Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

141529 June 6, 2001

The assailed resolution of the %ourt of &ppeals5, issued on October :, ,222, upheld the reco))endation of the Solicitor 6eneral; thus, its dispositive portion reads< =H>R>*OR>, pre)ises considered, the -Motion to *i! 3ail *or Provisional 4ibert" of &ccused?&ppellant Pendin &ppeal- is hereb" 6R&NT>D. &ccused?appellant *rancisco @ap, Ar., a.#.a. >d$in @ap is hereb" &44O=>D TO POST 3&I4 in the a)ount of *ive Million *ive Hundred Thousand .P','((,(((.((/ Pesos, sub8ect to the follo$in conditions, viB. < .,/ He .accused?appellant/ secures a certification7 uarant" fro) the Ma"or of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he $ill re)ain to be a resident therein until final 8ud )ent is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it )ust be $ith prior notice to the court; .0/ The %o))ission of l))i ration and Deportation .%ID/ is hereb" directed to issue a hold departure order a ainst accused?appellant; and .9/ The accused?appellant shall forth$ith surrender his passport to the Division %ler# of %ourt for safe#eepin until the court orders its return; .5/ &n" violation of the aforesaid conditions shall cause the forfeiture of accused?appellantCs bail bond, the dis)issal of appeal and his i))ediate arrest and confine)ent in 8ail. SO ORD>R>D.'

FRANCISCO YAP, JR., a a E!"IN YAP, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEA#S an$ T%E PEOP#E OF T%E P%I#IPPINES, respondents. GON&AGA'REYES, J.( The ri ht a ainst e!cessive bail, and the libert" of abode and travel, are bein invo#ed to set aside t$o resolutions of the %ourt of &ppeals $hich fi!ed bail at P','((,(((.(( and i)posed conditions on chan e of residence and travel abroad. *or )isappropriatin a)ounts e+uivalent to P','((,(((.((, petitioner $as convicted of estafa b" the Re ional Trial %ourt of Pasi %it" , and $as sentenced to four "ears and t$o )onths of prision correctional, as )ini)u) to ei ht "ears of prision mayor as )a!i)u), -in addition to one .,/ "ear for each additional P,(,(((.(( in e!cess of P00,(((.(( but in no case shall it e!ceed t$ent" .0(/ "ears.-0 He filed a notice of appeal, and )oved to be allo$ed provisional libert" under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedin s. The )otion $as denied b" the trial court in an order dated *ebruar" ,1,,222. &fter the records of the case $ere trans)itted to the %ourt of &ppeals, petitioner filed $ith the said court a Motion to *i! 3ail *or the Provisional 4ibert" of &ccused &ppellant Pendin &ppeal, invo#in the last para raph of Section ', Rule ,,5 of the ,221 Revised Rules of %ourt. &s#ed to co))ent on this )otion, the Solicitor 6eneral opined that petitioner )a" be allo$ed to post bail in the a)ount of P','((,(((.(( and be re+uired to secure -a certification7 uarant" fro) the Ma"or of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he $ill re)ain to be so until final 8ud )ent is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it )ust be $ith prior notice to the court and private co)plainant.- 9 Petitioner filed a Repl", contendin that the proposed bail ofP','((,(((.(( $as violative of his ri ht a ainst e!cessive bail.

& )otion for reconsideration $as filed, see#in the reduction of the a)ount of bail fi!ed b" respondent court, but $as denied in a resolution issued on Nove)ber 0', ,222. Hence, this petition. Petitioner sets out the follo$in assi n)ents of error< The respondent %ourt of &ppeals co))itted rave abuse of discretion in fi!in the bail of the provisional libert" of petitioner pendin appeal in the a)ount of P' .' )illion. The respondent %ourt of &ppeals co))itted rave abuse of discretion in basin the bail for the provisional libert" of the petitioner on his civil liabilit".

The respondent %ourt of &ppeals undul" restricted petitionerCs constitutional libert" of abode and travel in i)posin the other conditions for the rant of bail. Petitioner contends that the %ourt of &ppeals, b" settin bail at a prohibitor" a)ount, effectivel" denied hi) his ri ht to bail. He challen es the le al basis of respondent court for fi!in bail at P','((,(((.((, $hich is e+uivalent to the a)ount of his civil liabilit" to private co)plainant Manila Maho an" Mar#etin %orporation, and ar ues that the Rules of %ourt never intended for the civil liabilit" of the accused to be a uideline or basis for deter)inin the a)ount of bail. He pra"s that bail be reduced to at least P5(,(((.((, citin the )a!i)u) a)ount of bail that can be posted for the cri)e of estafa under the ,22: 3ail 3ond 6uide, or P0(,(((.((, e+uivalent to the a)ount of bail he posted durin the trial of the case.: On the other hand, the Solicitor 6eneral )aintains that no rave abuse of discretion could be ascribed to the %ourt of &ppeals for fi!in the a)ount of bail at P','((,(((.(( considerin the severit" of the penalt" i)posed, the $ei ht of the evidence a ainst petitioner, and the ravit" of the offense of $hich petitioner $as convicted b" the RT%. He asserted that the P','((,(((.(( not onl" corresponded to civil liabilit" but also to the a)ount of fraud i)puted to petitioner. The Solicitor 6eneral further pointed out the probabilit" of fli ht in case petitioner is released on bail, it havin been established that petitioner $as in possession of a valid passport and visa and had in fact left the countr" several ti)es durin the course of the proceedin s in the lo$er court. It $as also sho$n that petitioner used different na)es in his business transactions and had several abodes in different parts of the countr". &s for the conditions i)posed b" the bail bond, the Solicitor 6eneral advanced that all that the %ourt of &ppeals re+uires is notice in case of chan e of address; it does not in an" $a" i)pair petitionerCs ri ht to chan e abode for as lon as the court is apprised of his chan e of residence durin the pendenc" of the appeal. PetitionerCs case falls $ithin the provisions of Section ', Rule ,,5 of the ,221 Rules of %ourt $hich states< S>%. '. Bail, when discretionary. ?? Dpon conviction b" the Re ional Trial %ourt of an offense not punishable b" death, reclusion perpetua or life i)prison)ent, the court, on application, )a" ad)it the accused to bail.

The court, in its discretion, )a" allo$ the accused to continue on provisional libert" under the sa)e bail bond durin the period to appeal sub8ect to the consent of the bonds)an. If the court i)posed a penalt" of i)prison)ent e!ceedin si! .:/ "ears, but not )ore than t$ent" .0(/ "ears, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previousl" ranted shall be cancelled, upon a sho$in b" the prosecution, $ith notice to the accused, of the follo$in or other si)ilar circu)stances< .a/ That the accused is a recidivist, +uasi?recidivist, or habitual delin+uent, or has co))itted the cri)e a ravated b" the circu)stance of reiteration; .b/ That the accused is found to have previousl" escaped fro) le al confine)ent, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his bail $ithout valid 8ustification; .c/ That the accused co))itted the offense $hile on probation, parole, or under conditional pardon; .d/ That the circu)stances of the accused or his case indicate the probabilit" of fli ht if released on bail; or .e/ That there is undue ris# that durin the pendenc" of the appeal, the accused )a" co))it another cri)e. The appellate court )a" revie$ the resolution of the Re ional Trial %ourt, on )otion and $ith notice to the adverse part". 1 There is no +uestion that in the present case the %ourt of &ppeals e!ercised its discretion in favor of allo$in bail to petitioner on appeal. Respondent court stated that it $as doin so for -hu)anitarian reasons-, and despite a perceived hi h ris# of fli ht, as b" petitionerCs ad)ission he $ent out of the countr" several ti)es durin the pendenc" of the case, for $hich reason the court dee)ed it necessar" to pe the a)ount of bail at P','((,(((.((. The prohibition a ainst re+uirin e!cessive bail is enshrined in the %onstitution.E The obvious rationale, as declared in the leadin case of De la Camara vs. Enage,2 is that i)posin bail in an e!cessive a)ount could render )eanin less the ri ht to bail. Thus, in Villaseor vs. Abano,,( this %ourt )ade the pronounce)ent that it $ill not hesitate to e!ercise its supervisor" po$ers over lo$er courts should the latter, after holdin the accused entitled to bail, effectivel" den" the sa)e b" i)posin a prohibitor" su) or e!actin unreasonable conditions.

!!! There is ri) iron" in an accused bein told that he has a ri ht to bail but at the sa)e ti)e bein re+uired to post such an e!orbitant su). =hat a ravates the situation is that the lo$er court 8ud e $ould apparentl" "ield to the co))and of the funda)ental la$. In realit", such a sancti)onious avo$al of respect for a )andate of the %onstitution $as on a purel" verbal level. There is reason to believe that an" person in the position of petitioner $ould under the circu)stances be unable to resist thou hts of escapin fro) confine)ent, reduced as he )ust have been to a state of desperation. In the sa)e breath as he $as told he could be bailed out, the e!cessive a)ount re+uired could onl" )ean that provisional libert" $ould be be"ond his reach. It $ould have been )ore forthri ht if he $ere infor)ed cate oricall" that such a ri ht could not be availed of. There $ould have been no disappoint)ent of e!pectations then. It does call to )ind these $ords of Austice Aac#son, -a pro)ise to the ear to be bro#en to the hope, a teasin illusion li#e a )unificent be+uest in a pauperCs $ill.- FFF ,, &t the sa)e ti)e, Section 2, Rule ,,5 of the Revised Rules of %ri)inal Procedure advises courts to consider the follo$in factors in the settin of the a)ount of bail< .a/ *inancial abilit" of the accused to ive bail; .b/ Nature and circu)stances of the offense; .c/ Penalt" for the offense char ed; .d/ %haracter and reputation of the accused; .e/ & e and health of the accused; .f/ =ei ht of the evidence a ainst the accused; . / Probabilit" of the accused appearin at the trial; .h/ *orfeiture of other bail; .i/ The fact that the accused $as a fu itive fro) 8ustice $hen arrested; and .8/ Pendenc" of other cases $here the accused is on bail.

