, but rather en'a'ed in a
delicate le'al dut( defined b( la# and &urisprudence.
In this instance, ,alonga *. PaEo
(7
finds application R
4he purpose of a preli$inar( investi'ation is to secure the innocent a'ainst hast(, $alicious
and oppressive prosecution, and to protect hi$ fro$ an open and public accusation of
cri$e, fro$ the trouble, expense and anxiet( of a public trial, and also to protect the state
fro$ useless and expensive trial 54rocio v. Manta, 11@ SCR" 3>1, citing /ashi$ v.
Doncan, 61 Phil. 31?7. 4he ri'ht to a preli$inar( investi'ation is a statutor( 'rant, and to
#ithhold it #ould be to trans'ress constitutional due process 5People v. andasa, 3: SCR"
3667. Howe*er, in order to satisfy the due process clause it is not enough that the
preliminary in*estigation is conducted in the sense of making sure that the transgressor
shall not escape with impunity. ) preliminary in*estigation ser*es not only for the purposes
of the ,tate. ore importantly, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play which
are birthrights of all who li*e in the country. It is therefore imperati*e upon the fiscal or the
?udge as the case may be, to relie*e the accused from the pain of going thru a trial once it
is ascertained that the e*idence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no
:1
probable cause e:ists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused 5e$phasis
supplied7.
4he facts of this case are fatefull( distressin' as the( sho#case the see$in' i$$ensit( of 'overn$ent
po#er #hich #hen unchec*ed beco$es t(rannical and oppressive. /ence the Constitution, particularl( the
Dill of Ri'hts, defines the li$its be(ond #hich lie unsanctioned state actions. Dut on occasion, for one
reason or another, the State transcends this para$eter. In conseAuence, individual libert( unnecessaril(
suffers. 4he case before us, if uncurbed, can be illustrative of a dis$al trend. !eedless in&ur( of the sort
inflicted b( 'overn$ent a'ents is not reflective of responsible 'overn$ent. ,ud'es and la# enforcers are
not, b( reason of their hi'h and presti'ious office, relieved of the co$$on obli'ation to avoid deliberatel(
inflictin' unnecessar( in&ur(.
4he soverei'n po#er has the inherent ri'ht to protect itself and its people fro$ vicious acts #hich endan'er
the proper ad$inistration of &ustice% hence, the State has ever( ri'ht to prosecute and punish violators of the
la#. 4his is essential for its self- preservation, na(, its ver( existence. Dut this does not confer a license for
pointless assaults on its citi+ens. 4he ri'ht of the State to prosecute is not a carte blanche for 'overn$ent
a'ents to def( and disre'ard the ri'hts of its citi+ens under the Constitution. Confine$ent, re'ardless of
duration, is too hi'h a price to pa( for rec*less and i$pulsive prosecution. /ence, even if #e appl( in this
case the 1$ultifactor balancin' test1 #hich reAuires the officer to #ei'h the $anner and intensit( of the
interference on the ri'ht of the people, the 'ravit( of the cri$e co$$itted and the circu$stances attendin'
the incident, still #e cannot see probable cause to order the detention of petitioners.
()
4he purpose of the Dill of Ri'hts is to protect the people a'ainst arbitrar( and discri$inator( use of political
po#er. 4his bundle of ri'hts 'uarantees the preservation of our natural ri'hts #hich include personal libert(
and securit( a'ainst invasion b( the 'overn$ent or an( of its branches or instru$entalities. Certainl(, in the
hierarch( of ri'hts, the Dill of Ri'hts ta*es precedence over the ri'ht of the State to prosecute, and #hen
#ei'hed a'ainst each other, the scales of &ustice tilt to#ards the for$er. 4hus, relief $a( be availed of to
stop the purported enforce$ent of cri$inal la# #here it is necessar( to provide for an orderl(
ad$inistration of &ustice, to prevent the use of the stron' ar$ of the la# in an oppressive and vindictive
$anner, and to afford adeAuate protection to constitutional ri'hts.
(9
Perhaps, this case #ould not have reached this Court if petitioners #ere ordinar( people sub$issive to the
dictates of 'overn$ent. 4he( #ould have been ille'all( arrested and detained #ithout bail. 4hen #e #ould
not have the opportunit( to rectif( the in&ustice. =ortunatel(, the victi$s of in&ustice are la#(ers #ho are
vi'ilant of their ri'hts, #ho fi'ht for their libert( and freedo$ not other#ise available to those #ho co#er in
fear and sub&ection.
2et this then be a constant re$inder to &ud'es, prosecutors and other 'overn$ent a'ents tas*ed #ith the
enforce$ent of the la# that in the perfor$ance of their duties the( $ust act #ith circu$spection, lest their
thou'htless #a(s, $ethods and practices cause a disservice to their office and $ai$ their countr($en the(
are s#orn to serve and protect. Ce thus caution 'overn$ent a'ents, particularl( the la# enforcers, to be
$ore prudent in the prosecution of cases and not to be oblivious of hu$an ri'hts protected b( the
funda$ental la#. Chile #e 'reatl( applaud their deter$ined efforts to #eed societ( of felons, let not their
i$petuous ea'erness violate constitutional precepts #hich circu$scribe the structure of a civili+ed
co$$unit(.
C/ERE=RE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is 9R"!4ED. 4he te$porar( restrainin' order
#e issued on 3@ =ebruar( 1JJ> in favor of petitioners, "tt(. Diosdado ,ose "llado and "tt(. Roberto 2.
Mendo+a, is $ade per$anent. 4he #arrant of arrest issued a'ainst the$ is SE4 "SIDE and respondent
:3
,ud'e Roberto C. Dio*no is E!,I!ED fro$ proceedin' an( further a'ainst herein petitioners in Cri$.
Case !o. J>-16:6 of the Re'ional 4rial Court of Ma*ati.
S RDERED
CruC, "a*ide, @r., Kuiason and 0apunan, @@., concur.
:<
DER9S, SR. -. C/IE= = S4"==, "=P K1<< SCR" @88% 9.R. !. ?>3?1% 3? DEC 1J@>L
Fa3<41 Petitioners assail the validit( of 3 search #arrants issued on Dece$ber 6, 1J@3 b( respondent ,ud'e
Cru+-Pano of the then Court of =irst Instance of Ri+al, under #hich the pre$ises *no#n as !o. 1J, Road <,
Pro&ect ?, Hue+on Cit(, and 6@> Enits C X D, RMS Duildin', Hue+on "venue, Hue+on Cit(, business
addresses of the 1Metropolitan Mail1 and 1Ce =oru$1 ne#spapers, respectivel(, #ere searched, and office
and printin' $achines, eAuip$ent, paraphernalia, $otor vehicles and other articles used in the printin',
publication and distribution of the said ne#spapers, as #ell as nu$erous papers, docu$ents, boo*s and
other #ritten literature alle'ed to be in the possession and control of petitioner ,ose Dur'os, ,r. publisher-
editor of the 1Ce =oru$1 ne#spaper, #ere sei+ed. "s a conseAuence of the search and sei+ure, these
pre$ises #ere padloc*ed and sealed, #ith the further result that the printin' and publication of said
ne#spapers #ere discontinued. Respondents contend that petitioners should have filed a $otion to Auash
said #arrants in the court that issued the$ before i$pu'nin' the validit( of the sa$e before this Court.
Respondents also assail the petition on 'round of laches 5=ailure or ne'li'ence for an unreasonable and
unexplained len'th of ti$e to do that #hich, b( exercisin' due dili'ence, could or should have been done
earlier. It is ne'li'ence or o$ission to assert a ri'ht #ithin a reasonable ti$e, #arrantin' a presu$ption that
the part( entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it7. Respondents further state that
since petitioner had alread( used as evidence so$e of the docu$ents sei+ed in a prior cri$inal case, he is
stopped fro$ challen'in' the validit( of the search #arrants.
Petitioners sub$it the follo#in' reasons to nullif( the Auestioned #arrants0
1. Respondent ,ud'e failed to conduct an exa$ination under oath or affir$ation of the applicant and his
#itnesses, as $andated b( the above-Auoted constitutional provision as #ell as Sec. >, Rule 13? of the
Rules of Court.
3. 4he search #arrants pinpointed onl( one address #hich #ould be the for$er above$entioned address.
<. "rticles belon'in' to his co-petitioners #ere also sei+ed althou'h the #arrants #ere onl( directed a'ainst
,ose Dur'os, ,r.
>. Real properties #ere sei+ed.
:. 4he application alon' #ith a &oint affidavit, upon #hich the #arrants #ere issued, fro$ the Metroco$
Intelli'ence and Securit( 9roup could not have provided sufficient basis for the findin' of a probable cause
upon #hich a #arrant $a( be validl( issued in accordance #ith Section <, "rticle I- of the 1J6<
Constitution.
Respondents &ustif( the continued sealin' of the printin' $achines on the 'round that the( have been
seAuestered under Section @ of Presidential Decree !o. @@:, as a$ended, #hich authori+es seAuestration of
the propert( of an( person en'a'ed in subversive activities a'ainst the 'overn$ent in accordance #ith
i$ple$entin' rules and re'ulations as $a( be issued b( the Secretar( of !ational Defense.
I44@51 Chether or !ot the 3 search #arrants #ere validl( issued and executed.
!58A1 In re'ard to the Auashal of #arrants that petitioners should have initiall( filed to the lo#er court, this
Court ta*es co'ni+ance of this petition in vie# of the seriousness and ur'enc( of the constitutional Issue
raised, not to $ention the public interest 'enerated b( the search of the 1Ce =oru$1 offices #hich #as
televised in Channel 6 and #idel( publici+ed in all $etropolitan dailies. 4he existence of this special
:>
circu$stance &ustifies this Court to exercise its inherent po#er to suspend its rules. Cith the contention
pertainin' to laches, the petitioners 'ave an explanation evidencin' that the( have exhausted other extra-
&udicial efforts to re$ed( the situation, ne'atin' the presu$ption that the( have abandoned their ri'ht to the
possession of the sei+ed propert(.
n the enu$erated reasons0
1. 4his ob&ection $a( properl( be considered $oot and acade$ic, as petitioners the$selves conceded
durin' the hearin' on "u'ust J, 1J@<, that an exa$ination had indeed been conducted b( respondent &ud'e
of Col. "badilla and his #itnesses.
3. 4he defect pointed out is obviousl( a t(po'raphical error. Precisel(, t#o search #arrants #ere applied for
and issued because the purpose and intent #ere to search t#o distinct pre$ises. It #ould be Auite absurd
and illo'ical for respondent &ud'e to have issued t#o #arrants intended for one and the sa$e place.
<. Section 3, Rule 13?, of the Rules of Court, does not reAuire that the propert( to be sei+ed should be
o#ned b( the person a'ainst #ho$ the search #arrant is directed. It $a( or $a( not be o#ned b( hi$.
>. Petitioners do not clai$ to be the o#ners of the land andGor buildin' on #hich the $achineries #ere
placed. 4his bein' the case, the $achineries in Auestion, #hile in fact bolted to the 'round, re$ain $ovable
propert( susceptible to sei+ure under a search #arrant.
:. 4he broad state$ents in the application and &oint affidavit are $ere conclusions of la# and does not
satisf( the reAuire$ents of probable cause. Deficient of such particulars as #ould &ustif( a findin' of the
existence of probable cause, said alle'ation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search #arrant and it
#as a 'rave error for respondent &ud'e to have done so. In "lvare+ v. Court of =irst Instance, this Court
ruled that 1the oath reAuired $ust refer to the truth of the facts #ithin the personal *no#led'e of the
petitioner or his #itnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the co$$ittin' $a'istrate, not the
individual $a*in' the affidavit and see*in' the issuance of the #arrant, of the existence of probable cause.1
"nother factor #hich $a*es the search #arrants under consideration constitutionall( ob&ectionable is that
the( are in the nature of 'eneral #arrants. 4he description of the articles sou'ht to be sei+ed under the
search #arrants in Auestion are too 'eneral.
Cith re'ard to the respondents invo*in' PD @@:, there is an absence of an( i$ple$entin' rules and
re'ulations pro$ul'ated b( the Minister of !ational Defense. =urther$ore, President Marcos hi$self
denies the reAuest of $ilitar( authorities to seAuester the propert( sei+ed fro$ petitioners. 4he closure of
the pre$ises sub&ected to search and sei+ure is contrar( to the freedo$ of the press as 'uaranteed in our
funda$ental la#. 4he search #arrants are declared null and void.
::
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
4/IRD DI-ISI!

