Book 2 Some Major Philippine Court Cases

PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information.
PDF generated at: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:42:21 UTC

Some Major Philippine Court
Cases
Contents
Articles
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission 1
GSIS-Meralco bribery case 3
Neri vs. Senate 23
People v. Hernandez 27
Philippine habeas corpus cases 29
Quinto vs. COMELEC 32
Ratification Cases 35
Sema v. COMELEC 39
Vizconde massacre 43
References
Article Sources and Contributors 55
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 56
Article Licenses
License 57
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission
1
Louis Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 and Rep. Edcel Lagman et al. vs.
Executive Secretary Pacquito Ochoa et al.
Decided 7 December 2010
Ponente Jose C. Mendoza
G.R. Nos. 192935 and 193036
Majority: 10
Corona, Velasco, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, Bersamin, Villarama,Perez,
Mendoza
Dissent: 5
Carpio, Carpio Morales, Nachura, Abad, Sereno
Louis Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 and Rep. Edcel Lagman et al. vs. Executive Secretary
Pacquito Ochoa et al. are consolidated petitions decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines invalidating the
creation of a truth commission tasked to investigate a previous president.
Creation of the Truth Commission
After a month in office, President Benigno Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 1 (E.O. 1) on July 30, 2010
creating the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC). The PTC was tasked to conduct a thorough fact-finding
investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption involving third level public officers during the administration
of Aquino's predecessor Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and thereafter submit its findings and recommendations to the
Office of the President, Congress, and the Ombudsman.
Private citizen Louis Biraogo and a group of congressmen led by Lakas Kampi CMD chairman Rep. Edcel Lagman
filed in the Supreme Court separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of E.O. 1
based on their belief that the creation of the PTC constitutes usurpation of the legislative power to create public
office, threatens the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman, and violates the equal protection clause of the
Philippine Constitution for specifically targeting certain officials of the Arroyo administration.
The main issues raised before the High Court were: (1) Whether the president can create public office such as the
PTC without usurping the powers of Congress; (2) Whether the PTC supplants the powers already vested on the
Ombudsman and the Department of Justice (DOJ); and, (3) Whether the purpose of the PTC transgresses the
constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
The Court's Ruling
The president has the authority to create the Truth Commission
Majority of the members of the Supreme Court rejected the justification of the Solicitor General (OSG) that the
creation of the PTC finds basis on the presidents power of control over all executive offices. The Decision stressed
that control is essentially the power to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter. Clearly, the power of
control is entirely different from the power to create public offices. The majority also rejected the OSGs claim that
that the E.O. finds basis under sec. 31 of the Administrative Code, which authorizes the president to restructure the
Office of the President. Clearly, restructure under the said provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation
or abolition of offices by reason of economy or redundancy. This presupposes an already existing office. The
2
creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned in said provision.
Nonetheless, the ponencia agreed with the argument of the OSG that the presidents power to create the PTC may
find justification under the presidents duty under sec. 17, Article VII of the Constitution to ensure that the laws be
faithfully executed. The Court held that while it is true that the authority of the president to conduct investigations
and to create bodies to execute this power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in statutes, it does not
necessarily mean that he does not have such authority. The president has the obligation to ensure that all executive
officials and employees (whether from past or present administrations) faithfully comply with the law. The purpose
of ad hoc investigating bodies such as the PTC is to allow an inquiry into matters which the president is entitled to
know so that he can be properly advised and guided in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and
enforcement of the laws of the land.
The PTC will not erode the powers or independence of the Ombudsman
The Court also held that the investigative function of the commission will not supplant nor threaten the independence
of the Office of the Ombudsman. If at all, it will complement the functions of the Ombudsman and the Department
of Justice. As correctly pointed out by the OSG, the function of the PTC is merely to recommend prosecution, which
is just a consequence of its fact-finding investigation. The actual prosecution of suspected offenders, much less
adjudication on the merits of the charges against them, is certainly not a function given to the PTC.
The purpose of the PTC offends the equal protection clause
While the Court was almost unanimous in holding that the president indeed had the authority to create the PTC and
that it would not unduly duplicate the powers of the Ombudsman, nine (9) of the justices joined Associate Justice
Jose Catral Mendoza in refusing to uphold the constitutionality of E.O. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the
equal protection clause enshrined in sec. 1, Art. III of the Constitution. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio was
joined by four (4) others in their strong dissent.
Laying down a long line of precedents, the ponencia reiterated that equal protection simply requires that all persons
or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The
purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person against intentional and arbitrary discrimination.
Applying this precept, the majority held that E.O. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause.
The Decision stressed that the clear mandate of the PTC is to investigate and find out the truth concerning the
reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration only. The intent to single out the previous
administration is plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been made in at least three portions of the questioned
executive order. The Arroyo administration, according to the ponencia, is just a member of a class, that is, a class of
past administrations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes
arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation gave the majority
an impression that the PTC is just being used as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution and that E.O.
1 is only an adventure in partisan hostility.
While the Court recognized that the creation of the PTC was inspired with noble intentions, the ponencia nonetheless
reminded the government of the ethical principle that the end does not justify the means. It emphatically closed by
stressing that the search for the truth must be within constitutional bounds, for ours is still a government of laws and
not of men.
GSIS-Meralco bribery case
3
Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692
[Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]
Decided 9 September 2008 & 15 October 2008
Per Curiam
A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA
Unanimous:
C.J. Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura,
Reyes, Leonardo-De Castro and Brion, JJ.
The GSIS-Meralco bribery case is a political controversy and pending legal case being heard by the Supreme Court
of the Philippines. This complex case began with a complaint filed by the GSIS with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of the Philippines (SEC) questioning the unvalidated proxy votes used by the Lopez family in the last
board election of the Manila Electric Company (Meralco). The SEC issued a cease and desist order (CDO) against
Meralco, which was ignored by the latter.
[1]
A show cause order (SCO) was then issued by the SEC,
[2]
whereupon
Meralco petitioned the Court of Appeals, questioning the jurisdiction of the SEC. The Court of Appeals issued a
temporary restraining order (TRO) to the SEC
[3]
while the Special 9th Division composed of Associate Justices
Vicente Q. Roxas, Jose L. Sabio Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal heard the case. Roxas was assigned as the ponente
while Sabio was the acting chairman.
Later, Sabio called a press conference and alleged that an emissary of Meralco tried to bribe him with P10 Million to
have a case transferred to another appeals court justice. The criminal charges are obstruction of justice and
malfeasance in office.
[4]
Sabio did not mention any names, but businessman Francis de Borja stepped forward and
claimed that he was the alleged emissary, accusing Sabio of asking for a P50 Million bribe to side with Meralco, in
response to De Borjas question What will it take for you to resist the governments offer? The alleged government
offer was a Supreme Court position. In the latter course of the investigation, Sabio let slip that his brother, PCGG
Chairman Camilo Sabio, called him up twice to urge him to side favorably with the government. The late admission
of the allegedly unethical and criminal action called into doubt the innocence of Sabio in coming forward with his
expose and the veracity of his entire story. These acts are alleged to be punishable under Article 208 and 243 of the
Revised Penal Code respectively.