Thus, the court has $ide latitude in fi!in the a)ount of bail. =here it fears that the accused )a" 8u)p bail, it is certainl" not precluded fro) installin devices to ensure a ainst the sa)e. Options )a" include increasin the bail bond to an appropriate level, or re+uirin the person to report periodicall" to the court and to )a#e an accountin of his )ove)ents. ,0 In the present case, $here petitioner $as found to have left the countr" several ti)es $hile the case $as pendin , the %ourt of &ppeals re+uired the confiscation of his passport and the issuance of a hold?departure order a ainst hi). Dnder the circu)stances of this case, $e find that appropriate conditions have been i)posed in the bail bond to ensure a ainst the ris# of fli ht, particularl", the co)bination of the hold?departure order and the re+uire)ent that petitioner infor) the court of an" chan e of residence and of his $hereabouts. &lthou h an increase in the a)ount of bail $hile the case is on appeal )a" be )eritorious, $e find that the settin of the a)ount at P','((,(((.(( is unreasonable, e!cessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitionerCs ri ht to bail. The purpose for bail is to uarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial,,9 or $henever so re+uired b" the %ourt ,5. The a)ount should be hi h enou h to assure the presence of the accused $hen re+uired but no hi her than is reasonabl" calculated to fulfill this purpose. ,' To fi! bail at an a)ount e+uivalent to the civil liabilit" of $hich petitioner is char ed .in this case, P','((,(((.((/.is to per)it the i)pression that the a)ount paid as bail is an e!action of the civil liabilit" that accused is char ed of; this $e cannot allo$ because bail is not intended as a punish)ent, nor as a satisfaction of civil liabilit" $hich should necessaril" a$ait the 8ud )ent of the appellate court. &t the sa)e ti)e, $e cannot "ield to petitionerCs sub)ission that bail in the instant case be set at P5(,(((.(( based on the ,22: 3ail 3ond 6uide. .The current 3ail 3ond 6uide, issued on &u ust 02, 0(((, )aintains reco))ended bail at P5(,(((.(( for estafa $here the a)ount of fraud is P,50,(((.(( or over and the i)posable penalt" 0( "ears of reclusion temporal). True, the %ourt has held that the 3ail 3ond 6uide, a circular of the Depart)ent of Austice for the uidance of state prosecutors, althou h technicall" not bindin upon the courts, -)erits attention, bein in a sense an e!pression of polic" of the >!ecutive 3ranch, throu h the Depart)ent of Austice, in the enforce)ent of cri)inal la$s.- ,: Thus, courts are advised that the" )ust not onl" be a$are but should also consider the 3ail 3ond 6uide due to its si nificance in the ad)inistration of cri)inal 8ustice. ,1 This not$ithstandin , the %ourt is not precluded fro) i)posin in petitionerCs case an a)ount hi her than P5(,(((.(( .based on the 3ail 3ond 6uide/ $here it perceives that an appropriate increase is dictated b" the circu)stances. It )ilitates e)phasis that petitioner is see#in bail on appeal. Section ', Rule ,,5 of the Revised Rules of %ri)inal Procedure is clear that althou h the

rant of bail on appeal is non?capital offenses is discretionar", $hen the penalt" i)posed on the convicted accused e!ceeds si! "ears and circu)stances e!ist that point to the probabilit" of fli ht if released on bail, then the accused )ust be denied bail, or his bail previousl" ranted should be cancelled.,E In the sa)e vein, the %ourt has held that the discretion to e!tend bail durin the course of the appeal should be e!ercised $ith rave caution and for stron reasons, considerin that the accused had been in fact convicted b" the trial court.,2 In an earlier case, the %ourt adopted Senator Vicente A. *ranciscoCs dis+uisition on $h" bail should be denied after 8ud )ent of conviction as a )atter of $ise discretion; thus< The i)portance attached to conviction is due to the underl"in principle that bail should be ranted onl" $here it is uncertain $hether the accused is uilt" or innocent, and therefore, $here that uncertaint" is re)oved b" conviction it $ould, enerall" spea#in , be absurd to ad)it to bail. &fter a person has been tried and convicted the presu)ption of innocence $hich )a" be relied upon in prior applications is rebutted, and the burden is upon the accused to sho$ error in the conviction. *ro) another point of vie$ it )a" be properl" ar ued that the probabilit" of ulti)ate punish)ent is so enhanced b" the conviction that the accused is )uch )ore li#el" to atte)pt to escape if liberated on bail than before conviction.!!! 0( Petitioner is see#in bail on appeal. He $as in fact declared uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt b" the RT%, and due to the serious a)ount of fraud involved, sentenced to i)prison)ent for t$ent" "ears ??the )a!i)u) penalt" for estafa b" false pretenses or fraudulent acts allo$ed b" the Revised Penal %ode. &lthou h it cannot be controverted that the %ourt of &ppeals, despite the fore oin considerations and the possibilit" of fli ht still $ielded its discretion to rant petitioner bail, the settin of bail in the a)ount of P','((,(((.(( is un8ustified as havin no le al nor factual basis. 6uided b" the penalt" i)posed b" the lo$er court and the $ei ht of the evidence a ainst petitioner, $e believe that the a)ount of P0((,(((.(( is )ore reasonable. Petitioner also contests the condition i)posed b" the %ourt of &ppeals that he secure -a certification7 uarant" fro) the Ma"or of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he $ill re)ain to be a resident therein until final 8ud )ent is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it )ust be $ith prior notice to the court-, clai)in that the sa)e violates his libert" of abode and travel. Notabl", petitioner does not +uestion the hold?departure order $hich prevents hi) fro) leavin the Philippines unless e!pressl" per)itted b" the court $hich issued the order.0, In fact, the petition sub)its that -the hold? departure order a ainst petitioner is alread" sufficient uarantee that he $ill

not escape. Thus, to re+uire hi) to infor) the court ever" ti)e he chan ed his residence is alread" unnecessar".- 00 The ri ht to chan e abode and travel $ithin the Philippines, bein invo#ed b" petitioner, are not absolute ri hts. Section :, &rticle III of the ,2E1 %onstitution states< The libert" of abode and of chan in the sa)e $ithin the li)its prescribed b" la$ shall not be i)paired e!cept upon la$ful order of the court. Neither shall the ri ht to travel be i)paired e!cept in the interest of national securit", public safet", or public health, as )a" be provided b" la$. The order of the %ourt of &ppeals releasin petitioner on bail constitutes such la$ful order as conte)plated b" the above provision. 09 The condition i)posed b" the %ourt of &ppeals is si)pl" consistent $ith the nature and function of a bail bond, $hich is to ensure that petitioner $ill )a#e hi)self available at all ti)es $henever the %ourt re+uires his presence. 3esides, a closer loo# at the +uestioned condition $ill sho$ that petitioner is not prevented fro) chan in abode; he is )erel" re+uired to infor) the court in case he does so.

AG#IPAY )S RUI&

In Ma", ,29:, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he $ould order the issues of posta e sta)ps co))e)oratin the celebration in the %it" of Manila of the Thirt"?third international >ucharistic %on ress, or aniBed b" the Ro)an %atholic %hurch. The petitioner, in the fulfill)ent of $hat he considers to be a civic dut", re+uested Vicente Sotto, >s+., )e)ber of the Philippine 3ar, to denounce the )atter to the President of the Philippines. In spite of the protest of the petitionerCs attorne", the respondent publicl" announced havin sent to the Dnited States the desi ns of the posta e sta)ps for printin The )ore i)portant +uestion raised refers to the alle ed violation of the %onstitution b" the respondent in issuin and sellin posta e sta)ps co))e)orative of the Thirt"?third International >ucharistic %on ress. It is alle ed that this action of the respondent is violative of the provisions of section 09, subsection 9, &rticle VI, of the %onstitution of the Philippines, $hich provides as follo$s< No public )one" or propert" shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directl" or indirectl", for the use, benefit, or support of an" sect, church, deno)ination, secretarian, institution, or s"ste) of reli ion, or for the use, benefit, or support of an" priest, preacher, )inister, or other reli ious teacher or di nitar" as such, e!cept $hen such priest, preacher, )inister, or di nitar" is assi ned to the ar)ed forces or to an" penal institution, orphana e, or leprosariu). ISSD> < =ON the sta)p is constitutional H>4D < &ct No. 5('0 conte)plates no reli ious purpose in vie$. =hat it ives the Director of Posts is the discretionar" po$er to deter)ine $hen the issuance of special posta e sta)ps $ould be -advanta eous to the 6overn)ent.- Of course, the phrase -advanta eous to the 6overn)entdoes not authoriBe the violation of the %onstitution. It does not authoriBe the appropriation, use or application of public )one" or propert" for the use, benefit or support of a particular sect or church. In the present case, ho$ever, the issuance of the posta e sta)ps in +uestion b" the Director of Posts and the Secretar" of Public =or#s and %o))unications $as not inspired b" an" sectarian deno)ination. The sta)ps $ere not issue and sold for the benefit of the Ro)an %atholic %hurch. Nor $ere )one" derived fro) the sale of the sta)ps iven to that church