G.R. No. 78631 June 29, 1993
COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., ORION PICTURES CORP., PARAMOUNT PICTURES
CORP., TWENTIET CENTUR! "O# "ILM CORP., UNITE$ ARTISTS CORP.,
UNI%ERSAL CIT! STU$IOS, INC., TE WALT $ISNE! COMPAN!, &n' WARNER
BROS., INC., petitioners,
vs.
ON. JU$GE AL"RE$O C. "LORES, "GT %I$EO NETWOR(, INC., MANUEL
MEN$O)A, AL"RE$O C. ONG!ANCO, ERIC APOLONIO, SUSAN !ANG &n'
E$UAR$O A. !OTO(O, respondents.
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako Law Office for petitioners.
Santos & Associates and San Jose, Enrique, Lucas, Santos & or!e Law Offices for
respondents.

MELO, J.:
Before us is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the order dated May 29, 1987 of
the Regional Trial Court of the ational Capital Region !Bran"h 1#7, $asig% dire"ting the
i&&ediate release and return of television sets, video "assette re"orders, re'inders, tape
head "leaners, a""essories, e(uip&ent, and other paraphernalia or pie"es of &a"hinery
'hi"h had )een sei*ed )y operatives of the ational Bureau of +nvestigation )y virtue of a
sear"h 'arrant.
$etitioners herein are all foreign "orporations organi*ed and e,isting under the la's of
the -nited .tates of /&eri"a and represented in the $hilippines )y their attorney0in0fa"t,
Re)e""a Benite*0Cru* of the Motion $i"ture /sso"iation of /&eri"a, +n". !M$// for
)revity%. $rivate respondent 12T 3ideo et'ork, +n". is a &erger of 1o,, 2ala"ti", and
Te"hni"a 3ideo. +t is registered 'ith and li"ensed )y the 3ideogra& Regulatory Board as
a distri)utor under 4i"ense o. 1555 3MM. Te"hni"a 3ideo, +n". 'hi"h is part of the
&erger, is registered 'ith and li"ensed as a reprodu"er )y the said )oard under 4i"ense
o. 9#7 3MM !p. 11, Rollo%.
:?
+n a letter dated /pril 26, 1987, the M$//, through "ounsel Ri"o 3. 7o&ingo, lodged a
"o&plaint )efore then 7ire"tor /ntonio Carpio of the ational Bureau of +nvestigation
!B+% against "ertain video esta)lish&ents for violation of $residential 7e"ree o. 89
!$rote"tion of +ntelle"tual $roperty%, as a&ended )y $residential 7e"ree o. 1988, in
"onne"tion 'ith its anti0pira"y "a&paign. .pe"ifi"ally "o&plaining of the 9unauthori*ed
sale, rental, reprodu"tion and:or disposition of "opyrighted fil&9, the M$// sought the
B+;s 9urgent assistan"e in the "ondu"t of sear"h and sei*ure operations in Metro Manila
and else'here9. !p. 29, Rollo.%
<n the )asis of said letter, B+ and private agents "ondu"ted dis"reet surveillan"e
operations on "ertain video esta)lish&ents, a&ong the& private respondent 12T 3ideo
et'ork, +n". !12T%. Thus, on /pril 26, 1987, 7anilo Manalang, a.k.a. Ronaldo 4i&,
allegedly an B+ agent, 'ent to the offi"e of 12T to have the "opyrighted &otion pi"tures
9Cleopatra9 o'ned )y T'entieth Century 1o, 1il& Corp. and 9The Ten Co&&and&ents9
o'ned )y $ara&ount $i"tures, +n". reprodu"ed or retaped in video for&at. 1or the
reprodu"tion servi"es, 12T issued <rder .lip o. 5882 dated /pril 26, 1987 and 7elivery
.lip o. 118##7 dated /pril 22, 1987, for 'hi"h servi"es 7anilo Manalang paid $8=.66.
<n May =, 1987, Manalang also had M2M;s "opyrighted fil& 9>alk 4ike a Man9
reprodu"ed or retaped )y 12T for $1=.66 !p. =, Rollo%.
Conse(uently, on May 18, 1987, B+ /gent +++ 4auro C. Reyes, 'ith Manalang and
Re)e""a Benite*0Cru* as 'itnesses, applied for a sear"h 'arrant 'ith the Regional Trial
Court in $asig. +ntrodu"ed as eviden"e in support of the appli"ation 'ere the follo'ing?
the letter dated /pril 26, 1987 of the M$// through Ri"o 3. 7o&ingo !@,h. /% 12T;s
<rder .lip o. 5882 !@,h. B%A 12T;s 7elivery .lip o. 118##7 !@,h. B01%A video "assettes
"ontaining the fil& 9The Ten Co&&and&ents9 !@,hs. B010/, B010B%A video "assette
"ontaining the fil& 9Cleopatra9 !@,h. B010C%A video "assette "ontaining the fil& 9>alk 4ike
a Man9 !@,h. B0107%A 12T;s <rder .lip o. 5925 dated May =, 1987 !@,h. B02%A 12T;s
7elivery .lip o. 125521 dated May #, 1987 !@,h. B05%A list of "opyrighted M$// &e&)er
"o&pany titles !@,h. C%A sket"h of lo"ation of 12T;s offi"e or pre&ises !@,h. 7%A affidavit
of Re)e""a Benite*0Cru* !@,h. @%A spe"ial po'er of attorney designating Ms. Benite*0
Cru* as petitioners; attorney0in0 fa"t !@,h. 1 to 108%A and affidavit of 7anilo Manalang
!@,h. 2%.
-pon the offer of these pie"es of eviden"e, Budge /lfredo C. 1lores of the aforesaid "ourt,
issued .ear"h >arrant o. 8= 'hi"h reads?
T< /C $@/C@ <11+C@R?
2R@@T+2.?
+t appearing to the satisfa"tion of the -ndersigned after e,a&ining under oath B+ .enior
/gent 4auro C. Reyes and his 'itnesses Mr. 7anilo Manalang and Ms. Re)e""a Benite*0
Cru*, that there is a pro)a)le "ause to )elieve that 3iolation of .e"tion =# $.7. o. 89 as
a&ended )y $.7. o. 1988 !other'ise kno'n as the 7e"ree on $rote"tion of +ntelle"tual
$roperty% has )een "o&&itted and that there are good and suffi"ient reasons to )elieve
that 12T 3ideo et'ork, +n"., Manuel Mendo*a, /lfredo C. <ngyan"o, @ri" /polonio,
.usan Cang and @duardo Cotoko are responsi)le and have in "ontrol:possession at o. 8
:6
@pifanio de los .antos "orner Conne"ti"ut, 2reenhills, .an Buan, Metro Manila !per
atta"hed sket"h and list of M$// &e&)er Co&pany Titles% the follo'ing properties to 'it?
!a% $irated video tapes of the "opyrighted &otion pi"tures:fil&s the titles of
'hi"h are &entioned in the atta"hed listA
!)% $osters, advertising leaflets, flyers, )ro"hures, invoi"es, lists of titles
)eing reprodu"ed or retaped, Dournals, ledgers, Don !sic% order slips,
delivery slips and )ooks of a""ounts )earing and:or &entioning the pirated
fil&s 'ith titles !as per atta"hed list%, or other'ise used in the
reprodu"tion:repating )usiness of the defendantsA
!"% "ele#ision sets, #ideo cassette recorders, rewinders, tape $ead
cleaners, accessories, equip%ent and ot$er %ac$ines and parap$ernalia
or %aterials used or intended to &e used in t$e unlawful sale, lease,
distri&ution, or possession for purpose of sale, lease, distri&ution,
circulation or pu&lic e'$i&ition of t$e a&o#e(%entioned pirated #ideo tapes
w$ic$ t$ey are keeping and concealing in t$e pre%ises a&o#e(descri&ed,
w$ic$ s$ould &e sei)ed and &roug$t to t$e *ndersigned.
Cou are here)y "o&&anded to &ake an i&&ediate sear"h at any ti&e in
the day )et'een 8?66 /.M. to =?66 $.M. of the pre&ises a)ove0des"ri)ed
and forth'ith sei*e and take possession of the a)ove0enu&erated personal
properties, and )ring said properties to the undersigned i&&ediately upon
i&ple&entation to )e dealt 'ith as the la' dire"ts.
>+T@.. MC E/7 this 18th day of May 1987, at $asig, Metro Manila.
!pp. 56051, RolloA @&phasis supplied.%
/t or a)out high noon of the sa&e day, agents fro& the B+, led )y 4auro C. Reyes and
Ma&erto @spartero, 'ith the assistan"e of the personnel of the 3ideogra& Regulatory
Board headed )y @l&er .an $as"ual, duly served .ear"h >arrant o. 8= on the
operators or representatives of 12T. +n the "ourse of the sear"h of the pre&ises of 12T,
the B+ agents found and sei*ed various video tapes of duly "opyrighted &otion pi"tures
or fil&s o'ned and e,"lusively distri)uted )y petitioners. /lso sei*ed 'ere &a"hines and
e(uip&ent, television sets, paraphernalia, &aterials, a""essories, re'inders, tape head
"leaners, state&ents of order, return slips, video prints, flyers, produ"tion orders, and
