Rickie Lyn A.

Monzon

G.R. No. 158793

1 BB

Constitutional Law II

June 8, 2006

JAMES MIRASOL, RICHARD

FEDERATION, INC., Petitioners,

SANTIAGO,

and

LUZON

MOTORCYCLISTS

Vs.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS and TOLL REGULATORY
BOARD, Respondents.

Facts:
The petitioners assault the constitutionality of an administrative regulation banning the use of
motorcycles at the toll way on the ground that it is unjustified and unnecessary for malfunction to
provide scientific and objective data on the risks of motorcycles plying the highways. Petitioners
belabor the fact that there are studies that provide proof that motorcycles are safe modes of
transport. They also claim that Administrative Order 1 introduces an unreasonable classification
by singling-out motorcycles from other motorized modes of transport. Finally, petitioners argue
that Administrative Order 1 violated their right to travel. Respondents assert that the toll ways
were not premeditated to contain motorcycles and that their occurrence in the toll ways will
compromise safety and traffic contemplations.

Issue:
Whether or not the administrative regulation banning use of motorcycles is unconstitutional.

Ruling:
No. The use of public highways by motor vehicles is subject to regulation as an exercise of the
police power of the state. The police power is far-reaching in scope and is the most essential,
insistent and illimitable of all government powers. The tendency is to extend rather than to
restrict the use of police power. The sole standard in measuring its exercise is equanimity exists,
not precise explanation and logical formulation. Administrative Order 1 does not impose
unreasonable restrictions. It merely outlines precautionary measures, to which toll way users
must adhere. These rules were designed to ensure public safety and the uninhibited flow of
traffic within limited access facilities.

G.R. No. 165036

July 5, 2010

HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN, Petitioner,

Vs.
ABELARDO T. DOMONDON, JOSE A. GANGAN, and VIOLETA J. JOSEF, Respondents.

Facts:
Petitioner Hazel Ma. C. Antolin failed the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) Licensure Exam on
October 1997. She wrote to the Board of Accountancy (Board), requesting that her answer sheets
be re-corrected because she is convinced that she deserved to pass the exam. She was able to see
her answer sheets but since these showed only shaded marks, she still does not know why she
failed the exam. Therefore, she asked the Board for copies of her answer sheets, questionnaire,
the answer keys and an explanation of the grading system. Her request was denied on two
grounds. (1) Section 36, Article III of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and
Practice of Professionals, as amended by Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Resolution
No. 332, series of 1994, only allowed access to her answer sheets, and reconsideration of the
result of her examination can be made only on grounds of mechanical error in the grading of the
answer sheets, or malfeasance; and (2) the Board was precluded from releasing the Examination
Papers (other than the answer sheets) by Section 20, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 338,
series of 1994. The Board later informed her that her exam was investigated and no mechanical
error was found in the grading.
Pleading that the Board provide her with all documents that would show whether the Board
fairly administered the exam and correctly graded her answers, and if warranted, to issue to her a
certificate of registration as a CPA. Petitioner Antolin filed a Petition for Mandamus with
Damages with application for preliminary mandatory injunction against the Board and its
members before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). She later amended her Petition to simplify that
she only wanted admittance to the documents requested, not re-correction of her exam, removing
in the process her original plead for issuance of a certificate of registration as CPA.
Petitioner Antolin passed the May 1998 CPA Licensure Exam and took her oath as a CPA.
Accordingly, the RTC denied her application for mandatory injunction for being doubtful. She
amended her Petition for the second time to implied the PRC and to ask, in addition to access to
the documents she had requested, that if warranted, appropriate revisions in the October 1997
Exam results be made by the Board and the PRC. The RTC considered the matter doubtful and
dismissed the petition. On her motion, the RTC reassessed the dismissal, investing that her
passing of the subsequent CPA examination did not render the petition doubtful because the
relief and if warranted, to issue to her a certificate of registration as Certified Public

Accountant was deleted from the original petition. As regards whether she had the constitutional
right to have access to the documents she requested, the RTC determined to let the parties first
adduce evidence, and to have PRC air its side of the case. The RTC also ordered the PRC to
protect and uphold the questionnaire, petitioners answer sheets, and the answer keys for the
October 1997 CPA Licensure Exam.
The Respondents brought the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) when their motion for
reconsideration was denied which set aside the RTCs decision and ordered the dismissal of the
case because: (1) the petition was mooted when petitioner passed the May 1998 CPA exam; (2)
Section 20, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 338, series of 1994, constituted a valid limitation
on her right to information and access to government documents; (3) the Examination
Documents were not of public concern, because she merely sought review of her failing marks;
(4) it was not the ministerial or mandatory function of the respondents to review and reassess the
answers to examination questions of a failing examinee; and (5) she failed to exhaust
administrative remedies when she did not elevate the matter to the PRC before seeking judicial
intervention. Petitioner, thus, brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not petitioner has the constitutional right to have access to the Examination
Papers; (2) Whether or not the case was mooted by petitioners passing the May 1998 CPA
Licensure Examination; (3) Whether or not petitioner may seek judicial intervention to compel
the re-correction of her examination; and (4) Whether or not petitioner failed to exhaust the
administrative remedies.