It appears fro) the latter of the Director of Posts of Aune ', ,29:, incorporated on pa e 0 of the petitionerCs co)plaint, that the onl" purpose in issuin and sellin the sta)ps $as -to advertise the Philippines and attract )ore tourist to this countr".- The officials concerned )erel", too# advanta e of an event considered of international i)portance -to ive publicit" to the Philippines and its people =hat is e)phasiBed is not the >ucharistic %on ress itself but Manila, the capital of the Philippines, as the seat of that con ress. It is obvious that $hile the issuance and sale of the sta)ps in +uestion )a" be said to be inseparabl" lin#ed $ith an event of a reli ious character, the resultin propa anda, if an", received b" the Ro)an %atholic %hurch, $as not the ai) and purpose of the 6overn)ent. =e are of the opinion that the 6overn)ent should not be e)barassed in its activities si)pl" because of incidental results, )ore or less reli ious in character, if the purpose had in vie$ is one $hich could le iti)atel" be underta#en b" appropriate le islation. The )ain purpose should not be frustrated b" its subordinate to )ere incidental results not conte)plated 3ut, upon ver" serious reflection, e!a)ination of &ct No. 5('0, and scrutin" of the attendin circu)stances, $e have co)e to the conclusion that there has been no constitutional infraction in the case at bar, &ct No. 5('0 rants the Director of Posts, $ith the approval of the Secretar" of Public =or#s and %o))unications, discretion to )isuse posta e sta)ps $ith ne$ desi ns -as often as )a" be dee)ed advanta eous to the 6overn)ent.- >ven if $e $ere to assu)e that these officials )ade use of a poor 8ud )ent in issuin and sellin the posta e sta)ps in +uestion still, the case of the petitioner $ould fail to ta#e in $ei ht. 3et$een the e!ercise of a poor 8ud )ent and the unconstitutionalit" of the step ta#en, a ap e!ists $hich is "et to be filled to 8ustif" the court in settin aside the official act assailed as co)in $ithin a constitutional inhibition.

6arces Vs >stenBo

This case is about the constitutionalit" of four resolutions of the baran a" council of Valencia, Or)oc %it", re ardin the ac+uisition of the $ooden i)a e of San Vicente *errer to be used in the celebration of his annual feast da". On March 09, ,21:, the said baran a" council adopted Resolution No. ', -revivin the traditional socio?reli ious celebration- ever" fifth da" of &pril -of the feast da" of SeGor San Vicente *errer, the patron saint of Valencia That resolution desi nated the )e)bers of nine co))ittees $ho $ould ta#e char e of the ,21: festivit". lt provided for .,/ the ac+uisition of the i)a e of San Vicente *errer and .0/ the construction of a $aitin shed as the baran a"Cs pro8ects. *unds for the t$o pro8ects $ould be obtained throu h the sellin of tic#ets and cash donations On March 0:, ,21:, the baran a" council passed Resolution No. : $hich specified that, in accordance $ith the practice in >astern 4e"te, %ouncil)an To)as %abatin an, the %hair)an or her)ano )a"or of the fiesta, $ould be the careta#er of the i)a e of San Vicente *errer and that the i)a e $ould re)ain in his residence for one "ear and until the election of his successor as chair)an of the ne!t feast da" *unds $ere raised b" )eans of solicitations( and cash donations of the baran a" residents and those of the nei hborin places of Valencia. =ith those funds, the $aitin shed $as constructed and the $ooden i)a e of San Vicente *errer $as ac+uired in %ebu %it" b" the baran a" council for four hundred pesos & controvers" arose after the )ass $hen the parish priest, *ather Ser io Marilao Os)eGa refused to return that i)a e to the baran a" council on the prete!t that it $as the propert" of the church because church funds $ere used for its ac+uisition. 3ecause *ather Os)eGa did not accede to the re+uest of %abatin an to have custod" of the i)a e and -)aliciousl" i nored- the councilCs Resolution No. :, the council enacted on Ma" ,0, ,21: Resolution No. ,(, authoriBin the hirin of a la$"er to file a replevin case a ainst *ather Os)eGa for the recover" of the i)a e .>!h. % or E/. On Aune ,5, ,21:, the baran a" council passed Resolution No. ,0, appointin Veloso as its representative in the replevin case .>!h. D or 2/.

4ater, he and three other persons, &ndres 6arces, a )e)ber of the & lipa"an %hurch, and t$o %atholic la")en, Aesus >dullantes and Nicetas Da ar, filed a ainst the baran a" council and its )e)bers .e!cludin t$o )e)bers/ a co)plaint in the %ourt of *irst Instance at Or)oc %it", pra"in for the annul)ent of the said resolutions. The lo$er court dis)issed the co)plaint. lt upheld the validit" of the resolutions ISSD>< =ON The 3aran a" %ouncil has the ri ht over the custod" of the Relic H>4D < The +uestioned resolutions do not directl" or indirectl" establish an" reli ion, nor abrid e reli ious libert", nor appropriate public )one" or propert" for the benefit of an" sect, priest or cler ")an. The i)a e $as purchased $ith private funds, not $ith ta! )one". The construction of a $aitin shed is entirel" a secular )atter The $ooden i)a e $as purchased in connection $ith the celebration of the barrio fiesta honorin the patron saint, San Vicente *errer, and not for the purpose of favorin an" reli ion nor interferin $ith reli ious )atters or the reli ious beliefs of the barrio residents. One of the hi hli hts of the fiesta $as the )ass. %onse+uentl", the i)a e of the patron saint had to be placed in the church $hen the )ass $as celebrated If there is nothin unconstitutional or ille al in holdin a fiesta and havin a patron saint for the barrio, then an" activit" intended to facilitate the $orship of the patron saint .such as the ac+uisition and displa" of his i)a e/ cannot be branded as ille al. The baran a" council desi nated a la")an as the custodian of the $ooden i)a e in order to forestall an" suspicion that it is favorin the %atholic church. There can be no +uestion that the i)a e in +uestion belon s to the baran a" council. The council has the ri ht to ta#e )easures to recover possession of the i)a e b" enactin Resolutions Nos. ,( and ,0. Not ever" overn)ental activit" $hich involves the e!penditure of public funds and $hich has so)e reli ious tint is violative of the constitutional provisions re ardin separation of church and state, freedo) of $orship and bannin the use of public )one" or propert" &)erican bible Societ" Vs %it" of Manila

*&%TS < plaintiffCs Philippine a enc" has been distributin and sellin bibles and7or ospel portions thereof .e!cept durin the Aapanese occupation/ throu hout the Philippines and translatin the sa)e into several Philippine dialects. On Ma" 02 ,2'9, the actin %it" Treasurer of the %it" of Manila infor)ed plaintiff that it $as conductin the business of eneral )erchandise since Nove)ber, ,25', $ithout providin itself $ith the necessar" Ma"orCs per)it and )unicipal license, in violation of Ordinance No. 9(((, as a)ended, and Ordinances Nos. 0'02, 9(0E and 99:5, and re+uired plaintiff to secure, $ithin three da"s, the correspondin per)it and license fees, to ether $ith co)pro)ise coverin the period fro) the 5th +uarter of ,25' to the 0nd +uarter of ,2'9, in the total su) of P',E0,.5' ISSD> < =ON the provisions of said ordinances are applicable or not to the case at bar. H>4D < Dnder Sec. 01.e/ of %o))on$ealth &ct No. 5:: or the National Internal Revenue %ode, %orporations or associations or aniBed and operated e!clusivel" for reli ious, charitable, . . . or educational purposes, . . .< Provided, ho$ever, That the inco)e of $hatever #ind and character fro) an" of its properties, real or personal, or fro) an" activit" conducted for profit, re ardless of the disposition )ade of such inco)e, shall be liable to the ta! i)posed under this %ode shall not be ta!ed The price as#ed for the bibles and other reli ious pa)phlets $as in so)e instances a little bit hi her than the actual cost of the sa)e but this cannot )ean that &)erican 3ible Societ" $as en a ed in the business or occupation of sellin said -)erchandise- for profit Therefore, the Ordinance cannot be applied for in doin so it $ould i)pair &)erican 3ible Societ"Hs free e!ercise and en8o")ent of its reli ious profession and $orship as $ell as its ri hts of disse)ination of reli ious beliefs