posters. +nventories of these sei*ed arti"les 'ere then prepared and "opies thereof 'ere
furnished Bess /yson, produ"tion &anager of 12T. <n May 18, 1987, the B+ agents filed
a return of the sear"h 'arrant 'ith a &otion to retain "ustody of the sei*ed ite&s !p. 52,
Rollo%.
Mean'hile, 12T filed an urgent &otion for the i&&ediate release of e(uip&ent and
a""essories 9not "overed9 )y the sear"h 'arrant, 'ithout preDudi"e to the filing of a
&otion to (uash the said sear"h 'arrant !p. 161, Rollo%. +t argued that as a li"ensed video
reprodu"er, 12T had the right to &aintain possession of the sei*ed reprodu"tion
e(uip&ent and paraphernalia 'hi"h are not "ontra)and or illegal per se, )ut are rather
9e,"lusively used and intended to )e used for reprodu"tion9 and not in the 9sale, lease,
distri)ution or possession for purposes of sale, lease distri)ution, "ir"ulation or pu)li"
e,hi)ition of pirated video tapes9. !p. 162, Rollo.%
:@
$etitioners opposed the &otion, asserting that the sei*ed arti"les 'ere all la'fully taken.
They e,plained that sin"e 12T 'as a videogra& distri&utor and not a reprodu"er, 9it &ay
)e logi"ally "on"luded that su"h #58 3CRs, a""essories, et".9 'ere 9used or intended to
)e used in the unla'ful sale, lease, distri)ution or possession for purposes of sale, lease,
distri)ution, "ir"ulation or pu)li" e,hi)ition of, at the very least, the 516 video"assette
tapes "ontaining the "opyrighted fil&s:&otion pi"tures.9 They asserted that .ear"h
>arrant o. 8= 'as issued upon the proper deter&ination of pro)a)le "ause and that,
therefore, it is not for 12T 9to se"ond0guess the 'isdo&9 of the "ourt;s dire"tive to sei*e
the (uestioned 3CRs and a""essories 9as an in(uiry thereon 'ould involve evidentiary
&atters 'hi"h are )etter ventilated in the "ri&inal prose"ution proper9. !pp. 167011#,
Rollo.%
1inding that 12T 'as a 9registered and duly li"ensed distri)utor and in "ertain instan"es
and under spe"ial instru"tions and "onditions . . . reprodu"er of videogra&s9 and that,
therefore, its right to possess and use the sei*ed e(uip&ent had )een 9pla"ed in serious
dou)t9, the lo'er "ourt resolved the dou)t 9against the 2overn&ent and in favor of a
la'ful )usiness enterprise.9 /pplying the "onstitutional pre"ept of presu&ption of
inno"en"e and "onsidering that the sei*ed arti"les are not "ontra)and, respondent "ourt
ruled that to allo' the 2overn&ent 9to keep possession of the e(uip&ent!s% and
&a"hines 'here there is no a"tual "ri&inal "harge9 'ould a&ount to a 9"onfis"ation in
violation of the due pro"ess "lause of the "onstitution, not'ithstanding the filing )y the
7ire"tor of the B+ of a letter to the 7epart&ent of Busti"e re"o&&ending that the
defendants )e "harged 'ith violation of .e"tion =# of $.7. o. 89, as a&ended )y $.7.
o. 1988.9 !pp. 1510152, Rollo.%
Thus, in its order on May 29, 1987, the lo'er "ourt granted 12T;s &otion and ordered the
i&&ediate release and return of the 9television sets, video "assette re"orders, re'inders,
tape head "leaners, a""essories, e(uip&ent and other &a"hines or paraphernalias, as
refle"ted in the 9Re"eipt for $roperties .ei*ed9 atta"hed to the re"ords of the "ase
)eginning fro& page 88 to page 156, to the defendants, e,"luding video "assette tapes
refle"ted in the 9Re"eipts for $roperties .ei*ed9, )eginning fro& page 152 to page 18# of
the re"ords.9 Respondent "ourt also ordered the inventory of all arti"les returned 'ith
individual des"riptions 9to eviden"e their e,isten"e9 "opies of 'hi"h inventory should )e
furnished the B+ and the "ourt !p. 152, Rollo%.
Een"e, the present re"ourse.
/s prayed for )y petitioners, on Bune 17, 1987, the Court issued a te&porary restraining
order enDoining respondents fro& i&ple&enting the lo'er "ourt;s order of May 29, 1987
upon a )ond in the a&ount of $7=6,666.66 'hi"h petitioners a""ordingly posted on Bune
19, 1987, !pp. 1580181, Rollo.%
The sole issue to )e resolved is 'hether or not the lo'er "ourt a"ted 'ith grave a)use of
dis"retion a&ounting to la"k of Durisdi"tion in ordering the i&&ediate release and return of
so&e of the ite&s sei*ed )y virtue of the sear"h 'arrant.
:J
$etitioners insist that the sear"h 'arrant 'as issued upon due deter&ination of pro)a)le
"ause. They argue that 12T;s a"t of illegally reprodu"ing "opyrighted fil&s had )een
"learly esta)lished )y eviden"e on re"ord and that 12T;s prin"ipal ground in praying for
the i&&ediate release of the sei*e arti"les is a &atter of defense 'hi"h should )e
ventilated at the trial of the "ase on the &erits.
$rivate respondents, on the other hand, "lai& that the issuan"e of .ear"h >arrant o. 8=
is tainted 'ith illegality as no parti"ular or spe"ifi" a"ts or o&issions "onstituting the
offense "harged had )een alleged in the appli"ation for its issuan"e.
The right to se"urity against unreasona)le sear"hes and sei*ures is guaranteed under
.e"tion 2, /rti"le +++ of the 1987 Constitution 'hi"h provides?
.e". 2. The right of the people to )e se"ure in their persons, houses, papers and effe"ts
against unreasona)le sear"hes and sei*ures of 'hatever nature and for any purpose shall
)e inviola)le, and no sear"h 'arrant or 'arrant of arrest shall issue e,"ept upon pro)a)le
"ause to )e deter&ined )y the Dudge after e,a&ination under oath or affir&ation of the
"o&plainant and the 'itnesses he &ay produ"e, and parti"ularly des"ri)ing the pla"e to )e
sear"hed and the persons or things to )e sei*ed.
Thus, .e"tions 5 and 8 of Rule 12# of the Rules of Court provide for the re(uisites in the
issuan"e of sear"h 'arrants?
.e". 5. Requisites for issuing searc$ warrant. F / sear"h 'arrant shall not issue )ut upon
pro)a)le "ause in "onne"tion 'ith one spe"ifi" offense to )e deter&ined personally )y the
Dudge after e,a&ination under oath or affir&ation of the "o&plainant and the 'itnesses he
&ay produ"e, and parti"ularly des"ri)ing the pla"e to )e sear"hed and the things to )e
sei*ed.
.e". 8. E'a%ination of co%plainant+ record. F The Dudge &ust, )efore issuing the 'arrant,
personally e,a&ine in the for& of sear"hing (uestions and ans'ers, in 'riting and under
oath the "o&plainant and the 'itnesses he &ay produ"e on fa"ts personally kno'n to the&
and atta"h to the re"ord their s'orn state&ents together 'ith any affidavits su)&itted.
+n issuing a sear"h 'arrant, the Dudge &ust stri"tly "o&ply 'ith the "onstitutional and
statutory re(uire&ents. Ee &ust deter&ine the e,isten"e of pro)a)le "ause )y personally
e,a&ining the appli"ant and his 'itnesses in the for& of sear"hing (uestions !.ilva vs.
$residing Budge, RTC of egros <riental, Br. GGG+++ !265 .CR/ 186 !1991H%. The sear"h
'arrant &ust "ontain a spe"ifi" des"ription of the pla"e to )e sear"hed and the arti"les
sought to )e sei*ed &ust )e des"ri)ed 'ith parti"ularity !$endon vs. Court of /ppeals,
191 .CR/ 829 I1996H%.
>ithal, &easured )y the aforegoing "onstitutional and legal provisions as 'ell as the
e,isting Durispruden"e on the &atter, 'e find that .ear"h >arrant o. 8= fails to satisfy
the test of legality. More so )e"ause the Court has previously de"ided a "ase dealing 'ith
virtually the sa&e sear"h 'arrant.
+n ,-t$ .entury /o' /il% .orp. #s. .ourt of Appeals !1#8 .CR/ #== I1988H%, 'herein
therein petitioner is also one of the petitioners herein, 'e upheld the legality of the order