[5][6]
It also came out during the course of the Supreme Court investigation that Court of Appeals Justice Vicente Roxas,
the ponente of the controversial Meralco decision, had himself committed improprieties. One such impropriety was
the fact that Roxas preempted the legal opinion of Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez that the Special 9th Division
should have ruled on the case as per the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), and not the 8th Division to
which Roxas was transferred, and which eventually promulgated a ruling in favor of Meralco, with Justices Reyes
and Apolinario Bruselas hastily signing the ponencia without going over or reading the memoranda submitted by
concerned parties.
[7]
The Supreme Court, voting 12-1, ordered the dismissal of Roxas after he was found guilty of multiple violations of
the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of service.
[8]
Sabio was suspended for two months after he was found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a
justice of the CA. Vasquez was severely reprimanded for his failure to act promptly and decisively in order to avert
the incidence that damaged the image of the Court of Appeals, Reyes was found guilty of simple misconduct with
mitigating circumstance, and Vidal, guilty of conduct unbecoming of a justice of the appellate court for being too
4
compliant" when she allowed herself to sign the decision without reading the parties memorandum.
[9]
History
It started on May 11, 2008, when the Government Service Insurance System (Philippines) (GSIS) accused Meralco
of unlawful refusal to grant corporate access to documents despite the GSIS holding 4 seats in the 11-member
Meralco board, amid GSIS' denial of plans to wrest control from the Lopez family.
The scandal originated from Meralco and GSIS row, after Sabio - in a letter-complaint against Justices Vicente
Roxas and Bienvenido Reyes - complained of the circumstances that he was removed from the Meralco-GSIS case
after a standard court reorganization, and an alleged bribe attempt by Manolo Lopez and Meralco in consideration
for him giving way to Reyes' chairmanship of the CA's Special 9th Division
[10]
It catches nationwide attention when
businessman Francis De Borja surfaces and accuses Sabio via sworn affidavit that the justice had asked for P50
million to back away from the case, to counter a government offer of money and a Supreme Court appointment in
exchange for a ruling favorable to GSIS.
Background
In 1962, Don Eugenio Lpez, Sr. acquired MERALCO and it finally became Filipino-owned, but Ferdinand Marcos,
by decree, placed it under a shell company called the Meralco Foundation, Inc., controlled by crony under
government controlled Napocor.
[11]
In 1978, Meralco was fully controlled by the Marcos administration, but its ownership was finally returned to the
Lopez family after the People Power Revolution by President Corazon Aquino. By executive order, she allowed
Meralco to directly compete with NAPOCOR.
[12]
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on May 2, 2008, announced plans to reduce Luzon high power rates, amid a tough legal
fight with Meralco before state energy regulators. Accordingly, GSIS, through its President Winston Garcia, on
May 11, stated it "planned not only to buy out the Lopez family and other shareholders in Meralco but also to break
up its concession to promote efficiency and transparency." But Meralco chair and CEO Manuel Lopez said he was
not selling the utility.
The cases and facts
Oscar Lopez blamed the Arroyo administration's moves to take over Meralco in a reverse privatization, because of
the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN's negative publicity against the government.
[13]
May 27 stockholders meeting
During the May 27, 2008 stockholders meeting, GSIS' President Winston Garcia obtained an SEC cease-and-desist
order to stop and defer the counting of proxy votes held by the Lopez group until questions on its validity were
resolved. GSIS accused the Lopezes of rigging the process.
[14]
GSIS failed to gain control of Meralco after a TRO
from the Court of Appeals is issued, and the SEC order placed on hold. Meralco retained its 5 seats, the government
its 4, while the 2 others are independent directors Artemio Panganiban and Vicente Panlilio. Aside from Manuel
Lopez, the Meralco directors elected are Jesus Francisco, Felipe Alfonso, Christian Monsod and Cesar Virata, while
the government board members elected aside from Garcia, are Bernardino Abes, Daisy Arce and Jeremy Parulan.
On May 30, the said temporary restraining order from the Philippine Court of Appeals, against the SEC order from
the 9th division, composed of Justices Roxas and Vidal was released. They are joined by substitute Justice Jose
Sabio, replacement for Justice Bienvenido Reyes who was on leave. Despite the return of Justice Reyes in time from
his leave, and his trying to claiming back his post, Sabio refused to give up the position. The TRO is released with
Sabio signing instead.
[15]
5
Senior Associate Justice Rodrigo Cosico retires, and the Court of Appeals undergoes a mandatory reorganization.
Following court rules, the case followed the Justice-writer assigned to it, Justice Vicente Roxas. The case moved to
the 8th division, composed of Justice Reyes, Roxas, and Bruselas.
The Courts 8th Division renders a 57-page judgment authored by Justice Vicente Roxas on July 24 against the
GSIS, affirming Meralcos stance that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the issue.
[10][16]
A large scale negative media blitz is launched by unknown persons against the author of the decision Justice Roxas.
Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, together with Justice Jose Sabio, former special 9th Division members, challenged
the decision, per letter to CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr., thus: "How can the 8th Division issue an order
when it is the 9th that has been hearing the complaint of alleged irregularities in the Meralco election?" It is also the
9th Division that issued the temporary restraining order on the SEC order to Meralco on May 30."
Assistant Clerk of Court, lawyer Manuel Cervantes, said no irregularity had been committed when the 8th division
came out with the decision instead of the 9th, simply a result of the reorganization of the court. "The case goes with
the ponente(justice assigned to pen the case), Cervantes explained. Justice Vicente Roxas is the ponente. Even with
the change in division, the case stays with him." Due to the retirement of some justices, Justice Vidal was
reassigned to the 6th Division while Reyes became chair of the 8th, Cervantes said. Roxas was moved to the 8th
division, Vidal went to the 6th, and Sabio to the 9th. And since the rule is that the case goes with the ponente,the
57-page decision was issued by the division of which Justice Roxas was now a part, he said.
[17]
Permission is not
required from the previous division nor its justices.
He said the IRCA (Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals) does not require the justices who issued the TRO be the
same justices to render the decision.
The Court of Appeals Reorganization Office Order No. 200-08-CMV was issued by Presiding Justice Vasquez on
July 4, three weeks before the decision was released.
Justice Jose Sabio refuses to let go of the Meralco GSIS case, and insists on being a part of the division to decide the
case. He submits the case to the internal rules committee of the court, headed by Justice Edgardo P. Cruz. The Court
of Appeals committee decides as early as June 20 that the committee, which clarifies internal rules of the court,
rejects Justice Sabios argument that the pending case should go with him following a court reorganization. By the
rules, the division headed by Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes should hear the leadership row at Meralco. Sabio
disregards Cruz's recommendation on the basis he was only a "junior justice".
[15]
On July 26, Justice Sabio, with the encouragement of Justice Vidal (his colleague in the 9th Special Division) broke
a bribery attempt news and wrote to P.J. Vasquez, Jr. .
[18]
He joined Justice Vidal, initiating further, a media expose
of their squabbles, alleging something stinks in the Meralco court ruling. Presiding Justice Vasquez released his
opinion, also, per his July 24, 2008 Letter to Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes & Vicente Q. Roxas.