6erona Vs Secretar" of >ducation *acts < Petitioners belon to the AehovaHs =itness $hose children $ere e!pelled fro) their schools $hen the" refused to salute, sin the anthe),

recite the pled e durin the conduct of fla cere)on". DO No. E issued b" D>%S pursuant to R& ,0:' $hich called for the )anner of conduct durin a fla cere)on". The petitioners $rote the Secretar" of >ducation on their pli ht and re+uested to reinstate their children. This $as denied. &s a result, the petitioners filed for a $rit of preli)inar" in8unction a ainst the Secretar" and Director of Public Schools to restrain the) fro) i)ple)entin said DO No. E. The lo$er court .RT%/ declared DO E invalid and contrar" to the 3ill of Ri hts ISSD> < =ON DO .E is constitutional H>4D < The court held that the fla is not an i)a e but a s")bol of the Republic of the Philippines, an e)ble) of national soverei nt", of national unit" and cohesion and of freedo) and libert" $hich it and the %onstitution uarantee and protect. %onsiderin the co)plete separation of church and state in our s"ste) of overn)ent, the fla is utterl" devoid of an" reli ious si nificance. Salutin the fla conse+uentl" does not involve an" reli ious cere)on". &fter all, the deter)ination of $hether a certain ritual is or is not a reli ious cere)on" )ust rest $ith the courts. It cannot be left to a reli ious roup or sect, )uch less to a follo$er of said roup or sect; other$ise, there $ould be confusion and )isunderstandin for there )i ht be as )an" interpretations and )eanin s to be iven to a certain ritual or cere)on" as there are reli ious roups or sects or follo$ers. The freedo) of reli ious belief uaranteed b" the %onstitution does not and cannot )ean e!e)ption for) or non?co)pliance $ith reasonable and non? discri)inator" la$s, rules and re ulations pro)ul ated b" co)petent authorit". In enforcin the fla salute on the petitioners, there $as absolutel" no co)pulsion involved, and for their failure or refusal to obe" school re ulations about the fla salute the" $ere not bein persecuted. Neither $ere the" bein cri)inall" prosecuted under threat of penal sacntion. If the" chose not to obe" the fla salute re ulation, the" )erel" lost the benefits of public education bein )aintained at the e!pense of their fello$ citiBens, nothin )ore. &ccordin to a popular e!pression, the" could ta#e it or leave it. Havin elected not to co)pl" $ith the re ulations about the fla salute, the" forfeited their ri ht to attend public schools

The *ilipino fla is not an i)a e that re+uires reli ious veneration; rather it is s")bol of the Republic of the Philippines, of soverei nt", an e)ble) of freedo), libert" and national unit"; that the fla salute is not a reli ious cere)on" but an act and profession of love and alle iance and pled e of lo"alt" to the fatherland $hich the fla stands for; that b" authorit" of the le islature, the Secretar" of >ducation $as dul" authoriBed to pro)ul ate Depart)ent Order No. E, series of ,2''; that the re+uire)ent of observance of the fla cere)on" or salute provided for in said Depart)ent Order No. E, does not violate the %onstitutional provision about freedo) of reli ion and e!ercise of reli ion; that co)pliance $ith the non?discri)inator" and reasonable rules and re ulations and school discipline, includin observance of the fla cere)on" is a prere+uisite to attendance in public schools; and that for failure and refusal to participate in the fla cere)on", petitioners $ere properl" e!cluded and dis)issed fro) the public school the" $ere attendin

>bralina Vs. Div. Superintendent *&%TS < In 6.R. No. 2'11( -Roel >bralina , et al. vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of %ebu and Manuel *. 3ion co , %ebu District Supervisor,- the petitioners are 59 hi h school and ele)entar" school students in the to$ns of Daan 3anta"an, Pina)un a8an, %arcar, and

Taburan %ebu province. &ll )inors, the" are assisted b" their parents $ho belon to the reli ious roup #no$n as AehovahCs =itnesses $hich clai)s so)e ,((,((( -baptiBed publishers- in the Philippines. In 6.R. No. 2'EE1, -Ma" &)olo, et al. vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of %ebu and &ntonio &. San utan,- the petitioners are 0' hi h school and rade school students enrolled in public schools in &sturias, %ebu, $hose parents are AehovahCs =itnesses. 3oth petitions $ere prepared b" the sa)e counsel, &ttorne" *elino M. 6anal. &ll the petitioners in these t$o cases $ere e!pelled fro) their classes b" the public school authorities in %ebu for refusin to salute the fla , sin the national anthe) and recite the patriotic pled e as re+uired b" Republic &ct No. ,0:' of Aul" ,,, ,2'', and b" Depart)ent Order No. E dated Aul" 0,, ,2'' of the Depart)ent of >ducation, %ulture and Sports .D>%S/ )a#in the fla cere)on" co)pulsor" in all educational institutions ISSD> < =ON the e!pulsion is ille al H>4D < Reli ious freedo) is a funda)ental ri ht $hich is entitled to the hi hest priorit" and the a)plest protection a)on hu)an ri hts, for it involves the relationship of )an to his %reator Petitioners stress, ho$ever, that $hile the" do not ta#e part in the co)pulsor" fla cere)on", the" do not en a e in -e!ternal acts- or behavior that $ould offend their countr")en $ho believe in e!pressin their love of countr" throu h the observance of the fla cere)on". The" +uietl" stand at attention durin the fla cere)on" to sho$ their respect for the ri ht of those $ho choose to participate in the sole)n proceedin s. Since the" do not en a e in disruptive behavior, there is no $arrant for their e!pulsion =e are not persuaded that b" e!e)ptin the AehovahCs =itnesses fro) salutin the fla , sin in the national anthe) and recitin the patriotic pled e, this reli ious roup $hich ad)ittedl" co)prises a -s)all portion of the school population- $ill sha#e up our part of the lobe and suddenl" produce a nation -untau ht and uninculcated in and uni)bued $ith reverence for the fla , patriotis), love of countr" and ad)iration for national heroes>!pellin or bannin the petitioners fro) Philippine schools $ill brin about the ver" situation that this %ourt had feared in 6erona. *orcin a s)all

reli ious roup, throu h the iron hand of the la$, to participate in a cere)on" that violates their reli ious beliefs, $ill hardl" be conducive to love of countr" or respect for dull" constituted authorities If the" +uietl" stand at attention durin the fla cere)on" $hile their class)ates and teachers salute the fla , sin the national anthe) and recite the patriotic pled e, $e do not see ho$ such conduct )a" possibl" disturb the peace, or pose -a rave and present dan er of a serious evil to public safet", public )orals, public health or an" other le iti)ate public interest that the State has a ri ht .and dut"/ to prevent

%enteno Vs VIllalon *&%TS < In the last +uarter of ,2E', the officers of a civic or aniBation #no$n as the Sa)ahan Iatandaan n Na"on n Ti#a" launched a fund drive for the purpose of renovatin the chapel of 3arrio Ti#a", Malolos, 3ulacan. Petitioner Martin %enteno, the chair)an of the roup, to ether $ith Vicente @co, approached Aud e &doracion 6. &n eles, a resident of Ti#a", and solicited fro) her a contribution of P,,'((.((. It is ad)itted that the

solicitation $as )ade $ithout a per)it fro) the Depart)ent of Social =elfare and Develop)ent &s a conse+uence, based on the co)plaint of Aud e &n eles, an infor)ation $as filed a ainst petitioner Martin %enteno, to ether $ith Reli io >varisto and Vicente @co, for violation of Presidential Decree No. ,':5, or the Solicitation Per)it 4a$, before the Municipal Trial %ourt of Malolos, 3ulacan, 3ranch and doc#eted as %ri)inal %ase No. 0:(0 On Dece)ber 02, ,220, the said trial court rendered 8ud )ent findin accused Vicente @co and petitioner %enteno uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt and sentencin the) to each pa" a fine of P0((.(( ISSD> < =ON charitable purposes can be construed in its broadest sense so as to include a reli ious purpose H>4D < Indeed, it is an ele)entar" rule of statutor" construction that the e!press )ention of one person, thin , act, or conse+uence e!cludes all others. This rule is e!pressed in the fa)iliar )a!i) -e!pressio unius est e!clusio alterius.- =here a statute, b" its ter)s, is e!pressl" li)ited to certain )atters, it )a" not, b" interpretation or construction, be e!tended to others. The rule proceeds fro) the pre)ise that the le islature $ould not have )ade specified enu)erations in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its )eanin and to confine its ter)s to those e!pressl" )entioned &ll contributions desi ned to pro)ote the $or# of the church are -charitablein nature, since reli ious activities depend for their support on voluntar" contributions. Ho$ever, -reli ious purpose- is not interchan eable $ith the e!pression -charitable purpose &ccordin l", the ter) -charitable- should be strictl" construed so as to e!clude solicitations for -reli ious- purposes. Thereb", $e adhere to the funda)ental doctrine underl"in virtuall" all penal le islations that such interpretation should be adopted as $ould favor the accused It does not follo$, therefore fro) the constitutional uaranties of the free e!ercise of reli ion that ever"thin $hich )a" be so called can be tolerated. It has been said that a la$ advancin a le iti)ate overn)ental interest is not necessaril" invalid as one interferin $ith the -free e!ercise- of reli ion )erel" because it also incidentall" has a detri)ental effect on the adherents of one or )ore reli ion. Thus, the eneral re ulation, in the public interest, of

solicitation, $hich does not involve an" reli ious test and does not unreasonabl" obstruct or dela" the collection of funds, is not open to an" constitutional ob8ection, even thou h the collection be for a reli ious purpose. Such re ulation $ould not constitute a prohibited previous restraint on the free e!ercise of reli ion or interpose an inad)issible obstacle to its e!ercise