?8
of the lo'er "ourt lifting the sear"h 'arrant issued under "ir"u&stan"es si&ilar to those
o)taining in the "ase at )ar.
/ striking si&ilarity )et'een the "ase at )ar and ,-t$ .entury /o' is the fa"t that .ear"h
>arrant o. 8=, spe"ifi"ally paragraph !"% thereof des"ri)ing the arti"les to )e sei*ed,
"ontains an al&ost identi"al des"ription as the 'arrant issued in the ,-t$ .entury /o'
"ase, to 'it?
!"% Television sets, 3ideo Cassettes Re"orders, re'inders, tape head "leaners,
a""essories, e(uip&ents and other &a"hines used or intended to )e used in the unla'ful
reprodu"tion, sale, rental:lease, distri)ution of the a)ove0&entioned video tapes 'hi"h she
is keeping and "on"ealing in the pre&ises a)ove0des"ri)ed. !at p. ##8.%
<n the propriety of the sei*ure of the arti"les a)ove0des"ri)ed, 'e held in said "ase?
Television sets, video "assette re"orders, re'inders and tape "leaners are arti"les 'hi"h
"an )e found in a video tape store engaged in the legiti&ate )usiness of lending or renting
out )eta&a, tapes. +n short, these arti"les and applian"es are generally "onne"ted 'ith, or
related to a legiti&ate )usiness not ne"essarily involving pira"y of intelle"tual property or
infringe&ent of "opyright la's. Een"e, in"luding these arti"les 'ithout spe"ifi"ation and:or
parti"ularity that they 'ere really instru&ents in violating an /nti0$ira"y la' &akes the
sear"h 'arrant too general 'hi"h "ould result in the "onfis"ation of all ite&s found in any
video store. !at p. ##=.%
The language used in paragraph !"% of .ear"h >arrant o. 8= is thus too all0e&)ra"ing
as to in"lude all the paraphernalia of 12T in the operation of its )usiness. /s the sear"h
'arrant is in the nature of a general one, it is "onstitutionally o)De"tiona)le !Corro vs.
4ising, 157 .CR/ =81 I198=H%.
+n "onse(uen"e, respondent "ourt 'as &erely "orre"ting its o'n erroneous "on"lusions
in issuing .ear"h >arrant o. 8= 'hen it ordered the return of the sei*ed television sets
and other paraphernalia spe"ified in the &otion filed )y 12T. This "an )e gleaned fro& its
state&ent that 9. . . the &a"hines and e(uip&ent "ould have )een used or intended to )e
used in the illegal reprodu"tion of tapes of the "opyrighted &otion pi"tures:fil&s, yet, it
"annot )e said 'ith &oral "ertainty that the &a"hines or e(uip&ent!s% 'ere used in
violating the la' )y the &ere fa"t that pirated video tapes of the "opyrighted &otion
pi"tures:fil&s 'ere reprodu"ed. /s already stated, 12T 3ideo et'ork, +n". is a
registered and duly li"ensed distri)utor and in "ertain instan"es and under spe"ial
instru"tions . . . reprodu"er of videogra&s, and as su"h, it has the right to keep in its
possession, &aintain and operate reprodu"tion e(uip&ent !s% and paraphernalia !s%.9 !pp.
1510152, Rollo.%
1ar fro& )eing despoti" or ar)itrary, respondent Dudge &ust )e "o&&ended for re"tifying
his error 'hen he found that his initial "on"lusions 'ere ina""urate and erroneous,
"olliding as they did 'ith the "onstitutional rights of private respondent.
Mu"h has )een said in the &edia a)out pira"y of fil&s and videotapes and that violators
of the la' &ust )e )rought to the "ourts )ut, as the Court said in agali$og #s.
?1
/ernande) !198 .CR/ #18 I1991H%, 9I*Heal in the pursuit of "ri&inals "annot enno)le the
use of ar)itrary &ethods that the Constitution itself a)hors.9 !at p. #22.%
>E@R@1<R@, the petition is 7+.M+..@7, the assailed order of May 29, 1987
/11+RM@7, and the te&porary restraining order issued on Bune 18, 1987, va"ated and
lifted.
.< <R7@R@7.
/eliciano, idin, 0a#ide, Jr. and Ro%ero, JJ., concur.
?3
GO VS. COURT OF APPEALS N206 SCRA 13)0 G.R. NO. 101)370 11 FE% 1992O
=acts0 Petitioner, #hile travelin' in the #ron' direction on a one-#a( street, al$ost had a collision
#ith another vehicle. Petitioner thereafter 'ot out of his car, shot the driver of the other vehicle,
and drove off. "n e(e#itness of the incident #as able to ta*e do#n petitioner.s plate nu$ber and
reported the sa$e to the police, #ho subseAuentl( ordered a $anhunt for petitioner. ? da(s after
the shootin', petitioner presented hi$self in the police station, acco$panied b( 3 la#(ers, the
police detained hi$. SubseAuentl( a cri$inal char'e #as brou'ht a'ainst hi$. Petitioner posted
bail, the prosecutor filed the case to the lo#er court, settin' and co$$encin' trial #ithout
preli$inar( investi'ation. Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has #aived his ri'ht to preli$inar(
investi'ation as bail has been posted and that such situation, that petitioner has been arrested
#ithout a #arrant la#full(, falls under Section :, Rule 11< and Section 6, Rule 113 of 4he 1J@:
Rules of Cri$inal Procedure #hich provides for the rules and procedure pertainin' to situations of
la#ful #arrantless arrests. Petitioner in his petition for certiorari assails such procedure and actions
underta*en and files for a preli$inar( investi'ation.
Issues0
517 C! #arrantless arrest of petitioner #as la#ful.
537 C! petitioner effectivel( #aived his ri'ht to preli$inar( investi'ation.
/eld0 Petitioner and prosecutor err in rel(in' on E$il v. Ra$os, #herein the Court upheld the
#arrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 1> da(s fro$ actual co$$ission of the offenses, #hich
ho#ever constituted Ucontinuin' cri$es,V i.e. subversion, $e$bership in an outla#ed
or'ani+ation, etc. 4here #as no la#ful #arrantless arrest under Section :, Rule 11<. 4his is
because the arrestin' officers #ere not actuall( there durin' the incident, thus the( had no personal
*no#led'e and their infor$ation re'ardin' petitioner #ere derived fro$ other sources. =urther,
Section 6, Rule 113, does not appl(.
Petitioner #as not arrested at all, as #hen he #al*ed in the police station, he neither expressed
surrender nor an( state$ent that he #as or #as not 'uilt( of an( cri$e. Chen a co$plaint #as
filed to the prosecutor, preli$inar( investi'ation should have been scheduled to deter$ine
probable cause. Prosecutor $ade a substantive error, petitioner is entitled to preli$inar(
investi'ation, necessaril( in a cri$inal char'e, #here the sa$e is reAuired appear thereat. Petition
'ranted, prosecutor is ordered to conduct preli$inar( investi'ation, trial for the cri$inal case is
suspended pendin' result fro$ preli$inar( investi'ation, petitioner is ordered released upon
postin' a bail bond.
?<
?>
E! D"!C
K9.R. !o. 1<<J16. =ebruar( 1J, 3881L
PEP2E = 4/E P/I2IPPI!ES, plaintiff#appellee, *s. !"S"RI M2I!" ( M"!"M"4 Y
UDD!9V and 9RE9RI ME2" ( M"2"9ER" Y UDDOV, accused#appellants.
D E C I S I !
O!"RES-S"!4I"9, @.0
4o sanction disrespect and disre'ard for the Constitution in the na$e of protectin' the societ( fro$
la#brea*ers is to $a*e the 'overn$ent itself la#less and to subvert those values upon #hich our
ulti$ate freedo$ and libert( depend.
i
K1L
=or auto$atic revie# is the Decision
ii
K3L of the Re'ional 4rial Court of Davao Cit(, Dranch 16, in
Cri$inal Case !o. <6,3?>-J?, findin' accused-appellants !asario Molina ( Mana$at alias
UDobon'V and 9re'orio Mula ( Mala'ura alias UDobo(,V 'uilt( be(ond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section @,
iii
K<L of the Dan'erous Dru's "ct of 1J63 5Republic "ct !o. ?>3:7, as
a$ended b( Republic "ct !o. 6?:J,
iv
K>L