[19][20][21]
Businessman Francis de Borja emerges and reveals to the media a notarized and sworn affidavit that it was Justice
Sabio who brought up a P50 million price for him to act in favor of Meralco in its dispute with the GSIS. Mr. de
Borja asserts that Mr. Sabio had told him a Supreme Court seat was being offered in exchange for a ruling in favor of
the GSIS, which is trying to wrest control of Meralco from the Lopezes. Expecting Sabio to answer that he would
not be swayed by any offer and would rule according to his conscience, De Borja asked what it would take for him to
resist the supposed government offer of a seat on the Supreme Court and money. He was taken aback when Sabio
replied "P50 million, and then left.
[22]
Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez comes under fire in the newspapers. Vasquez is criticized of having been able to
spare the Court this trouble on the court's integrity had he followed the recommendation of the rules committee. With
Vasquez's opinion favoring Sabio despite the reorganization, and the lack of a preliminary injunction that would
exempt Meralco from being transferred to Reyess and Roxas's division, doubt is cast on Vasquez's motivations.
Vasquez was revealed to have multiple connections to the GSIS. Daughter Ruth works for the GSISCompany
secretary, daughter Agnes is a dentist in the GSIS medical department, his niece for the GSIS Vice President. His
6
sister Lenny Vasquez de Jesus is a current consultant for the GSIS and was a trustee from 1998-2004. She is also the
ninang (godmother) of the youngest child of GSIS president Winston Garcia.
[15]
Manolo Lopez calls the accusations of Sabio a malicious and a pure fabrication. He vehemently denied the
allegations, especially Sabio's accusation that he (Lopez) was waiting in the car during the meeting. He said he was
out of the country for a medical check-up when the incident supposedly happened, and returned only last July 13. As
proof, he showed tickets showing his departure dated June 27 and his arrival dated July 13.
[23]
The panel investigation finds out that Chairman Camilo Sabio of the Presidential Commission on Good
Government(PCGG) called up his brother, Justice Jose Sabio Jr. twice. The first time on May 30, to lobby his
brother to adopt the position of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) versus Manila Electric Co.
(Meralco). This was hours before the Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals (temporarily headed by Sabio) issued a
temporary restraining order in Meralcos favor. Camilo called up Jose at 8 a.m., when the courts practice is to hand
down its decisions at 10 a.m. Then, after the Court of Appeals decided the case with finality on July 23, Camilo
called up Jose again, asking why he hadnt signed the decision.
When Camilo called the first time, he informed Jose that he was going to be the acting chairman of the Special Ninth
Division of the court; and that furthermore, a TRO against the Securities and Exchange Commission order that the
GSIS desired was being prepared. Camilo suggested to Jose that the latter shouldnt sign the TRO. When Camilo
called once more, it was to ask why the 8th Division, and not the Special 9th Division had decided. Justice Jose had
lobbied strenuously to head the 8th even after Justice Bienvenido Reyes, the person he was substituting for, was back
on the job.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., one of those conducting the investigation, castigated Justice Sabio
why he didnt bring up the intervention of his brother previouslyor reprimand his brother. Why did you not report
your brothers attempt to influence you? That was unethical. You did nothing; you are a professor of ethics. Did you
not consider that your brothers attempt was criminal? Callejo asked.
Sabios replies alternated between the irrelevant (his brother was older than he, he said) to patent hair-splitting (there
was no outright offer of a bribe from his brother). They only reduced the reasonable doubt so far supporting Sabio by
reducing the options the justice operated under to three: he was hopelessly nave; he has been too clever for his own
good; or he is a bumbling prisoner of circumstance, who has blown the lid off a legal system so thoroughly tainted it
cannot absolve itself the longer the inquiry continues.
This called into question Justice Sabios squabble with fellow Reyes over who should have jurisdiction over the case.
It explained why Justice Sabio would, in turn, on July 1, meet lawyer Francis de Borja to discuss a case he had every
reason to know would be brought up by a party friendly to Meralco. Its either that the Ateneo de Manila Law
Schools professor of legal ethics had no comprehension of the subject he teaches or he is a plain and simple
hypocrite. He brags about his being a righteous professor of legal ethics which we can never believe now after
knowing from the investigation his lapses to perform what is expected of a member of the court.
This provided circumstantial evidence for concluding that Sabio was playing off both sides to see who might bid
highest, confirming, incidentally, many details in De Borjas affidavit while calling into question the completeness,
and ultimately the veracity, of Sabios own statements.
Justice Sabio move to come forward to virtuously blow the whistle is cast in doubt by his selectivity. He denied
allegations of Palace blandishments to do the GSIS bidding, but he left out his brothers intervention. He is looking
more and more like a double-dealer who got a juicy Palace offer but tried to cash in quickly by basically making it
obvious to the other side he would be open to a counteroffer.
[5]
As a government official, Camilos act of calling his brother to influence his decision is punishable under Article 243
of the Revised Penal Code. Article 243 (orders or requests by executive offices to any judicial authority) states that
:"Any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case
or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor
7
and a fine."
As an official of the Court, Justice Sabio is mandated under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code to report any
possible violation of the law, with negligence and tolerance as the offending act. Article 208 states: The penalty of
prison correctional in its minimum period (six months and 1 day to 2 years and four months) and suspension shall be
imposed upon any public officer or officer of the law who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously
refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violations of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of
offenses.
[6]
The public is in anticipation whether criminal charges for bribery and violation of Article 208 of the
RPC will be filed against Sabio the soonest possible time to determine the extent of his culpability.
The CA Justices in the case
ABS-CBN and Philippines Newsbreak Magazine reported on the CA Justices of the case.
[24]
ABS-CBN researched
and published that:
[25]
Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr.'s daughters Agnes Rosario and Ruth Almira are currently employed by the GSIS.
Ruth Almira is with the office of the Company secretary while Agnes Rosario is a dentist in the GSIS medical
department. His niece works with the GSIS Vice President, and Vasquez sister, Lenny Vasquez de Jesus, was a
GSIS trustee from 1998-2004. She is also the ninang (godmother) of the youngest son of GSIS president Winston
Garcia. He was presiding Judge of Branch 118, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.
Associate Justice Sabio, Jr., chair of the CA ninth division, graduated from the Ateneo de Manila University
College of Law. He is a Pre-Bar Reviewer in Legal Ethics at the Ateneo School of Law where he also teaches
Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law I. In 2003, an administrative complaint was filed
against him for ignorance of the law and inexcusable negligence, and charging him with deliberately causing the
delay of the prosecution in Estafa entitled, People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Ferdinand Santos, Robert
John Sobrepea, Federico Campos, Polo Pantaleon, and Rafael Perez De Tagle, Jr.
[26]
Associate Justice Vidal was awarded a plaque of recognition as outstanding judge by the Volunteers Against
Crime and Corruption (VACC) in 2001, and in 2004, she was an outstanding judge who received Supreme Court
Judicial Excellence Awards.
Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is the chairman of the 8th division that promulgated the decision. He
obtained his LLB Degree from San Beda College and passed the Bar examinations in the same year. Reyes was
promoted CA Associate Justice on August 8, 2000, after serving as RTC Judge, in Br. 74, Malabon City, from
1990. He was also a finalist in the 1997 Awards for Judicial Excellence.
[27][28]
Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes was
on leave after he suffered a heart attack (seizure) August 8 evening. He was brought to the intensive-care unit of
the Capitol Medical Center, Quezon City for "valvular heart disease, secondary to rheumatic heart disease; mitral
regurgitation; and aortic valve stenosis (AS)." Reyes's physician, Dr. Francisco Lukban, however, later declared
him stable.
[29][30]
Associate Justice Vicente Roxas is a top ten bar exam topnotcher from the University of the Philippines College
of Law. He was En Banc Consultant for the Securities and Exchange Commission for eleven years, and taught at
the UP College of Law. He was a RTC Judge in Quezon City for ten years before his appointment as associate
justice of the CA. In 2007, the Manila Times reported that Erlinda Bilder-Ilusurio, president of Philippine
Communications Satellite Corp. (Philcomsat) filed an administrative case against him for gross ignorance of the
law after they lost a case, contending that their petition was withdrawn by Emmanuel Nieto, a Philcomsat
stockholder. The SC unanimously dismissed the case.
[31]
Associate Justice Bruselas was a RTC Judge in Quezon City before being appointed to the Court of Appeals. He
served as a member of the technical working group of the judiciary's action program for judicial reform. He
penned the decision in Steel Corp. and Subic rape case.
[32]
8
Name Position Date of Appointment Date of Birth Date of Retirement
Hon. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. Presiding Justice March 22, 1994 January 6, 1940 January 6, 2010
Hon. JOSE L. SABIO, JR. Associate Justice May 28, 1999 May 25, 1941 May 25, 2011
Hon. BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate Justice August 22, 2000 July 6, 1947 July 6, 2017
Hon. VICENTE Q. ROXAS Associate Justice February 9, 2004 December 8, 1949 December 8, 2019
Hon. MYRNA DIMARANAN-VIDAL Associate Justice January 24, 2005 December 20, 1939 December 20, 2009
Hon. APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR. Associate Justice August 1, 2005 May 6, 1956 May 6, 2026
Attempted bribery and discipline of Philippine jurists and lawyers
Bribery attempt, in Philippine Jurisprudence, is considered a criminal offense or felony.
Philippine Court of Appeals Justices are under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court of the
Philippines, and may be disciplined by Disbarment or dismissal from service, under the Revised Rules of Court
(1997 Code of Civil Procedure).
Also, the Philippine Court of Appeals' "Process of Adjudication" is governed by A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA 2005, the
Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA), Specific Amendments to, 2002 Internal Rules of the Court
of Appeals, February 28, 2005.
[33][34][35]
The laws
The Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA) regarding the matter are as follows:
RULE I - THE COURT, ITS ORGANIZATION AND OFFICIALS - SEC. 9. Reorganization of Divisions.
(a) Reorganization of Divisions shall be effected whenever a permanent vacancy occurs in the chairmanship
of a Division, in which case assignment of Justices to the Divisions shall be in accordance with the order of
seniority unless a waiver is executed by the Justice concerned which waiver shall be effective until revoked by
him in writing.(n) RULE VI - PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION - SEC. 1. Justice Assigned For Study and
Report. Every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained
by him even if he is transferred to another Division in the same station. ( Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA [a]) SEC. 2.
Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of Cases. x x x (d) When, in an original action or petition
for review, any of these actions or proceedings, namely: (1) giving due course; (2) granting writ of preliminary
injunction; (3) granting new trial; and (4) granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall
remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report and the Justices who participated
therein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station. (A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA - 2005
RIRCA: SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE 2002 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS)
[36][37][38]
Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr., member of the 3-man panel investigation, Senator Francis Pangilinan and Akbayan Rep.
Risa Hontiveros stated that the applicable laws are the following:
[39]
The Revised Penal Code of 1930, now defines the felony of attempted bribery and corruption of public officials as
follows:
ACT NO. 3815, AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS (December 8,
1930), BOOK TWO CRIMES AND PENALTIES, Title Seven, CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS, Chapter Two MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE Section Two. Bribery
Art. 210. Direct bribery. Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present
received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than
9
three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same
shall have been committed. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act
which does not constitute a crime,xxxx and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall
suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of
such gift. If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from
doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its
maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of
such gift. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty
of special temporary disqualification. The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made
applicable to xxx any other persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June
10, 1985).
[40]
Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except
those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or
promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles.
[41]
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. xxx There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous
desistance.
[42]
The Revised Rules of Court, now also provides for the discipline of jurists and lawyers, as follows:
A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140,Revised Rules of Court, Discipline of Judges and Justices:
SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the discipline of judges xxx Justices of the Court of Appeals
xxx may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by
affidavits of person xxx SEC. 8. Serious charges. Serious charges include: 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2.
Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3. Gross misconduct
constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; xxx SEC. 11. Sanctions. A. If the respondent is
guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service,
forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however,
that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2. Suspension from office without
salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than
P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
[43]
Rule 139-B, Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys: Section
1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the
Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of
any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by
affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may
substantiate said facts.
[44]
R.A. 3019, provides as follows:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019, ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT Sec. 3. Corrupt practices
of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (a)
Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules
and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties
of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or
for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other
part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. (e) Causing any undue
10
injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. (k) Divulging valuable information of a
confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized
persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date. The person giving the gift,
present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the
public officer the employment mentioned in sub-paragraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of
the confidential information referred to in sub-paragraph (k) of this section shall, together with the offending
public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified
in the discretion of the Court, from transacting business in any form with the Government. Sec. 4. Prohibition
on private individuals. - (b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public
official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof. Sec. 8. Dismissal due to unexplained
wealth. - If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered 1379, a public official has been
found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an
amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income,
that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried
children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate
means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of
this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. Sec. 9. Penalties for violations. - (a) Any
public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4,
5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years,
perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any
prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful
income.
[45]
Application to this case
Justice Sabio informed Philippine media that he was offered P 10 million (through a Makati businessman, which he
rejected) to inhibit himself from the GSIS-Meralco case, which was decided by the 8th Division's Justice Vicente
Roxas, the designated ponente, with the concurring opinions of Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Antonio Bruselas.
Roxas was transferred from the 9th Division, when the case was pending. Sabio revealed to media that: It turned out
that he was brokering for Meralco. Sabio appeared on a TV interview by GMA Network reporter Carlo Lorenzo in
his chambers.
[46]
Cagayan de Oro City businessman Francis Roa de Borja, in his July 31, 2008 affidavit, swore that: "when he asked
what it would take for him to resist the government offer, Sabio's reply was: Fifty million (pesos)"; Sabio wanted to
remain as acting chairman of the 9th Division because he was up to something; that Sabio consulted his other
colleagues in the CA and they told him that he was in the right and should stick to his guns; that was then Sabio told
Borja about the offer of unnamed government officials for a promotion at the SC and money for a favorable ruling
for GSIS."