6er)an vs 3aran an *&%TS < &t about '<(( in the afternoon of October 0, ,2E5, petitioners, co)posed of about '( business)en, students and office e)plo"ees conver ed at A.P. 4aurel Street, Manila, for the ostensible purpose of hearin Mass at the St. Aude %hapel $hich ad8oins the MalacaGan rounds located in the sa)e street. =earin the no$ fa)iliar inscribed "ello$ T?shirts, the" started to )arch do$n said street $ith raised clenched fists , and shouts of anti? overn)ent invectives. &lon the $a", ho$ever, the" $ere barred b" respondent Ma8or lsabelo 4ariosa, upon orders of his superior and co?

respondent 6en. Santia o 3aran an, fro) proceedin an" further, on the round that St. Aude %hapel $as located $ithin the MalacaGan securit" area. =hen petitionersC protestations and pleas to allo$ the) to et inside the church proved unavailin , the" decided to leave. Ho$ever, because of the alle ed $arnin iven the) b" respondent Ma8or 4ariosa that an" si)ilar atte)pt b" petitioners to enter the church in the future $ould li#e$ise be prevented, petitioners too# this present recourse ISSD> < =ON disallo$in petitioners to $orship and pra" at St. 4u#e is a violation of their freedo) to $orship and loco)otion H>4D < Said restriction is )oreover intended to secure the several e!ecutive offices $ithin the MalacaGan rounds fro) possible e!ternal attac#s and disturbances. These offices include co))unications facilities that lin# the central overn)ent to all places in the land. Dn+uestionabl", the restriction i)posed is necessar" to )aintain the s)ooth functionin of the e!ecutive branch of the overn)ent, $hich petitionersC )ass action $ould certainl" disrupt Petitioners are not denied or restrained of their freedo) of belief or choice of their reli ion, but onl" in the )anner b" $hich the" had atte)pted to translate the sa)e into action Suffice it to sa" that the restriction i)posed on the use of A.P. 4aurel Street, the $isdo) and reasonableness of $hich have alread" been discussed, is allo$ed under the funda)ental la$, the sa)e havin been established in the interest of national securit" bet$een the freedo) of belief and the e!ercise of said belief, there is +uite a stretch of road to travel. If the e!ercise of said reli ious belief clashes $ith the established institutions of societ" and $ith the la$, then the for)er )ust "ield and ive $a" to the latter

Pa)il Vs Teleron *&%TS < The novel +uestion raised in this certiorari proceedin concerns the eli ibilit" of an ecclesiastic to an elective )unicipal position. Private respondent, *ather Mar arito R. 6onBa a, $as, in ,21,, elected to the position of )unicipal )a"or of &lbur+uer+ue, 3ohol. , Therefore, he $as dul" proclai)ed. & suit for +uo $arranto $as then filed b" petitioner, hi)self an aspirant for the office, for his dis+ualification 0 based on this &d)inistrative %ode provision< -In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a )unicipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service, persons receivin salaries or co)pensation fro) provincial or national funds, or contractors for

public $or#s of the )unicipalit".- 9 The suit did not prosper, respondent Aud e sustainin the ri ht of *ather 6onBa a to the office of )unicipal )a"or. He ruled that such statutor" ineli ibilit" $as i)pliedl" repealed b" the >lection %ode of ,21,. The )atter $as then elevated to this Tribunal b" petitioner. It is his contention that there $as no such i)plied repeal, that it is still in full force and effect. Thus $as the specific +uestion raised. ISSD> =ON ecclesiastic are barred fro) office H>4D < Here bein an ecclesiastic and therefore professin a reli ious faith suffices to dis+ualif" for a public office. There is thus an inco)patibilit" bet$een the &d)inistrative %ode provision relied upon b" petitioner and an e!press constitutional )andate. It is not a valid ar u)ent a ainst this conclusion to assert that under the Philippine &utono)" &ct of ,2,:, there $as such a prohibition a ainst a reli ious test, and "et such a ban on holdin a )unicipal position had not been nullified. It suffices to ans$er that no +uestion $as raised as to its validit" It $ould be an un8ustified departure fro) a settled principle of the applicable construction of the provision on $hat la$s re)ain operative after ,29' if the plea of petitioner in this case $ere to be heeded. The challen ed &d)inistrative %ode provision, certainl" insofar as it declares ineli ible ecclesiastics to an" elective or appointive office, is, on its face, inconsistent $ith the reli ious freedo) uaranteed b" the %onstitution. To so e!clude the) is to i)pose a reli ious test

Taruc Vs De 4a %ruB *&%TS < he antecedents sho$ that petitioners $ere la" )e)bers of the Philippine Independent %hurch .PI%/ in Socorro, Suri ao del Norte. Respondents Porfirio de la %ruB and Rusto) *lorano $ere the bishop and parish priest, respectivel", of the sa)e church in that localit". Petitioners, led b" Do)inador Taruc, cla)ored for the transfer of *r. *lorano to another parish but 3ishop de la %ruB denied their re+uest. It appears fro) the records that the fa)il" of *r. *loranoHs $ife belon ed to a political part" opposed to petitioner TarucHs, thus the ani)osit" bet$een the t$o factions $ith *r. *lorano bein identified $ith his $ifeHs political ca)p. 3ishop de la %ruB, ho$ever, found this too fli)s" a reason for transferrin *r. *lorano to another parish

Taruc tried to or aniBe an open )ass to be celebrated b" a certain *r. Renato J. &)bon durin the to$n fiesta of Socorro. =hen Taruc infor)ed 3ishop de la %ruB of his plan, the 3ishop tried to dissuade hi) fro) pushin throu h $ith it because *r. &)bon $as not a )e)ber of the cler " of the diocese of Suri ao and his credentials as a parish priest $ere in doubt On Aune 0E, ,229, 3ishop de la %ruB declared petitioners e!pelled7e!co))unicated fro) the Philippine Independent %hurch 3ecause of the order of e!pulsion7e!co))unication, petitioners filed a co)plaint for da)a es $ith preli)inar" in8unction a ainst 3ishop de la %ruB before the Re ional Trial %ourt of Suri ao %it", 3ranch 90. The" i)pleaded *r. *lorano and one Delfin T. 3ordas on the theor" that the" conspired $ith the 3ishop to have petitioners e!pelled and e!co))unicated fro) the PI%. The" contended that their e!pulsion $as ille al because it $as done $ithout trial thus violatin their ri ht to due process of la$ ISSD> < =ON the court has 8urisdiction H>4D < The S% hold the %hurch and the State to be separate and distinct fro) each other. -6ive to %easar $hat is %easarHs and to 6od $hat is 6odHs.upon the e!a)ination of the decisions it $ill be readil" apparent that cases involvin +uestions relative to ecclesiastical ri hts have al$a"s received the profoundest attention fro) the courts, not onl" because of their inherent interest, but because of the far reachin effects of the decisions in hu)an societ". KHo$ever,L courts have learned the lesson of conservatis) in dealin $ith such )atters, it havin been found that, in a for) of overn)ent $here the co)plete separation of civil and ecclesiastical authorit" is insisted upon, the civil courts )ust not allo$ the)selves to intrude undul" in )atters of an ecclesiastical nature The S% a ree $ith the %ourt of &ppeals that the e!pulsion7e!co))unication of )e)bers of a reli ious institution7or aniBation is a )atter best left to the discretion of the officials, and the la$s and canons, of said institution7or aniBation The a)end)ents of the constitution, restate)ent of articles of reli ion and abandon)ent of faith or ab8uration alle ed b" appellant, havin to do $ith faith, practice, doctrine, for) of $orship, ecclesiastical la$, custo) and rule

of a church and havin reference to the po$er of e!cludin fro) the church those alle edl" un$orth" of )e)bership, are un+uestionabl" ecclesiastical )atters $hich are outside the province of the civil courts

>strada Vs >scritor *&%TS < %o)plainant &le8andro >strada $rote to Aud e Aose *. %aoibes, Ar., re+uestin for an investi ation of ru)ors that respondent Soledad >scritor, court interpreter, is livin $ith a )an not her husband. The" alle edl" have a child of ei hteen to t$ent" "ears old. >strada is not personall" related either to >scritor or her partner. Nevertheless, he filed the char e a ainst >scritor as he believes that she is co))ittin an i))oral act that tarnishes the i)a e of the court, thus she should not be allo$ed to re)ain e)plo"ed therein as it )i ht appear that the court condones her act. Respondent >scritor testified that $hen she entered the 8udiciar" in ,222, she $as alread" a $ido$, her husband havin died in ,22E. She ad)itted that she has been livin $ith 4uciano Muilapio, Ar. $ithout the benefit of )arria e for t$ent" "ears and that the" have a son. 3ut as a )e)ber of the reli ious sect #no$n as the AehovahCs =itnesses and the =atch To$er and 3ible Tract Societ", their con8u al arran e)ent is in confor)it" $ith their

reli ious beliefs. In fact, after ten "ears of livin to ether, she e!ecuted on Aul" 0E, ,22, a -Declaration of Pled in *aithfulness,- insofar as the con re ation is concerned, there is nothin i))oral about the con8u al arran e)ent bet$een >scritor and Muilapio and the" re)ain )e)bers in ood standin in the con re ation. ISSD> < =hether or not respondent should be found ad)inistrative char e of - ross and i))oral conduct.uilt" of the