and sentencin' the$ to suffer the supre$e penalt( of
death.
4he infor$ation a'ainst accused-appellants reads0
4hat on or about "u'ust @, 1JJ?, in the Cit( of Davao, Philippines, and #ithin the &urisdiction of
this /onorable Court, the above-na$ed accused, in conspirac( #ith each other, did then and there
#illfull(, unla#full( and feloniousl( #as found in their possession J>?.J 'ra$s of dried $ari&uana
#hich are prohibited.
C!4R"RO 4 2"C.
v
K:L
Epon arrai'n$ent on Septe$ber >, 1JJ?, accused-appellants pleaded not 'uilt( to the accusation
a'ainst the$.
vi
K?L 4rial ensued, #herein the prosecution presented Police Superintendent Eriel
Mallorca, SP1 2eonardo O. Pa$plona, ,r., and SP1 Marino S. Pa'uidopon, ,r. as #itnesses.
4he antecedent facts are as follo#s0
So$eti$e in ,une 1JJ?, SP1 Marino Pa'uidopon, then a $e$ber of the Philippine !ational
Police detailed at Precinct !o. <, Matina, Davao Cit(, received an infor$ation re'ardin' the
presence of an alle'ed $ari&uana pusher in Davao Cit(.
vii
K6L 4he first ti$e he ca$e to see the said
$ari&uana pusher in person #as durin' the first #ee* of ,ul( 1JJ?. SP1 Pa'uidopon #as then
#ith his infor$er #hen a $otorc(cle passed b(. /is infor$er pointed to the $otorc(cle driver,
accused-appellant Mula, as the pusher. "s to accused-appellant Molina, SP1 Pa'uidopon had no
occasion to see hi$ before the arrest. Moreover, the na$es and addresses of the accused-
appellants ca$e to the *no#led'e of SP1 Pa'uidopon onl( after the( #ere arrested.
viii
K@L
?:
"t about 60<8 in the $ornin' of "u'ust @, 1JJ?, SP1 Pa'uidopon received an infor$ation that
the alle'ed pusher #ill be passin' at !/", Ma-a, Davao Cit( an( ti$e that $ornin'.
ix
KJL
ConseAuentl(, at around @088 ".M. of the sa$e da(, he called for assistance at the P!P, Precinct
!o. <, Matina, Davao Cit(, #hich i$$ediatel( dispatched the tea$ of SP> Dionisio Cloribel
5tea$ leader7, SP3 Pa'uidopon 5brother of SP1 Marino Pa'uidopon7, and SP1 Pa$plona, to
proceed to the house of SP1 Marino Pa'uidopon #here the( #ould #ait for the alle'ed pusher to
pass b(.
x
K18L
"t around J0<8 in the $ornin' of "u'ust @, 1JJ?, #hile the tea$ #ere positioned in the house of
SP1 Pa'uidopon, a Utrisi*adV carr(in' the accused-appellants passed b(. "t that instance, SP1
Pa'uidopon pointed to the accused-appellants as the pushers. 4hereupon, the tea$ boarded their
vehicle and overtoo* the Utrisi*ad.V
xi
K11L SP1 Pa'uidopon #as left in his house, thirt( $eters
fro$ #here the accused-appellants #ere accosted.
xii
K13L
4he police officers then ordered the Utrisi*adV to stop. "t that point, accused-appellant Mula #ho
#as holdin' a blac* ba' handed the sa$e to accused-appellant Molina. SubseAuentl(, SP1
Pa$plona introduced hi$self as a police officer and as*ed accused-appellant Molina to open the
ba'.
xiii
K1<L Molina replied, U9oss, if possible we will settle this.V
xiv
K1>L SP1 Pa$plona insisted on
openin' the ba', #hich revealed dried $ari&uana leaves inside. 4hereafter, accused-appellants
Mula and Molina #ere handcuffed b( the police officers.
xv
K1:L
n Dece$ber ?, 1JJ?, accused-appellants, throu'h counsel, &ointl( filed a De$urrer to Evidence,
contendin' that the $ari&uana alle'edl( sei+ed fro$ the$ is inad$issible as evidence for havin'
been obtained in violation of their constitutional ri'ht a'ainst unreasonable searches and sei+ures.
xvi
K1?L 4he de$urrer #as denied b( the trial court.
xvii
K16L " $otion for reconsideration #as filed b(
accused-appellants, but this #as li*e#ise denied. "ccused-appellants #aived presentation of
evidence and opted to file a &oint $e$orandu$.
n "pril 3:, 1JJ6, the trial court rendered the assailed decision,
xviii
K1@L the decretal portion of #hich
reads0
C/ERE=RE, findin' the evidence of the prosecution alone #ithout an( evidence fro$ both
accused #ho #aived presentation of their o#n evidence throu'h their counsels, $ore than
sufficient to prove the 'uilt of both accused of the offense char'ed be(ond reasonable doubt,
pursuant to Sec. 38, sub. par. : of Republic "ct 6?:J, accused !"S"RI M2I!" and
9RE9RI ME2", are sentenced to suffer a SEPREME PE!"24O = DE"4/ throu'h lethal
in&ection under Republic "ct @16?, to be effected and i$ple$ented as therein provided for b( la#,
in relation to Sec. 3> of Rep. "ct 6?:J.
4he Dranch Cler* of Court of this court, is ordered to i$$ediatel( elevate the entire records of this
case #ith the Cler* of Court of the Supre$e Court, Manila, for the auto$atic revie# of their case
b( the Supre$e Court and its appropriate action as the case $a( be.
S RDERED.
xix
K1JL
??
Pursuant to "rticle >6 of the Revised Penal Code and Rule 133, Section 18 of the Rules of Court,
the case #as elevated to this Court on auto$atic revie#. "ccused-appellants contend0
I.
4/"4 4/E M"RI,E"!" IS I!"DMISSID2E I! E-IDE!CE =R /"-I!9 DEE!
SEIFED I! -I2"4I! = "PPE22"!4S. C!S4I4E4I!"2 RI9/4S "9"I!S4
E!RE"S!"D2E SE"RC/ES "!D SEIFERES%
II.
4/"4 "SSEMI!9 I4 IS "DMISSID2E I! E-IDE!CE, 4/E 9-ER!ME!4 /"S !4
4/ERCISE PR-ED 4/EIR 9EI24 DEO!D RE"S!"D2E DED4% "!D
III.
4/"4, =I!"22O, "SSEMI!9 4/EIR 9EI24 /"S DEE! PR-ED DEO!D
RE"S!"D2E DED4, 4/E IMPS"D2E PE!"24O =R -I2"4I! = SEC. @ =
R" !o. 6?:J HsicI, I! 4/E "DSE!CE = "!O "99R"-"4I!9 CIRCEMS4"!CE, IS
2I=E IMPRIS!ME!4, !4 DE"4/.
xx
K38L
4he Solicitor 9eneral filed a Manifestation and Motion 5In 2ieu of Drief7, #herein he pra(ed for
the acAuittal of both accused-appellants.
4he funda$ental la# of the land $andates that searches and sei+ures be carried out in a reasonable
fashion, that is, b( virtue or on the stren'th of a search #arrant predicated upon the existence of a
probable cause. 4he pertinent provision of the Constitution provides0
SEC. 3. 4he ri'ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects a'ainst
unreasonable searches and sei+ures of #hatever nature and for an( purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search #arrant or #arrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be deter$ined
personall( b( the &ud'e after exa$ination under oath or affir$ation of the co$plainant and the
#itnesses he $a( produce, and particularl( describin' the place to be searched and the persons or
thin's to be sei+ed.
xxi
K31L
Co$ple$entar( to the fore'oin' provision is the exclusionar( rule enshrined under "rticle III,
Section <, para'raph 3, #hich bolsters and solidifies the protection a'ainst unreasonable searches
and sei+ures.
xxii