[47][48]
De Borja accused Sabio of twisting the facts: "No, I never said that. If you know Manolo Lopez -- he is somewhat
aristocratic -- he would be the last person to wait for somebody in the car, and they did not know that he was abroad
at that time. I said in my affidavit that he told me his wife would be waiting for him in the car and he says now that
Manolo was waiting in my car..."
De Borja stated that he was ready to face charge of perjury and to take a lie detector test with Sabio before competent
foreign experts and together: "Its a free county, let him file it and well see. Im prepared, the moment I signed my
affidavit obviously I considered the consequences so I wouldnt have made up a story. And my third comment is he
is a lawyer and a justice. He knows that a lie detector test is not admissible as evidence so why is he asking for
it?
[49]
De Borja was interviewed and appeared at ABS-CBN News Channel's (ANC) Dateline Philippines, and he
11
repeated his media statements: "No definitely not...He [Sabio] says that Manolo was waiting for me in my car. I
never said it. And if you know Manolo...Can you imagine somebody like Manolo being made to wait in a car? Di ba,
yung pagka aristocratic ni Manolo, maghihintay sa kotse? The fact is, he was abroad."
[50][51]
Meanwhile, a shadowy group, "Tanglaw ng Bayan," paid an advertisement on a Metro Manila newspaper, appealing
"that the CA justices not be subjected to malicious imputations just to advance the agenda of powerful interests, and
to allow the CA to "sort out its internal issues." In 2007, it also petitioned the Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI) and the Senate to probe the "Hello Pappy" scandal.
[52]
On July 31, 2008, after a rare 3-hour, closed-door En Banc session attended by 64 CA Justices presided by P.J.
Vasquez, Jr., the CA Clerk of Court Atty. Teresita Marigomen announced the appellate court's resolution:
[53]
"that they will refer the investigation of the propriety of action of concerned justices to the Supreme Court
through the Office of the Court Administrator";
"they will leave the matter on the validity of the Meralco decision to the parties, to take whatever steps they may
deem necessary after all the allegations"; and,
"they will refer the issue of the conflict on rules to an internal committee within the appellate court."
[16][54]
Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered all records of case be delivered forthwith to the high court, and the Supreme
Court Public Information Office OIC said all magistrates of the high court would deliberate on the case on August
5.
[55]
Justice Roxas challenged the En Banc meeting as a disguised investigation of the 8th Divisions judgment on the
Meralco case, further alleging that under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, a case followed the ponente to
whatever division the ponente went: Besides, all hearings in the Court of Appeals are recorded and the members of
the 8th Division only need the transcripts of the hearing or the memoranda, briefs, comments and replies of the
partieswhich are all written.
[56]
Sabio, however, told media that he has text messages plus phone call records evidence to prove that Francis Roa de
Borja bribed him.
[57][58][59]
Sabio's former client (1978), Evelyn Clavano, a Cagayan de Oro City resident, gave media, on August 1, an affidavit
saying that: "Francis de Borja requested me if I have the cell phone number of Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. He related
that because he is very close to the Lopezes of Meralco, he wanted to call him (Sabio) regarding his possible
inhibition in a certain Meralco case, wherein he was designated as a substitute member of the division vice a justice
who was temporarily on-leave by reason of sickness. He further said that the Lopezes desire that the same Justice,
with whom the Lopezes are more comfortable, to sit in the division. So, I gave Francis de Borja the cell phone
number of Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. through business card."
[60][60]
Meralco chair Manolo lopez, in a press conference on August 2, denied any involvement in the alleged bribery
attempt: I categorically and vehemently deny the allegations of Justice Jose Sabio. Mind you, I do not have the habit
of waiting in the car for anybody except my wife. The [allegations are] malicious and pure fabrication. I am a
resident of Rockwell Center. I know Francis but I have not authorized him or anybody to make representations for
[me on] any matter that involves cases of Meralco and the Lopez family. We have retainers and lawyers to handle
legal matters.I was out of the country when the alleged meeting between Francis and Justice Sabio took place. I was
in the United States for a medical check up and returned on July 13." Lopezs officials showed media, tickets of his
departure, June 27, and his arrival, July 13.
[61]
The Lopez group led by First Philippine Holdings Corp. has a 33.47% share interest in Meralco, while the Philippine
government financial institutions own 33.32%. Other shareholders hold 34.21%. Meralco said, the government share
is, to wit: GSIS, 22.05%; Social Security System, 5.52%; Land Bank of the Philippines, 4.41%; Philippine Health
Insurance Corp., 0.17%; and the Home Development Mutual Fund or Pag-IBIG, 0.17%.
[62]
12
CA chambers press conference
Sabio, on August 1, First Friday, held a press conference in his CA [hambers, and stated to media:
...I expect matters to get worse because I am up against the billions of the Lopezes. But that Mr. de Borja would have the nerve to make these
lies, under oath, is utterly disgusting when it was he who came to me with the offer of the bribe. He [de Borja] further said that the Lopezes
desire that the same justice, with whom the Lopezes are more comfortable, sit in the division. Mr. de Borja called me, so suddenly, and after
having had no contact [with him] for almost a year. At that point, he [de Borja] mentioned the impasse between Justice Bienvenido Reyes and
myself. Then he [de Borja] explained that he was there to offer me a win-win situation. He said, Justice, we have P10 million. At that point, I
was shocked that he had a very low regard for me. He was treating me like there was a price on my person. I could not describe my feelings. I
was stunned. I cannot in conscience agree to that [offer to bribe me]. The Lopezes will do everything possible using their money and power to
discredit me. This is just the beginning. I know that they will not stop at doing everything to discredit my integrity.
[63][64]
Jurisdictional issue
The internal strife and open quarrel over signature space on a judgment pushed the appellate court to the edge and is
now at the center of a maelstrom.
[65]
The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), raised a legal point,
challenging the 8th CA Division's judgment dismissing GSIS's petition filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (Philippines) against Meralco. The certiorari and injunction CA lawsuit was raffled off to the CAs 9th
Division chaired by Justice Bienvenido Reyes (on leave at the time). A special raffle designated Reyes replacement,
Justice Jose Sabio (as chair). With Justices Vicente Roxas and Myrna Vidal as members, the 9th Division heard the
case. (The GSIS moved to inhibit Roxas on account of reports that "he met with Meralco lawyers on the day a
temporary restraining order [TRO] was issued by the CA, barring the SEC from taking jurisdiction over the GSIS
complaint against Meralco.")
Sabios chairmanship issue with Reyes over the Special Ninth Division was overtaken by a July 4, 2008,
reorganization at the Court of Appeals. Reyes and Roxas ended up in the 8th Division, which finally resolved the
case in favor of the Lopez group on July 23. Sabio was reassigned as chairman of the 6th Division. Sabio later
complained that Roxas penned the decision even before either side had submitted their arguments.
[66]
Justice Reyes failed to assume the chairmanship of the 9th Division in place of Sabio, and the CAs 8th Division,
chaired by Reyes and with ponente, Justices Roxas and Apolinario Bruselas as members, forthwith promulgated the
challenged judgment in favor of Meralco. GSIS called the ruling, a patent nullity for such dismissal [of the GSIS
case before the SEC] was not even prayed for by Meralco in its petition with the Court of Appeals.