The -co)pellin state interest- test is proper $here conduct is involved for the $hole a)ut of hu)an conduct has different effects on the stateHs interests< so)e effects )a" be i))ediate and short?ter) $hile others dela"ed and far?reachin . & test that $ould protect the interests of the state in preventin a substantive evil, $hether i))ediate or dela"ed, is therefore necessar" In appl"in the test, the first in+uir" is $hether respondentHs ri ht to reli ious freedo) has been burdened. There is no doubt that choosin bet$een #eepin her e)plo")ent and abandonin her reli ious belief and practice and fa)il" on the one hand, and ivin up her e)plo")ent and #eepin her reli ious practice and fa)il" on the other hand, puts a burden on her free e!ercise of reli ion The second step is to ascertain respondentHs sincerit" in her reli ious belief. Respondent appears to be sincere in her reli ious belief and practice and is not )erel" usin the -Declaration of Pled in *aithfulness- to avoid punish)ent for i))oralit". She did not secure the Declaration onl" after enterin the 8udiciar" $here the )oral standards are strict and defined, )uch less onl" after an ad)inistrative case for i))oralit" $as filed a ainst herIndeed, it is inappropriate for the co)plainant, a private person, to present evidence on the co)pellin interest of the state. The burden of evidence should be dischar ed b" the proper a enc" of the overn)ent $hich is the Office of the Solicitor 6eneral. To properl" settle the issue in the case at bar, the overn)ent should be iven the opportunit" to de)onstrate the co)pellin state interest it see#s to uphold in opposin the respondentHs stance that her con8u al arran e)ent is not i))oral and punishable as it co)es $ithin the scope of free e!ercise protection.

H>4D < The t$o strea)s of 8urisprudence ? separationist or acco))odationist ? are anchored on a different readin of the -$all of separation.Separationist ? This approach erects an absolute barrier to for)al interdependence of reli ion and state. Reli ious institutions could not receive aid, $hether direct or indirect, fro) the state. Nor could the state ad8ust its secular pro ra)s to alleviate burdens the pro ra)s placed on believers. the strict neutralit" or separationist vie$ is lar el" used b" the %ourt, sho$in the %ourtHs tendenc" to press relentlessl" to$ards a )ore secular societ" &cco))odationist ? 3enevolent neutralit" thus reco niBes that reli ion pla"s an i)portant role in the public life of the Dnited States as sho$n b" )an" traditional overn)ent practices $hich &n acco))odationist holds that it is ood public polic", and so)eti)es constitutionall" re+uired, for the state to )a#e conscious and deliberate efforts to avoid interference $ith reli ious freedo). On the other hand, the strict neutralit" adherent believes that it is ood public polic", and also constitutionall" re+uired, for the overn)ent to avoid reli ion?specific polic" even at the cost of inhibitin reli ious e!ercise F*+,-, the acco))odationist interpretation is )ost consistent $ith the lan ua e of the *irst &)end)ent. Se.on$, the acco))odationist position best achieves the purposes of the *irst &)end)ent. T/*+$, the acco))odationist interpretation is particularl" necessar" to protect adherents of )inorit" reli ions fro) the inevitable effects of )a8oritarianis), $hich include i norance and indifference and overt hostilit" to the )inorit" Fou+-/, the acco))odationist position is practical as it is a co))onsensical $a" to deal $ith the various needs and beliefs of different faiths in a pluralistic nation.

*acts < %aunca Vs SalaBar

*acts< This is an action for habeas corpus brou ht b" 3artolo)e %aunca in behalf of his cousin >stelita *lores $ho $as e)plo"ed b" the *ar >astern >)plo")ent 3ureau, o$ned b" Aulia SalaBar, respondent herein. &n advanced pa")ent has alread" been iven to >stelita b" the e)plo")ent a enc", for her to $or# as a )aid. Ho$ever, >stelita $anted to transfer to another residence, $hich $as disallo$ed b" the e)plo")ent a enc". *urther she $as detained and her libert" $as restrained. The e)plo")ent a enc" $anted that the advance pa")ent, $hich $as applied to her transportation e!pense fro) the province should be paid b" >stelita before she could be allo$ed to leave.

Issue< =hether or Not an e)plo")ent a enc" has the ri ht to restrain and detain a )aid $ithout returnin the advance pa")ent it aveN

Held< &n e)plo")ent a enc", re ardless of the a)ount it )a" advance to a prospective e)plo"ee or )aid, has absolutel" no po$er to curtail her freedo) of )ove)ent. The fact that no ph"sical force has been e!erted to #eep her in the house of the respondent does not )a#e less real the deprivation of her personal freedo) of )ove)ent, freedo) to transfer fro) one place to another, freedo) to choose oneHs residence. *reedo) )a" be lost due to e!ternal )oral co)pulsion, to founded or roundless fear, to erroneous belief in the e!istence of an i)a inar" po$er of an i)postor to cause har) if not blindl" obe"ed, to an" other ps"cholo ical ele)ent that )a" curtail the )ental facult" of choice or the unha)pered e!ercise of the $ill. If the actual effect of such ps"cholo ical spell is to place a person at the )erc" of another, the victi) is entitled to the protection of courts of 8ustice as )uch as the individual $ho is ille all" deprived of libert" b" duress or ph"sical coercion.

Rubi Vs Prob 3rd of Mindoro. *&%TS < *ebruar" ,, ,2,1, the provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 0'. That said resolution No. 0' .series ,2,1/ of the provincial board of Mindoro $as approved b" the Secretar" of the Interior of *ebruar" 0,, ,2,1. Dece)ber 5, ,2,1, the provincial overnor of Mindoro issued e!ecutive order No. 0. Rubi and those livin in his rancheria have not fi!ed their d$ellin $ithin the reservation of Ti bao and are liable to be punished in accordance $ith section 01'2 of &ct No. 01,,. That Rubi and those livin in his rancheria have not fi!ed their d$ellin $ithin the reservation of Ti bao and are liable to be punished in accordance $ith section 01'2 of &ct No. 01,,. That the undersi ned has not infor)ation that Doroteo Dabalos is bein detained b" the sheriff of Mindoro but if he is so detained it )ust be b" virtue of the provisions of articles Nos. 0,5' and 01'2 of &ct No. 01,,. It thus appears that the provincial overnor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the Man uianes in +uestion to ta#e up their habitation in Ti bao, a site on the shore of 4a#e Nau8an, selected b" the provincial

overnor and approved b" the provincial board. The action $as ta#en in accordance $ith section 0,5' of the &d)inistrative %ode of ,2,1, and $as dul" approved b" the Secretar" of the Interior as re+uired b" said action. Petitioners, ho$ever, challen e the validit" of this section of the &d)inistrative %ode. This, therefore, beco)es the para)ount +uestion $hich the court is called upon the decide. ISSD> < =ON =hether or not the said la$ is constitutional H>4D < 3" a vote of five to four, the Supre)e %ourt sustained the constitutionalit" of this section of the &d)inistrative %ode. &)on other thin s, it $as held that the ter) Onon?%hristianP should not be iven a literal )eanin or a reli ious si nification, but that it $as intended to relate to de rees of civiliBation. The ter) Onon?%hristianP it $as said, refers not to reli ious belief, but in a $a" to eo raphical area, and )ore directl" to natives of the Philippine Islands of a lo$ rade of civiliBation. On the other hand, none of the provisions of the Philippine Or anic 4a$ could have had the effect of den"in to the 6overn)ent of the Philippine Islands, actin throu h its 4e islature, the ri ht to e!ercise that )ost essential, insistent, and illi)itable of po$ers, the soverei n police po$er, in the pro)otion of the eneral $elfare and the public interest. $hen to advance the public $elfare, the la$ $as found to be a le iti)ate e!ertion of the police po$er, &nd it is unnecessar" to add that the pro)pt re istration of titles to land in the Philippines constitutes an advance)ent of the public interests, for, besides pro)otin peace and ood order a)on lando$ners in particular and the people in eneral, it helps increase the industries of the countr", and )a#es for the develop)ent of the natural resources, $ith the conse+uent pro ress of the eneral prosperit". &nd these ends are pursued in a special )anner b" the State throu h the e!ercise of its police po$er. The Supre)e %ourt held that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro $as neither discri)inator" nor class le islation, and stated a)on other thin s< O. . . one cannot hold that the libert" of the citiBen is undul" interfered $ith $hen the de ree of civiliBation of the Man uianes is considered. The" are restrained for their o$n ood and the eneral ood of the Philippines. Nor can one sa" that due process of la$ has not been follo$ed. To o bac# to our definition of due process of la$ and e+ual protection of the la$s, there e!ists a la$; the la$ see)s to be reasonable; it is enforced accordin to the re ular )ethods of procedure prescribed; and it applies ali#e to all of a class.P