K33L 4hus0
"n( evidence obtained in violation of this or the precedin' section shall be inad$issible for an(
purpose in an( proceedin'.
Cithout this rule, the ri'ht to privac( #ould be a for$ of #ords, valueless and undeservin' of
$ention in a perpetual charter of inesti$able hu$an liberties% so too, #ithout this rule, the freedo$
fro$ state invasions of privac( #ould be so ephe$eral and so neatl( severed fro$ its conceptual
?6
nexus #ith the freedo$ fro$ all brutish $eans of coercin' evidence as not to $erit this Court.s
hi'h re'ard as a freedo$ i$plicit in the concept of ordered libert(.
xxiii
K3<L
4he fore'oin' constitutional proscription, ho#ever, is not #ithout exceptions. Search and sei+ure
$a( be $ade #ithout a #arrant and the evidence obtained therefro$ $a( be ad$issible in the
follo#in' instances0 517 search incident to a la#ful arrest% 537 search of a $ovin' $otor vehicle%
5<7 search in violation of custo$s la#s% 5>7 sei+ure of evidence in plain vie#% 5:7 #hen the accused
hi$self #aives his ri'ht a'ainst unreasonable searches and sei+ures%
xxiv
K3>L and 5?7 stop and fris*
situations 54err( search7.
xxv
K3:L
4he first exception 5search incidental to a la#ful arrest7 includes a valid #arrantless search and
sei+ure pursuant to an eAuall( valid #arrantless arrest #hich $ust precede the search. In this
instance, the la# reAuires that there be first a la#ful arrest before a search can be $ade --- the
process cannot be reversed.
xxvi
K3?L "s a rule, an arrest is considered le'iti$ate if effected #ith a
valid #arrant of arrest. 4he Rules of Court, ho#ever, reco'ni+es per$issible #arrantless arrests.
4hus, a peace officer or a private person $a(, #ithout #arrant, arrest a person0 5a7 #hen, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actuall( co$$ittin', or is atte$ptin' to
co$$it an offense 5arrest in flagrante delicto7% 5b7 #hen an offense has &ust been co$$itted and
he has probable cause to believe based on personal *no#led'e of facts or circu$stances that the
person to be arrested has co$$itted it 5arrest effected in hot pursuit7% and 5c7 #hen the person to be
arrested is a prisoner #ho has escaped fro$ a penal establish$ent or a place #here he is servin'
final &ud'$ent or is te$poraril( confined #hile his case is pendin', or has escaped #hile bein'
transferred fro$ one confine$ent to another 5arrest of escaped prisoners7.
xxvii
K36L
In the case at bar, the court a -uo anchored its &ud'$ent of conviction on a findin' that the
#arrantless arrest of accused-appellants, and the subseAuent search conducted b( the peace
officers, are valid because accused-appellants #ere cau'ht in flagrante delicto in possession of
prohibited dru's.
xxviii
K3@L 4his brin's us to the issue of #hether or not the #arrantless arrest, search
and sei+ure in the present case fall #ithin the reco'ni+ed exceptions to the #arrant reAuire$ent.
In People *. Chua Ho ,an,
xxix
K3JL the Court held that in cases of in flagrante delicto arrests, a peace
officer or a private person $a(, #ithout a #arrant, arrest a person #hen, in his presence, the person
to be arrested has co$$itted, is actuall( co$$ittin', or is atte$ptin' to co$$it an offense. 4he
arrestin' officer, therefore, $ust have personal *no#led'e of such fact or, as recent case la#
adverts to, personal *no#led'e of facts or circu$stances convincin'l( indicative or constitutive of
probable cause. "s discussed in People *. "oria,
xxx
K<8L probable cause $eans an actual belief or
reasonable 'rounds of suspicion. 4he 'rounds of suspicion are reasonable #hen, in the absence of
actual belief of the arrestin' officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probabl( 'uilt(
of co$$ittin' the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported b( circu$stances sufficientl(
stron' in the$selves to create the probable cause of 'uilt of the person to be arrested. " reasonable
suspicion therefore $ust be founded on probable cause, coupled #ith 'ood faith on the part of the
peace officers $a*in' the arrest.
"s applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that Ureliable infor$ationV alone, absent an(
overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and #ithin the vie# of the arrestin'
officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that #ould &ustif( an in flagrante delicto
?@
arrest. 4hus, in People *. )minnudin,
xxxi
K<1L it #as held that Uthe accused-appellant #as not, at the
$o$ent of his arrest, co$$ittin' a cri$e nor #as it sho#n that he #as about to do so or that he
had &ust done so. Chat he #as doin' #as descendin' the 'an'plan* of the MG- Cilcon J and
there #as no out#ard indication that called for his arrest. 4o all appearances, he #as li*e an( of
the other passen'ers innocentl( dise$bar*in' fro$ the vessel. It #as onl( #hen the infor$er
pointed to hi$ as the carrier of the $ari&uana that he suddenl( beca$e suspect and so sub&ect to
apprehension.V
2i*e#ise, in People *. engote,
xxxii
K<3L the Court did not consider Ue(es... dartin' fro$ side to
side ... K#hileL holdin' ... Kone.sL abdo$enV, in a cro#ded street at 110<8 in the $ornin', as overt
acts and circu$stances sufficient to arouse suspicion and indicative of probable cause. "ccordin'
to the Court, UKbL( no stretch of the i$a'ination could it have been inferred fro$ these acts that an
offense had &ust been co$$itted, or #as actuall( bein' co$$itted, or #as at least bein' atte$pted
in Kthe arrestin' officers.L presence.V So also, in People *. Encinada,
xxxiii
K<<L the Court ruled that no
probable cause is 'leanable fro$ the act of ridin' a motorela #hile holdin' t#o plastic bab(
chairs.
4hen, too, in alacat *. Court of )ppeals,
xxxiv
K<>L the trial court concluded that petitioner #as
atte$ptin' to co$$it a cri$e as he #as UNstandin' at the corner of Pla+a Miranda and Hue+on
Doulevard. #ith his e(es N$ovin' ver( fast. and Nloo*in' at ever( person that co$e 5sic7 nearer
5sic7 to the$..V
xxxv
K<:L In declarin' the #arrantless arrest therein ille'al, the Court said0
/ere, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto ... arrest precedin' the search in li'ht of
the lac* of personal *no#led'e on the part of Ou, the arrestin' officer, or an overt ph(sical act, on
the part of petitioner, indicatin' that a cri$e had &ust been co$$itted, #as bein' co$$itted or #as
'oin' to be co$$itted.
xxxvi
K<?L
It #ent on to state that -