Ruling:
(1) Like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute; it is limited
to matters of public concern and is further subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law (Section 7, Article III, 1987 Constitution). Likewise, the States policy
of full disclosure is limited to transactions involving public interest and is subject to
reasonable conditions prescribed by law (Sec. 28, Art. II, 1987 Constitution). The Court
has always tackled with the meanings of public interest and public concern which
embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either
because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally
stimulate the interest of an ordinary citizen, and which are, in the final analysis, up to
the courts to determine on a case by case basis [Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,
234 Phil. 521, 535 (1987)].

National board examinations such as the CPA Board Exams are matters of public
concern. The population in general, and the examinees in particular, would
understandably be interested in the just and knowledgeable administration of these exams
in order to ensure that only those qualified are admitted into the accounting profession.
And as with all matters instructive, these examinations could be not merely quantitative
means of assessment, but also means to further improve the teaching and learning of the
art and science of accounting.
The Court, however, realizes that there may be valid reasons to limit access to the
Examination Papers in order to properly administer the exam. More than the mere
expediency of the examiner, it may well be that there exist inherent difficulties in the
preparation, generation, encoding, administration, and checking of these multiple choice
exams that require that the questions and answers remain confidential for a limited
duration. The PRC, however, had not been given an opportunity to explain the reasons
behind their regulations or articulate the justification for keeping the Examination Papers
confidential.
(2) An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy,
so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.
In this jurisdiction, any citizen may challenge any attempt to obstruct the exercise of his
or her right to information and may seek its enforcement by mandamus. And since every
citizen possesses the inherent right to be informed by the mere fact of citizenship,
petitioners belated passing of the CPA Board Exams did not automatically mean that her
interest in the Examination Papers had become mere superfluity. Undoubtedly, the
constitutional question presented, in view of the likelihood that the issues in this case
would be repeated, warranted review.
(3) Any claim for re-correction or revision of petitioners 1997 examination cannot be
compelled by mandamus. In Agustin Ramos vs. Sandoval [G.R. No. 84470, February 2,
1989 (Minute Resolution)], where the respondent Judge was questioned for dismissing
therein petitioners mandamus action to compel the Medical Board of Examiners and the
Professional Regulation Commission to re-correct their ratings, the Supreme Court held
that the function of reviewing and re-assessing the petitioners answers to the
examination questions, in the light of the facts and arguments presented by them x x x is
a discretionary function of the Medical Board, not a ministerial and mandatory one,
hence, not within the scope of the writ of mandamus. For a writ of mandamus to issue,
the applicant must have a well-defined, clear, and certain legal right to the thing
demanded. The corresponding duty of the respondent to perform the required act must be
equally clear. No such clarity exists here. And despite petitioners assertion that she did
not demand re-correction, the most cursory perusal of her Second Amended Petition and

her prayer that respondents make the appropriate revisions on the results of her
examination belied this claim.
(4) Like the claimants in Agustin, petitioners remedy from the Boards refusal to release the
Examination Papers should have been through an appeal to the PRC. Under Section 5(c)
of Presidential Decree No. 223, the PRC has the power to review and approve the
policies, resolutions, rules and regulations, orders and decisions of the various
professional Boards, including the results of their licensure examinations, and the
decisions of the Boards on administrative cases shall be final and executor unless
appealed to the PRC within 30 days from promulgation. Contrarys to petitioners claim,
this power is not limited to administrative investigations but encompasses requests for
documents. And since the PRC itself issued the resolution (PRC Resolution No. 338)
questioned by petitioner, it was in the best position to resolve questions addressed to its
area of expertise.
One of the reasons for exhaustion of administrative remedies is the well-entrenched
doctrine in separation of powers, which enjoins upon the Judiciary a becoming policy of
non-interference with matters falling primarily within the competence of other
departments. However, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject
to exceptions, among which is when only a question of law is involved.
Whether or not petitioner had a constitutional right to demand access to the Examination
Papers was one such question of law which cannot be resolved with finality by the
administrative officer.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions are GRANTED. The December 11,
2006 and February 16, 2004 Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 76546 and
CA-GR SP No. 76498, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE. The November 11, 2002
and January 30, 2003 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, in Civil Case No.
98-86881 are AFFIRMED. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court for further
proceedings.

G.R. No. 182795

June 5, 2008

ARMANDO Q. CANLAS, MIGUEL D. CAPISTRANO, MARRIETA PIA, Petitioners,

Vs.
NAPICO HOMEOWNERS ASSN., I XIII, INC., ET AL., Respondents.

Facts:
The petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in Barangay Manggahan, Pasig
City. At the time of the filing of the petition, their houses have either been demolished or is about
to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment. The petitioners filed for the issuance of a writ of
amparo to convene some unprincipled land officials to answer their participation in the issuances
of the fraudulent and spurious titles, now, in the hands of the private respondents (NAPICO
Homeowners Assn). The rule on the writ of amparo regarding the petition provide that it is a
remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners remedy, writ of amparo is proper in this case.

Ruling:
The court denied the petition. Considering that there is no legal basis for its issuance, as in this
case, the writ will not be issued and the petition will be dismissed outright. This new remedy of
writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is intended for the protection of the highest
possible rights of any person, which is his or her right to life, liberty and security. The Court will
not spare any time or effort on its part in order to give priority to petitions of this nature.
However, the Court will also not waste its precious time and effort on matters not covered by the
writ.