Villacicencio Vs 4u#ban

*acts < One hundred and sevent" $o)en $ere isolated fro) societ", and then at ni ht, $ithout their consent and $ithout an" opportunit" to consult $ith friends or to defend their ri hts, $ere forcibl" hustled on board stea)ers for transportation to re ions un#no$n. Despite the feeble atte)pt to prove that the $o)en left voluntaril" and ladl", that such $as not the case is sho$n b" the )ere fact that the presence of the police and the constabular" $as dee)ed necessar" and that these officers of the la$ chose the shades of ni ht to cloa# their secret and stealth" acts. Indeed, this is a fact i)possible to refute and practicall" ad)itted b" the respondents. ISSD> < =ON Ma"or 4u#ban has the ri ht to deport $o)en $ith ill repute. H>4D < 4a$ defines po$er. No official, no )atter ho$ hi h, is above the la$. 4u#ban co))itted a rave abuse of discretion b" deportin the prostitutes to a ne$ do)icile a ainst their $ill. There is no la$ e!pressl" authoriBin his action. On the contrar", there is a la$ punishin public officials, not e!pressl" authoriBed b" la$ or re ulation, $ho co)pels an" person to chan e his residence

*urther)ore, the prostitutes are still, as citiBens of the Philippines, entitled to the sa)e ri hts, as stipulated in the 3ill of Ri hts, as ever" other citiBen. Thei rchoice of profession should not be a cause for discri)ination. It )a" )a#e so)e, li#e 4u#ban, +uite unco)fortable but it does not authoriBe an"one to co)pel said prostitutes to isolate the)selves fro) the rest of the hu)an race. These $o)en have been deprived of their libert" b" bein e!iled to Davao $ithout even bein iven the opportunit" to collect their belon in s or, $orse, $ithout even consentin to bein transported to Mindanao. *or this, 4u#ban etal )ust be severel" punished

Manotoc Vs %a *&%TS < There $as a torrens title sub)itted to and accepted b" Manotoc Securities Inc $hich $as suspected to be fa#e. : of its clients filed separate cri)inal co)plaints a ainst the petitioner and 4everiBa, President and VP respectivel". He $as char ed $ith estafa and $as allo$ed b" the %ourt to post bail. Petitioner filed before each trial court )otion for per)ission to leave the countr" statin his desire to o to DS relative to his business transactions and opportunities. Such $as opposed b" the prosecution and $as also denied b" the 8ud es. He filed petition for certiorari $ith %& see#in to annul the prior orders and the S>% co))unication re+uest den"in his leave to travel abroad. &ccordin to the petitioner, havin been ad)itted to bail as a )atter of ri ht, neither the courts that ranted hi) bail nor S>%, $hich has no 8urisdiction over his libert", could prevent hi) fro) e!ercisin his constitutional ri ht to travel ISSD> < =ON the %ourt &cted $ith rave abuse of discretion H>4D < & court has the po$er to prohibit a person ad)itted to bail fro) leavin the Philippines. This is a necessar" conse+uence of the nature and

function of a bail bond. Rule ,,5, Section , of the Rules of %ourt defines bail as the securit" re+uired and iven for the release of a person $ho is in the custod" of the la$, that he $ill appear before an" court in $hich his appearance )a" be re+uired as stipulated in the bail bond or reco niBance The condition i)posed upon petitioner to )a#e hi)self available at all ti)es $henever the court re+uires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his ri ht to travel If the accused $ere allo$ed to leave the Philippines $ithout sufficient reason, he )a" be placed be"ond the reach of the courts &s petitioner has failed to satisf" the trial courts and the appellate court of the ur enc" of his travel, the duration thereof, as $ell as the consent of his suret" to the proposed travel, =e find no abuse of 8udicial discretion in their havin denied petitionerCs )otion for per)ission to leave the countr", in )uch the sa)e $a", albeit $ith contrar" results, that =e found no reversible error to have been co))itted b" the appellate court in allo$in Shepherd to leave the countr" after it had satisfied itself that she $ould co)pl" $ith the conditions of her bail bond.

SIlverio Vs %a. *&%TS < On ,5 October ,2E', Petitioner $as char ed $ith violation of Section 0( .5/ of the Revised Securities &ct in %ri)inal %ase No. %3D?:9(5 of the Re ional Trial %ourt of %ebu. In due ti)e, he posted bail for his provisional libert". On 0: Aanuar" ,2EE, or )ore than t$o .0/ "ears after the filin of the Infor)ation, respondent People of the Philippines filed an Dr ent e! parte Motion to cancel the passport of and to issue a hold?departure Order a ainst accused?petitioner on the round that he had one abroad several ti)es $ithout the necessar" %ourt approval resultin in postpone)ents of the arrai n)ent and scheduled hearin s The Re ional Trial %ourt, on 5 &pril ,2EE, issued an Order directin the Depart)ent of *orei n &ffairs to cancel PetitionerCs passport or to den" his application therefor, and the %o))ission on I))i ration to prevent Petitioner fro) leavin the countr". This order $as based pri)aril" on the Trial %ourtCs findin that since the filin of the Infor)ation on ,5 October ,2E', -the accused has not "et been arrai ned because he has never appeared in %ourt on the dates scheduled for his arrai n)ent and there is evidence to sho$ that accused Ricardo %. Silverio, Sr. has left the countr" and has one abroad $ithout the #no$led e and per)ission of this %ourt.Rollo, p. 5'/. PetitionerCs Motion for Reconsideration $as denied on 0E Aul" ,2EE.

ISSD> < =ON Silverios %onstitutional Ri ht has been violated H>4D < &rticle III, Section : of the ,2E1 %onstitution should be interpreted to )ean that $hile the libert" of travel )a" be i)paired even $ithout %ourt Order, the appropriate e!ecutive officers or ad)inistrative authorities are not ar)ed $ith arbitrar" discretion to i)pose li)itations. The" can i)pose li)its onl" on the basis of -national securit", public safet", or public health- and -as )a" be provided b" la$,&rticle III, Section : of the ,2E1 %onstitution should b" no )eans be construed as deli)itin the inherent po$er of the %ourts to use all )eans necessar" to carr" their orders into effect in cri)inal cases pendin before the). =hen b" la$ 8urisdiction is conferred on a %ourt or 8udicial officer, all au!illar" $rits, process and other )eans necessar" to carr" it into effect )a" be e)plo"ed b" such %ourt or officer The nature and function of a bail bond has re)ained unchan ed $hether under the ,29', the ,219, or the ,2E1 %onstitution Petitioner is facin a cri)inal char e. He has posted bail but has violated the conditions thereof b" failin to appear before the %ourt $hen re+uired. =arrants for his arrest have been issued. Those orders and processes $ould be rendered nu ator" if an accused $ere to be allo$ed to leave or to re)ain, at his pleasure, outside the territorial confines of the countr". Holdin an accused in a cri)inal case $ithin the reach of the %ourts b" preventin his departure fro) the Philippines )ust be considered as a valid restriction on his ri ht to travel so that he )a" be dealt $ith in accordance $ith la$. The offended part" in an" cri)inal proceedin is the People of the Philippines. It is to their best interest that cri)inal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finalit" $ithout undue dela", $ith an accused holdin hi)self a)enable at all ti)es to %ourt Orders and processes

@ap Vs %a. *&%TS < *or )isappropriatin a)ounts e+uivalent to P','((,(((.((, petitioner $as convicted of estafa b" the Re ional Trial %ourt of Pasi %it", and $as sentenced to four "ears and t$o )onths of prision correctional, as )ini)u) to ei ht "ears of prision )a"or as )a!i)u), -in addition to one .,/ "ear for each additional P,(,(((.(( in e!cess of P00,(((.(( but in no case shall it e!ceed t$ent" .0(/ "ears.-0 He filed a notice of appeal, and )oved to be allo$ed provisional libert" under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedin s. The )otion $as denied b" the trial court in an order dated *ebruar" ,1,,222 The %& ranted the 3ail. & )otion for reconsideration $as filed, see#in the reduction of the a)ount of bail fi!ed b" respondent court, but $as denied in a resolution issued on Nove)ber 0', ,222 Thus the petition. ISSD> < =ON there is an rave abuse of disretion H>4D < There is no +uestion that in the present case the %ourt of &ppeals e!ercised its discretion in favor of allo$in bail to petitioner on appeal. Respondent court stated that it $as doin so for -hu)anitarian reasons-, and despite a perceived hi h ris# of fli ht, as b" petitionerCs ad)ission he $ent out of the countr" several ti)es durin the pendenc" of the case, for $hich reason the court dee)ed it necessar" to pe the a)ount of bail at P','((,(((.((. The S% *inds that the settin of the a)ount at P','((,(((.(( is unreasonable, e!cessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitionerCs ri ht to bail

the %ourt is not precluded fro) i)posin in petitionerCs case an a)ount hi her than P5(,(((.(( .based on the 3ail 3ond 6uide/ $here it perceives that an appropriate increase is dictated b" the circu)stances I)posin bail in an e!cessive a)ount could render )eanin less the ri ht to bail. Dnder the circu)stances of this case, $e find that appropriate conditions have been i)posed in the bail bond to ensure a ainst the ris# of fli ht, particularl", the co)bination of the hold?departure order and the re+uire)ent that petitioner infor) the court of an" chan e of residence and of his $hereabouts. &lthou h an increase in the a)ount of bail $hile the case is on appeal )a" be )eritorious, $e find that the settin of the a)ount at P','((,(((.(( is unreasonable, e!cessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitionerHs ri ht to bail.