Second, there #as nothin' in petitioner.s behavior or conduct #hich could have reasonabl( elicited
even $ere suspicion other than that his e(es #ere U$ovin' ver( fastV - an observation #hich
leaves us incredulous since Ou and his tea$$ates #ere no#here near petitioner and it #as alread(
?0<8 p.$., thus presu$abl( dus*. Petitioner and his co$panions #ere $erel( standin' at the
corner and #ere not creatin' an( co$$otion or trouble...
4hird, there #as at all no 'round, probable or other#ise, to believe that petitioner #as ar$ed #ith
a deadl( #eapon. !one #as visible to Ou, for as he ad$itted, the alle'ed 'renade #as
UdiscoveredV Uinside the front #aistlineV of petitioner, and fro$ all indications as to the distance
bet#een Ou and petitioner, an( telltale bul'e, assu$in' that petitioner #as indeed hidin' a
'renade, could not have been visible to Ou.
xxxvii
K<6L
Clearl(, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, t#o reAuisites $ust concur0 517 the person
to be arrested $ust execute an overt act indicatin' that he has &ust co$$itted, is actuall(
co$$ittin', or is atte$ptin' to co$$it a cri$e% and 537 such overt act is done in the presence or
#ithin the vie# of the arrestin' officer.
xxxviii
K<@L
?J
In the case at bar, accused-appellants $anifested no out#ard indication that #ould &ustif( their
arrest. In holdin' a ba' on board a trisikad, accused-appellants could not be said to be co$$ittin',
atte$ptin' to co$$it or have co$$itted a cri$e. It $atters not that accused-appellant Molina
responded UDoss, if possible #e #ill settle thisV to the reAuest of SP1 Pa$plona to open the ba'.
Such response #hich alle'edl( reinforced the UsuspicionV of the arrestin' officers that accused-
appellants #ere co$$ittin' a cri$e, is an eAuivocal state$ent #hich standin' alone #ill not
constitute probable cause to effect an infla'rante delicto arrest. !ote that #ere it not for SP1
Marino Pa'uidopon 5#ho did not participate in the arrest but $erel( pointed accused-appellants to
the arrestin' officers7, accused-appellants could not be the sub&ect of an( suspicion, reasonable or
other#ise.
Chile SP1 Pa'uidopon clai$ed that he and his infor$er conducted a surveillance of accused-
appellant Mula, SP1 Pa'uidopon, ho#ever, ad$itted that he onl( learned Mula.s na$e and
address after the arrest. Chat is $ore, it is doubtful if SP1 Pa'uidopon indeed reco'ni+ed
accused-appellant Mula. It is #orth( to note that, before the arrest, he #as able to see Mula in
person onl( once, pinpointed to hi$ b( his infor$er #hile the( #ere on the side of the road.
4hese circu$stances could not have afforded SP1 Pa'uidopon a closer loo* at accused-appellant
Mula, considerin' that the latter #as then drivin' a $otorc(cle #hen SP1 Pa'uidopon cau'ht a
'li$pse of hi$. Cith respect to accused-appellant Molina, SP1 Pa'uidopon ad$itted that he had
never seen hi$ before the arrest.
4his belies the clai$ of SP1 Pa$plona that he *ne# the na$e of accused-appellants even before
the arrest, to #it -
UH- Chen (ou said that certain Mula handed a blac* ba' to another person and ho# did (ou
*no# that it #as Mula #ho handed the blac* ba' to another person;
"- Decause I have alread( infor$ation fro$ Pa'uidopon, re'ardin' Mula and Molina, #hen
the( pass b( throu'h the street near the residence of Pa'uidopon. /e told that the one #ho is bi'
one that is 9re'orio Mula and the thin one is !a+ario MolinaV
xxxix
K<JL
4he aforecited testi$on( of SP1 Pa$plona, therefore, is entirel( baseless. SP1 Pa$plona
could not have learned the na$e of accused-appellants fro$ SP1 Pa'uipodon because
Pa'uipodon hi$self, #ho alle'edl( conducted the surveillance, #as not even a#are of accused-
appellants. na$e and address prior to the arrest.
Evidentl(, SP1 Pa'uidopon, #ho acted as infor$er of the arrestin' officers, $ore so the arrestin'
officers the$selves, could not have been certain of accused-appellants. identit(, and #ere, fro$ all
indications, $erel( fishin' for evidence at the ti$e of the arrest.
Co$pared to People *. Encinada, the arrestin' officer in the said case *ne# appellant Encinada
even before the arrest because of the latter.s ille'al 'a$blin' activities, thus, lendin' at least a
se$blance of validit( on the arrest effected b( the peace officers. !evertheless, the Court declared
in said case that the #arrantless arrest and the conseAuent search #ere ille'al, holdin' that UKtLhe
prosecution.s evidence did not sho# an( suspicious behavior #hen the appellant dise$bar*ed
68
fro$ the ship or #hile he rode the motorela. !o act or fact de$onstratin' a felonious enterprise
could be ascribed to appellant under such bare circu$stances.V
xl
K>8L
Moreover, it could not be said that accused-appellants #aived their ri'ht a'ainst unreasonable
searches and sei+ure. I$plied acAuiescence to the search, if there #as an(, could not have been
$ore than $ere passive confor$it( 'iven under inti$idatin' or coercive circu$stances and is thus
considered no consent at all #ithin the purvie# of the constitutional 'uarantee.
xli
K>1L
Cithal, the Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall under the exceptions
allo#ed b( the rules. /ence, the search conducted on their person #as li*e#ise ille'al.
ConseAuentl(, the $ari&uana sei+ed b( the peace officers could not be ad$itted as evidence a'ainst
accused-appellants, and the Court is thus, left #ith no choice but to find in favor of accused-
appellants.
Chile the Court stron'l( supports the ca$pai'n of the 'overn$ent a'ainst dru' addiction and
co$$ends the efforts of our la#-enforce$ent officers to#ards this drive, all efforts for the
achieve$ent of a dru'-free societ( $ust not encroach on the funda$ental ri'hts and liberties of
individuals as 'uaranteed in the Dill of Ri'hts, #hich protection extends even to the basest of
cri$inals.
/!EREFORE, the Decision of the Re'ional 4rial Court of Davao Cit(, Dranch 16, in Cri$inal
Case !o. <6, 3?>-J?, is RE-ERSED and SE4 "SIDE. =or lac* of evidence to establish their 'uilt
be(ond reasonable doubt, accused-appellants !asario Molina ( Mana$at alias UDobon'V and
9re'orio Mula ( Mala'ura alias UDobo(V, are "CHEI44ED and ordered RE2E"SED fro$
confine$ent unless the( are validl( detained for other offenses. !o costs.
S RDERED.
Davide, ,r., C.,., Dellosillo, Melo, Puno, -itu', Iapunan, Mendo+a, Pan'aniban, Huisu$bin',
Pardo, Duena, 9on+a'a-Re(es, De 2eon, ,r., and Sandoval-9utierre+, ,,., concur.
61
iK1L