[67]
P.J. Vasquez wrote Justices Sabio and Vidal that as members of their newly reconstituted 8th division, they are not
very familiar with the case. Vasquez earlier granted Sabio a verbal go-signal to proceed in hearing the June 23 oral
argument. Vasquez reiterated that "Sabios 9th division, since it issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), and its
members heard and participated in the June 23 hearing, should sign and resolve the case. To allow the new division
of Justice B.L. Reyes as Chairman, Justice Roxas, as ponente, and Justice Bruselas, Jr. as the third member, the
resolution of the pending incidents in the case will be participated by two (2) members who were not present and did
not hear the arguments during the hearing on the injunctive relief
[68][69]
13
Certiorari
Justice Carolina Grino-Aquino, Chair of the
Bribery Panel.
GSIS, on August 13, 2008, in 65-page certiorari petition, asked the
Supreme Court to nullify the CA judgment that prevented the SEC
from case intervention, "considering the SC probe is still ongoing." It
argued that the Special 9th Division should have ruled on the case.
[70]
Investigation
A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA
The Supreme Court, on August 4 created a panel composed of 3 retired
Supreme Court justices, to investigate the scandal.
[71][72]
The High
Court's resolution "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of
Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692
("Antonio Rosete, et al. vs. SEC, et al.)" directed chair Associate
Justice Carolina Grio-Aquino, and Members Justices Flerida Ruth
Romero and Romeo Callejo Jr. to conduct daily hearings from August
7, and submit the final report before August 21.
[73]
In the docketed
administrative matter, Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and
Antonio Carpio inhibited for legal reasons.
[74]
The SC PIO officer announced that: "The hearing will be opened to
the public and to the media. It's going to be a regular hearing, like the oral argument, except that there will be no
cameras inside the hearing room.
[75]
Joker Arroyo criticized the High Court's ruling, saying it should be, as sitting Justices investigate the case instead,
since: "Delegating the investigation to a panel of retired justices who in turn will submit their findings to the high
court for review and determination [is] akin to a trial by commissioners."
[76]
Judgment
After the Panel of Investigators conducted hearings from August 8 to 23, 2008, it submitted on September 4, its 59
pages Report to the Court en banc.
[77]
The panel found (page 44): the investigation has revealed irregularities and
improprieties committed by the Court of Appeals Justices in connection with the MERALCO case, CA-G.R. SP No.
103692, which are detrimental to the proper administration of justice and damaging to the institutional integrity,
independence and public respect for the Judiciary.
[78]
On September 9, the Supreme Court of the Philippines rendered a 58-page per curiam judgment, in this way:
[79][80]
"WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES as follows: (1) Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas is found guilty of
multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue
interest and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and is DISMISSED from the service, with
FORFEITURE of all benefits, except accrued leave credits if any, with prejudice to his re-employment in any
branch or service of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations; (2) Associate
Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. is found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a justice of the
Court of Appeals and is SUSPENDED for two (2) months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition
of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty; (3) Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.
is SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for his failure to act promptly and decisively in order to avert the incidents
that damaged the image of the Court of Appeals, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will warrant a more severe penalty; (4) Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is found guilty of simple
misconduct with mitigating circumstance and is REPRIMANDED, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty; (5) Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal is
14
found guilty of conduct unbecoming a Justice of the Court of Appeals and is ADMONISHED to be more
circumspect in the discharge of her judicial duties. (6) PCGG Chairman Camilo L. Sabios act to influence the
judgment of a member of the Judiciary in a pending case is hereby referred to the Bar Confidant for
appropriate action (7) Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.s charge against Mr. Francis R. De Borja for attempted bribery
of a member of the Judiciary is hereby referred to the Department of Justice for appropriate action. This
Decision shall take effect immediately."
In a 33-page per curiam resolution, the Supreme Court on October 15, 2008, denied with finality the motions for
reconsideration of all but one of the Court of Appeals (CA) justices, including businessman Mr. Francis de
Borja's.
[81][82]
"...Apart from the above-mentioned separate concurring and dissenting opinion of one Justice, the Justices votes and inhibitions remained
unchanged. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas; Motion for
Reconsideration dated September 15, 2008 filed by Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.; Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by
Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.; A Plea for Compassion and Clemency dated September 22, 2008 filed by Justice Myrna
Dimaranan Vidal; and Motion for Reconsideration dated September 26, 2008 filed by Mr. Francis de Borja are DENIED WITH FINALITY."
CA covenant and DOJ probe
On September 15, 2008, Chief Justice Reynato Puno led the moral enhancement covenant signing by the Justices of
the Court of Appeals' chairpersons of the 23 divisions, and the members of all divisions, in simultaneous ceremonies
at Manila, Cebu, and Cagayan de Oro City. The covenant incorporated a list of institutional reforms, enhancement
program, and mandated "the revision of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), appointment of an
Ombudsman at the CA, caseload reduction, the electronic raffling of cases filed, the appointment of a Justice of the
Day, and the CA One-Stop-Shop.
[83][84]
Accordingly, the Department of Justice (Philippines) panel, chaired by Undersecretary Ernesto Pineda issued
subpoenas to Francis de Borja, Justice Jose Sabio, his daughter Atty. Silvia Jo Guiltiano Sabio and Evelyn Clavano
for the September 19 preliminary investigation.
[85]
House Resolution 705
Meanwhile, 2 pro-administration congressmen, Masbate Rep. Antonio Kho and Nueva Ecija Rep. Joseph Gilbert
Violago, on August 4 called for a House of Representatives probe on the bribery case.
[86]
Accordingly, House
Resolution 705 was filed by Manila Representative Bienvenido Abante Jr., petitioning Congress, through the
committees on energy and justice, to probe the bribery case.
[87]
Judicial corruption
On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its two
surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are
corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery,
because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as
corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or
justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a
Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].
[88][89]
15
CA controversies
Created on February 1, 1936, the Philippine Court of Appeals was initially composed of Justice Pedro Concepcion as
the first Presiding Judge and 10 Appellate Judges appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments of the National Assembly. In March 1938, the appellate Judges were named Justices and their number
increased from 11 to 15, with 3 divisions of 5 under Commonwealth Act No. 259. On December 24, 1941, there
were 19 Justices under Executive Order No. 395. On February 23, 1995, R.A. No. 7902 expanding the jurisdiction of
the Court effective March 18, 1995. On December 30, 1996, R.A. No. 8246 created six (6) more divisions in the
Court, thereby increasing its membership from 51 to 69 Justices (additional divisions - 3 for Visayas and 3 for
Mindanao, the court's regionalization).
The Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 21, 2008, upon recommendation of the investigator, Bernardo P.
Pardo, dismissed Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and
delaying motions of considerations.
[90]
Asuncion was charged of receiving money placed in 2 gym bags delivered to
his office. The Supreme Court, however, found no substantial evidence of bribery, but it dismissed him for gross
ignorance of the law for his issuance of an October 30, 2001, resolution in the case between Philippine National
Bank, the National Labor Relations Commission and Erlinda Archinas.