4e aspi Vs %ivil Serv. %o)). *&%TS < The funda)ental ri ht of the people to infor)ation on )atters of public concern is invo#ed in this special civil action for )anda)us instituted b" petitioner Valentin 4. 4e aspi a ainst the %ivil Service %o))ission. The respondent had earlier denied 4e aspiCs re+uest for infor)ation on the civil service eli ibilities of certain persons e)plo"ed as sanitarians in the Health Depart)ent of %ebu %it". These overn)ent e)plo"ees, Aulian Sibon hano" and Mariano & as, had alle edl" represented the)selves as civil service eli ibles $ho passed the civil service e!a)inations for sanitarians. ISSD> < =ON the petitioner has le al to access overn)ent records to validate the civil service eli ibilities of the Health Depart)ent e)plo"ees

H>4D < The constitutional uarantee to infor)ation on )atters of public concern is not absolute. It does not open ever" door to an" and all infor)ation. Dnder the %onstitution, access to official records, papers, etc., are -sub8ect to li)itations as )a" be provided b" la$The la$ )a" therefore e!e)pt certain t"pes of infor)ation fro) public scrutin", such as those affectin national securit" It follo$s that, in ever" case, the availabilit" of access to a particular public record )ust be circu)scribed b" the nature of the infor)ation sou ht, i.e., .a/ bein of public concern or one that involves public interest, and, .b/ not bein e!e)pted b" la$ fro) the operation of the constitutional uarantee. The threshold +uestion is, therefore, $hether or not the infor)ation sou ht is of public interest or public concern.

This +uestion is first addressed to the overn)ent a enc" havin custod" of the desired infor)ation. Ho$ever, as alread" discussed, this does not ive the a enc" concerned an" discretion to rant or den" access. In case of denial of access, the overn)ent a enc" has the burden of sho$in that the infor)ation re+uested is not of public concern, or, if it is of public concern, that the sa)e has been e!e)pted b" la$ fro) the operation of the uarantee. To hold other$ise $ill serve to dilute the constitutional ri ht. &s aptl" observed, -. . . the overn)ent is in an advanta eous position to )arshall and interpret ar u)ents a ainst release . . .- .E1 Harvard 4a$ Revie$ ,',, K,215L/. To safe uard the constitutional ri ht, ever" denial of access b" the overn)ent a enc" concerned is sub8ect to revie$ b" the courts, and in the proper case, access )a" be co)pelled b" a $rit of Manda)us Public office bein a public trust it is the le iti)ate concern of citiBens to ensure that overn)ent positions re+uirin civil service eli ibilit" are occupied onl" b" persons $ho are eli ibles. Public officers are at all ti)es accountable to the people even as to their eli ibilities for their respective positions. In the instant, case $hile refusin to confir) or den" the clai)s of eli ibilit", the respondent has failed to cite an" provision in the %ivil Service 4a$ $hich $ould li)it the petitionerCs ri ht to #no$ $ho are, and $ho are not, civil service eli ibles. =e ta#e 8udicial notice of the fact that the na)es of those $ho pass the civil service e!a)inations, as in bar e!a)inations and licensure e!a)inations for various professions, are released to the public. Hence, there is nothin secret about oneCs civil service eli ibilit", if actuall" possessed. PetitionerCs re+uest is, therefore, neither unusual nor unreasonable. &nd $hen, as in this case, the overn)ent e)plo"ees concerned clai) to be civil service eli ibles, the public, throu h an" citiBen, has a ri ht to verif" their professed eli ibilities fro) the %ivil Service %o))ission. The civil service eli ibilit" of a sanitarian bein of public concern, and in the absence of e!press li)itations under the la$ upon access to the re ister of civil service eli ibles for said position, the dut" of the respondent %o))ission to confir) or den" the civil service eli ibilit" of an" person occup"in the position beco)es i)perative. Manda)us, therefore lies

Val)onte Vs 3el)onte *&%TS < Petitioners in this special civil action for )anda)us $ith preli)inar" in8unction invo#e their ri ht to infor)ation and pra" that respondent be directed< .a/ to furnish petitioners the list of the na)es of the 3atasan Pa)bansa )e)bers belon in to the DNIDO and PDP?4aban $ho $ere able to secure clean loans i))ediatel" before the *ebruar" 1 election thru the intercession7)ar inal note of the then *irst 4ad" I)elda Marcos; and7or .b/ to furnish petitioners $ith certified true copies of the docu)ents evidencin their respective loans; and7or .c/ to allo$ petitioners access to the public records for the sub8ect infor)ation On Aune 0(, ,2E:, apparentl" not havin "et received the repl" of the 6overn)ent Service and Insurance S"ste) .6SIS/ Deput" 6eneral %ounsel, petitioner Val)onte $rote respondent another letter, sa"in that for failure to receive a repl", -.=/e are no$ considerin ourselves free to do $hatever action necessar" $ithin the pre)ises to pursue our desired ob8ective in pursuance of public interest.ISSD> < =ON Val)onte, et. al. are entitled as citiBens and ta!pa"ers to in+uire upon 6SIS records on behest loans iven b" the for)er *irst 4ad" I)elda Marcos to 3atasan Pa)bansa )e)bers belon in to the DNIDO and PDP?4aban political parties. H>4D < Respondent has failed to cite an" la$ rantin the 6SIS the privile e of confidentialit" as re ards the docu)ents sub8ect of this petition. His position is apparentl" based )erel" on considerations of polic". The 8udiciar" does not settle polic" issues. The %ourt can onl" declare $hat the la$ is, and not $hat the la$ should be. Dnder our s"ste) of overn)ent, polic" issues are $ithin the do)ain of the political branches of the overn)ent, and of the people the)selves as the repositor" of all State po$er.

The concerned borro$ers the)selves )a" not succeed if the" choose to invo#e their ri ht to privac", considerin the public offices the" $ere holdin at the ti)e the loans $ere alle ed to have been ranted. It cannot be denied that because of the interest the" enerate and their ne$s$orthiness, public fi ures, )ost especiall" those holdin responsible positions in overn)ent, en8o" a )ore li)ited ri ht to privac" as co)pared to ordinar" individuals, their actions bein sub8ect to closer public scrutin" The -transactions- used here I suppose is eneric and, therefore, it can cover both steps leadin to a contract, and alread" a consu))ated contract, %onsiderin the intent of the fra)ers of the %onstitution $hich, thou h not bindin upon the %ourt, are nevertheless persuasive, and considerin further that overn)ent?o$ned and controlled corporations, $hether perfor)in proprietar" or overn)ental functions are accountable to the people, the %ourt is convinced that transactions entered into b" the 6SIS, a overn)ent? controlled corporation created b" special le islation are $ithin the a)bit of the peopleCs ri ht to be infor)ed pursuant to the constitutional polic" of transparenc" in overn)ent dealin s. &lthou h citiBens are afforded the ri ht to infor)ation and, pursuant thereto, are entitled to -access to official records,- the %onstitution does not accord the) a ri ht to co)pel custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, su))aries and the li#e in their desire to ac+uire infor)ation on )atters of public concern.

&+uino Vs Morato *&%TS < In *ebruar" ,2E2, petitioner, herself a )e)ber of respondent Movie and Television Revie$ and %lassification 3oard .MTR%3/, $rote its records officer re+uestin that she be allo$ed to e!a)ine the boardCs records pertainin to the votin slips acco)plished b" the individual board )e)bers after a revie$ of the )ovies and television productions. It is on the basis of said slips that fil)s are either banned, cut or classified accordin l". PetitionerCs re+uest $as eventuall" denied b" respondent Morato on the round that $henever the )e)bers of the board sit in 8ud )ent over a fil), their decisions as reflected in the individual votin slips parta#e the nature of conscience votes and as such, are purel" and co)pletel" private and personal On *ebruar" 01, ,2E2, respondent Morato called an e!ecutive )eetin of the MTR%3 to discuss, a)on others, the issue raised b" petitioner. In said )eetin , seventeen .,1/ )e)bers of the board voted to declare their individual votin records as classified docu)ents $hich rendered the sa)e inaccessible to the public $ithout clearance fro) the chair)an. Thereafter, respondent Morato denied petitionerCs re+uest to e!a)ine the votin slips. Ho$ever, it $as onl" )uch later, i.e., on Aul" 01, ,2E2, that respondent 3oard issued Resolution No. ,(?E2 $hich declared as confidential, private and personal, the decision of the revie$in co))ittee and the votin slips of the )e)bers. ISSD> < =ON Resolution No. ,(?E2 is valid H>4D < The ter) private has been defined as -belon in to or concernin , an individual person, co)pan", or interest-; $hereas, public )eans -pertainin to, or belon in to, or affectin a nation, state, or co))unit" at lar e. &s )a" be leaned fro) the decree .PD ,2E:/ creatin the respondent classification board, there is no doubt that its ver" e!istence is public is character. it is an office created to serve public interest. It bein the case,

respondents can la" no valid clai) to privac". The ri ht to privac" belon s to the individual actin in his private capacit" and not to a overn)ental a enc" or officers tas#ed $ith, and actin in, the dischar e of public duties. the decisions of the 3oard and the individual votin slips acco)plished b" the )e)bers concerned are acts )ade pursuant to their official functions, and as such, are neither personal nor private in nature but rather public in character. The" are, therefore, public records access to $hich is uaranteed to the citiBenr" b" no less than the funda)ental la$ of the land