Dissentin' opinion of ,ustice Drennan in Stone *. Po#ell, >3@ E.S. >?:, J? S. Ct. <8<6, >J 2. Ed.
3d 18?6, 118: K1J6?L.
iiK3L

Dated "pril 3:, 1JJ6, ;ollo, pp. 11-3>.
iiiK<L

Sec. @. - Possession or 1se of Prohibited "rugs. - 4he penalt( of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ran'in' fro$
five hundred thousand pesos to ten $illion pesos shall be i$posed upon an( person #ho, unless authori+ed b( la#, shall
possess or use an( prohibited dru' sub&ect to the provisions of Section 38 hereof.
Sec. 38. )pplication of Penalties, Confiscation and $orfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the
Crime. - 4he penalties for offenses under Sections <, >, 6, @ and J of "rticle II and Sections 1>, 1>-",
1: and 1? of "rticle III of this "ct shall be applied if the dan'erous dru's involved is in an( of the
follo#in' Auantities0
:7 6:8 'ra$s or $ore of indian he$p or $ari&uana%
x x x x x x x x x
ther#ise, if the Auantit( involved is less than the for'oin' Auantities, the penalt( shall ran'e
fro$ prision correccional to reclusion perpetua dependin' upon the Auantit(.
ivK>L"n "ct I$posin' the Death Penalt( on Certain /einous Cri$es.>
vK:L

=iled on "u'ust 18, 1JJ?% ;ollo, p. 6.
viK?L

Records, p. 1>.
viiK6L

4S!, !ove$ber 1>, 1JJ?, pp. 3->.
viiiK@L

4S!, !ove$ber 1>, 1JJ?, pp. 6-J.
ixKJL

Id., pp. 18 and 1@.
xK18L

4S!, !ove$ber 3?, 1JJ?, pp. >-: 5Direct exa$ination of SP1 Pa$plona7.
xiK11L

4S!, !ove$ber 3?, 1JJ?, pp. :-?.
xiiK13L

4S!, !ove$ber 1>, 1JJ?, pp. 1>-1:
xiiiK1<L

4S!, !ove$ber 3?, 1JJ?, pp. ?-@.
xivK1>L

Id., p. 1>.1>
xvK1:L

Id., p. J.
xviK1?L

Records, pp. <3-<6.
xviiK16L

Records, pp. <J-><.
xviiiK1@L

Penned b( ,ud'e Renato ". =uentes.
xixK1JL

Decision, ;ollo, p. 3>
xxK38L

;ollo, p. >8.
xxiK31L

Constitution, "rticle III, Section 3.
xxiiK33L

People *. Chua /o San, <8@ SCR" ><3, >>< K1JJJL.
xxiiiK3<L

Mapp *. hio, <?6 E.S. ?><, @1 S. Ct. 1?@>, ? 2. ed. 3d 18@1, 18J8 K1J?1L.
xxivK3>L

People *. Doria, <81 SCR" ??@, 68: K1JJJL% citin' /i+on *. Court of "ppeals, 3?: SCR"
:16, :36 K1JJ?L% People *. =ernande+, 3<J SCR" 16>, 1@3-1@< K1JJ>L% Roan *. 9on+ales, 1>: SCR"
?@6, ?J6 K1J@?L% Dernas, 4he Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, p. 1?J K1JJ?L% Cru+,
Constitutional 2a#, pp. 1>6-1:< K1J@?L% Revised Rules on Cri$inal Procedure, Rule 13?, Section 13,
and Rule 11<, Section :% People *. Da'ista, 31> SCR" ?<, ?J K1JJ3L% People *. 2o /o Cin', 1J<
SCR" 133, 13?-13@ K1JJ1L% Roldan, ,r. *. "rca, ?: SCR" <<?, <>@ K1J6:L% Papa *. Ma'o, 33 SCR"
@:6, @61-@6> K1J?@L% People *. 4abar, 333 SCR" 1>>, 1:< K1JJ<L% "lvare+ *. C=I, ?> Phil. <<, >@
K1J<6L% and People *. Ia'ui Malasu'ui, ?< Phil. 331, 33? K1J<?L.
xxvK3:L

People *. Chua /o San, supra.% citin' 4err( *. hio, 38 2 Ed 3d, @J? adopted in Posadas *.
Court of "ppeals, 1@@ SCR" 3@@ K1JJ8L% and People *. Ra$os, 333 SCR" ::6 K1JJ<L.
xxviK3?L

Id., at >>J% citin' Malacat *. Court of "ppeals, 3@< SCR" 1:J , 16: K1JJ6L.
xxviiK36L

Id., at >>>% and the Revised Rules on Cri$inal Procedure 5as a$ended7, Rule 11<, Section
:.
xxviiiK3@L

Decision, ;ollo, p. 33.
xxixK3JL

People *. Chua /o San, supra.% citin' People *. Dur'os, 1>> SCR" 1 K1J@?L% People *.
Encinada, 3@8 SCR" 63 K1JJ6L% People *. Montilla, 3@: SCR" 68< K1JJ@L% People *. Claudio, 1?8
SCR" ?>? K1J@@L% People *. Maspil, ,r., 1@@ SCR" 6:1 K1J@@L% People *. 2o /o Cin', 1J< SCR" 133
K1JJ1L% People *. 4an'liben 1@> SCR" 338 K1JJ8L% Posadas *. Court of "ppeals, 1@@ SCR" 3@@
K1JJ8L% People *. Mal$stedt, 1J@ SCR" >81 K1JJ1L.
xxxK<8L

People *. Doria, supra.% citin' E$il *. Ra$os, 383 SCR" 3:1, 3?< K1JJ1L% Enited States *.
Santos, <? Phil. @:1 K1J16L% People *. Dati, 1@J SCR" J6 K1JJ8L% People *. Sucro, 1J: SCR" <@@
K1JJ8L and People *. Ra$os 1@? SCR" 1@> K1JJ8L.
xxxiK<1L

1?< SCR" >83, >8J->18 K1J@@L.
xxxiiK<3L

318 SCR" 16>, 16J-1@8 K1JJ3L
xxxiiiK<<L

3@8 SCR" 63, @?-@6 K1JJ6L.
xxxivK<>L

3@< SCR" 1:J K1JJ6L.
xxxvK<:L

Id., at 1?J.
xxxviK<?L

Id., at 16:
xxxviiK<6L

Id., at 16@.
xxxviiiK<@L

Concurrin' pinion of ,ustice "rte$io -. Pan'aniban in People *. Doria, <81 SCR" ??@,
638 51JJJ7.
xxxixK<JL

4S!, !ove$ber 3?, 1JJ?, p. 6.
xlK>8L

People *. Encinada, supra.
xliK>1L

Id., at J1% citin' "nia' *. Co$$ission on Elections, 3<6 SCR" >3>, ><?-><6 K1JJ>L.