[91]
He was only the 2nd Court of Appeals
jurist to be dismissed, since the first firing in Philippine judicial history of CA Justice Demetrio G. Demetria, for
interceding in theDOJ drug case of Yu Yuk Lai.
[92]
The CA, thereafter became the center of controversy after Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered an investigation of the
so-called "Dirty Dozen," particularly on the alleged sale of "Temporary Restraining Orders" (Injunction,
Restraining order abuse).
[93]
On August 18, 2007, Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst, president of IBP Cebu City
Chapter, opposed the abolition of the CA in Cebu City, for it will cause inconvenience for both litigants and lawyers.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruben Reyes was tasked to investigate and submit recommendation to the High
Tribunal because of the alleged massive graft and corruption of justices, especially in the issuance of temporary
restraining orders (TROs).
[94]
On April 3, 2007, Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes (now S.C. Justice) ordered an
investigation and a regular auditing and inventory of temporary restraining orders (TROs) issued by the 69 CA
Justices. Reyes stated: I will order a monthly or quarterly inventory of TROs, for transparency and to watch the
movements of the so-called Dirty Dozen [the 12 most corrupt CA justices]. Reynato Puno said that Ombudsman
Merceditas Gutierrez had not yet submitted the list and the Supreme Court was waiting for its delivery amid her
formal investigation against the Dirty Dozen.
[95]
On February 1, 2008, the Court celebrated its 72nd Anniversary.
[96]
Reactions
Government Service Insurance System chief Garcia, on July 31, 2008, asked Justices Vicente Roxas and
Bienvenido Reyes to resign and save the CA institution amid plans to file criminal and administrative lawsuits.
Garcia accused both Justices as Meralco switcheroo" in the case against GSIS: The sordid details of Meralcos
behind-the-scene maneuverings as narrated by Justice Sabio merely put in public display the contempt the
Lopezes have for the law. Lady Justice lies bleeding on the ground, and those who have bloods in their hands
must be made to answer for this dastardly crime! I call on all Filipinos, especially my colleagues in the noble
practice of law, to rise up in unison to condemn these moves by Meralco to protect its interest at the expense of
what is right and just."
[97]
Senator Francis Pangilinan, in a statement, asked the High Court to "act swiftly to get to the bottom of the scandal
and immediately punish the guilty. The SC must show no hesitation whatsoever in pursuing this controversy. The
entire judiciary's reputation is tarnished by this scandal, and the swiftness within which the SC responds will
determine whether the damage is temporary and minimal or if it will be massive and irreparable. The SC must
respond with clear and convincing resoluteness by dismissing from the service the CA justices involved in the
16
irregularities, if the evidence warrants it."
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., Sabio's distant relative, said "whoever tried to bribe the CA should
be made to account for the crime (Kung sino ang nag-offer ng bribe kay Justice Sabio, dapat ihabla kasi krimen
yon e. Of course yung sinsabi ng abogado, dapat pakinggan din. Ang sama ng dating sa taongbayan because
kumbaga, right at the doorstep na ng Supreme Court ito e. It's not only the national, but also the international
reputation of the judiciary could be compromised). No formal investigations have been conducted regarding
alleged irregularities in the judiciary, particularly in the Court of Appeals, because witnesses are afraid to testify
against the so-called hoodlums in robes".
Senator Edgardo Angara said: "Of course, my God when you say that the second-highest level of the judiciary in
the Philippines is corrupt and bribable, who's going to be safe investing here or even travelling here?"
Senator Francis Escudero said: "there were enough laws to deal with the controversy. Besides, inter-branch
courtesy dictates that the Senate would not meddle with the internal affairs of the judiciary. Supreme Court ang
may jurisdiction to discipline erring judges and justices."
Senator Loren Legarda, a former broadcaster of Lopez-owned ABS-CBN, said: "the gravity of the accusation
raised by Sabio were so damaging to the justice system and that they cannot be left unresolved. Sabio's revelation
calls for everyone to have an open mind, and to come to conclusion only after a dispassionate and objective
appreciation of evidencer. The appropriate criminal, civil or administrative cases must be filed against whoever
will be found to have transgressed the law. The judiciary should be above suspicion if it will be effective in
dispensing justice. We cannot have one branch of government being diminished by scandals like this."
[4]
The Senators jointly stated that: "Regardless of the outcome of Meralco-GSIS case at the CA, the senators also
said it is clear the case can no longer be heard by Sabio since his fairness has already been tarnished by the
various allegations."
[98][99]
Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, dean emeritus of the Ateneo Law School, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer, that:The
allegations will not do the judiciary any good but the investigation of the Supreme Court will. I don't know the
facts. I consider (Sabio) to be an honest man.
Ateneo Law Dean Cesar L. Villanueva vouched for Sabio, saying "the CA justice is one of the well-respected
faculty members of the Ateneo Law School."
[100]
The Ateneo Law School student body, per by student council president Jess Lopez, stated: "We, his current
students, stand as witnesses to his fairness and impartiality, which are beyond reproach, and the genuine manner
in which he implores us to stand against all forms of corruption in all aspects of law and governance. The respect
we have for Sabio is derived not only from his remarkable skill in teaching, but likewise from his indubitable
sense of justice, moral conduct, and service to society. Sabios reputation of being a professor of utmost integrity
who will not and cannot be fazed by unjust and wrongful considerations.
[101]
Alberto Lim, executive director of the Makati Business Club (MBC) MBC, said: "if Sabio is telling the truth, the
MBC would be dismayed at Meralco's moves to bribe a CA justice. On the other hand, if De Borja is telling the
truth about Sabio's P50 million bribe demand, it would be a big setback to the judiciary." Sabio said that De Borja
told him "the MBC was happy with his earlier decision to sign a temporary restraining order (TRO) favoring
Meralco." Lim, however, clarified that De Borja is not its member.
[102]
Jovito Salonga, 88, Bantay Katarungan or Sentinel of Justice chair, said: It is true that there is bribery in the CA.
It should already be stopped. The bribery should be exposed. It should be the beginning of legal reforms in our
system of justice. The lawyer-members and even the student monitors of Bantay Katarungan know who these
personalities are and how the corruption works in the appellate court. They know who these people are. We, in
Bantay Katarungan... have been exposing and underscoring the need for reforms in our system of justice. We
have written to the Judicial and Bar Council and from time to time the appointing power on the need for reforms
in specific instances not only in the CA but in the other courts.
Rufus Rodriguez , Cagayan de Oro City Opposition congressman and former law school dean, said: This may be
an initial black eye for the Court of Appeals...but if (Sabio) just remained silent nothing will happen.
[103]
17
Joker Arroyo said: This is a very good opportunity to clean the CA because like cancer, this is now a severe case
that must not be allowed to worsen. The bribery issue involving CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio and the Manila
Electric Co. (Meralco) was a blessing in disguise because people would finally be made aware of what had been
going on in the judiciary. We cannot just have remedial measures, we need to cleanse the CA because
(corruption) has been vulgar. This is corruption right in their front door. Lawyers know all of these but the people
dont. With this scandal, its like a case that only lawyers talked about before had been opened. But nobody
wanted to come forward because they were afraid of the justices and if nothing happened to their complaint, they
would only suffer along with their cases and their clients. Now that this has been opened, it is now up to the
Supreme Court to decide (what to do). Why? Because it has been criticizing corruption in the executive
department, it complains against delay in the decisions of lower courts, now we have an actual case, there was an
(alleged) offer to a justice. Why does (De Borja) have an unusual interest in this case? There are many who are
involved. What happens now is that the SC should decide on it firmly. Once it is within the judiciary, nobody can
interfere except the SC, only the SC can discipline them. We (in the Senate) cannot intervene and so (they) must
resolve this.
Camilo Sabio, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman, and elder brother of Justice
Jose Sabio said: "The CA justice will have a good fight. I believe hes in the right side and I have trust in him.
Ive known him for a long time. Hes my brother. Hes a man of integrity.
CBCPNews, of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, said "the Ateneo de Manila Law School
found the bribery allegations against Sabio as incredible.
Consumer group National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reform (Nasecore), meanwhile, said "Sabios
revelations affirmed that Meralco does not play by the books on court and regulatory cases it is involved in. There
were times in the past that we felt that Meralco had control of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) because
of so many ERC rules that were patently biased in favor of the power company,. So the damning recounting made
by no less than a respected justice of the Court of Appeals on how the minions of Meralco operate should give the
public a very clear picture of what kind of adversary Nasecore has been facing in our lonesome in the past.
Nasecore won a S.C. case against Meralco for a refund of P827 million, on Aug. 16, 2006.
[104]
Senators, on August 12, 2008, called for the ouster or resignation of Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) Chair Camilo Sabio, for allegedly interfering with the GSIS-Meralco case handled by his
brother CA Justice J. Sabio. Francis Escudero stated: Sabio must go not only for intervening but [also] allowing a
classic case of money that was stolen not once but twice. Richard Gordon said Sabio should explain where the
Marcos money went. Alan Peter Cayetano said: If [Camilo Sabio] cannot clean up his own backyard, Im
wondering why he would step out of his way to intervene in the case being handled by his brother. Was he acting
on his own or was he instructed by someone else? Francis Pangilinan stated: The act of the brother of Justice
Sabio may be considered a criminal act. It appears to be an attempt to corrupt a public official under the Revised
Penal Code. An investigation must be undertaken and the necessary criminal charges filed. Manny Villar said
"Sabios interference in the CA case was unethical and should be quickly looked into." Akbayan Rep. Risa
Hontiveros demanded Sabios immediate resignation for purported violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act: persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority. There should be no ifs or buts
because he has already compromised the integrity of his office, which was ironically established to correct
corruption and institute reforms for good government.
[39]
18
References
[1] (http:/ / www.mb.com.ph/ issues/ 2008/ 05/ 28/ MAIN20080528125795. html)
[2] (http:/ / www.manilatimes.net/ national/ 2008/ may/ 29/ yehey/ top_stories/ 20080529top1. html)
[3] (http:/ / www.mb.com.ph/ issues/ 2008/ 05/ 31/ MAIN20080531126120. html)
[4] ph.news.yahoo.com, Senate won't probe bribe try on CA justice (http:/ / ph. news. yahoo. com/ gma/ 20080801/
tph-senate-won-t-probe-bribe-try-on-ca-j-d6cd5cf.html)
[5] "The original sin - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos" (http:/ / opinion. inquirer. net/ inquireropinion/ editorial/ view/
20080813-154255/ The-original-sin). Opinion.inquirer.net. 2008-08-13. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[6] (http:/ / newsbreak. com. ph/ index. php?option=com_content& task=view& id=5256& Itemid=88889051)
[7] (http:/ / www.manilatimes.net/ national/ 2008/ aug/ 14/ yehey/ top_stories/ 20080814top2. html)
[8] "SC dismisses CA justice in bribery case - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/
nation/ view/ 20080909-159535/ 5-CA-justices-committed-lapses--SC-probers-report). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[9] (http:/ / ph. news.yahoo. com/ gma/ 20080909/ tph-ca-justice-sacked-4-others-chastised-d6cd5cf. html)
[10] tradingmarkets.com, CA junks SEC's cease-and-desist order on Meralco even as GSIS scores ruling (http:/ / www. tradingmarkets. com/ .
site/ news/ Stock News/ 1783818/ )
[11] "Meralco website" (http:/ / www. meralco.com. ph/ ). Meralco.com.ph. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[12] Bello, Walden; Marissa De Guzman, Mary Lou Malig, Herbert Docena (2005). The Anti-development State: The Political Economy of
Permanent Crisis in the Philippines (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=3S0ukwMn8LoC& pg=PA293& dq=meralco+ world+ war& lr=&
sig=TPqoP76Kr7z-FhRVj8ROjJptJhE). Zed Books. p.293. ISBN1-84277-631-2. . Retrieved 2008-06-15.
[13] "inquirer.net, Timeline: GSIS-Meralco controversy" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/ nation/ view/ 20080731-151744/
Timeline-GSIS-Meralco-controversy). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[14] tribune.net.ph Explain root of scandal, GSIS chief asks two justices SC urged to focus on case switching 08/03/2008 (http:/ / www. tribune.
net.ph/ headlines/ 20080803hed1.html)
[15] "ABS-CBNNews.com | ABS-CBN News | Latest Philippine Headlines, Breaking News, Video, Analysis, Features" (http:/ / www.
abs-cbnnews.com/ storyPage. aspx?storyId=127392). ABS-CBN News. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[16] tradingmarkets.com, CA en banc refers case of warring justices in controversial Meralco ruling to SC (http:/ / www. tradingmarkets.com/ .
site/ news/ Stock News/ 1800093/ )
[17] (http:/ / ph.news. yahoo. com/ star/ 20080804/ tph-confidence-crisis-ca-b4b2a3e. html)
[18] "Full text of Sabio letter to Vasquez July 26, 2008" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/ nation/ view/ 20080731-151737/
Full-text-of-Sabio-letter-to-Vasquez). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[19] July 24, 2008 Letter of P.J. Conrado Vasquez, Jr. to Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes & Vicente Q. Roxas (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/
images/ news/ newspics/ downloads/ CAdocs.pdf)
[20] Pdf of the letter (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews.com/ images/ news/ newspics/ downloads/ Court of Appeals. pdf)
[21] "inquirer.net, Slash and burn" (http:/ / opinion. inquirer. net/ inquireropinion/ editorial/ view/ 20080803-152291/ Slash-and-burn).
Opinion.inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[22] "De Borja insists Sabio cited P50-M figure - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/
nation/ view/ 20080801-152102/ De-Borja-insists-Sabio-cited-P50-M-figure). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. 2010-06-09. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[23] (http:/ / www. bworldonline. com/ BW080208/ content.php?id=041& src=2)
[24] Who are the justices squabbling over the Meralco case? abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage.
aspx?StoryId=126890)
[25] newsbreak.com.ph, Who are the justices squabbling over the Meralco case? (http:/ / newsbreak. com. ph/ index. php?option=com_content&
task=view& id=5180& Itemid=88889298)
[26] CA Profile of J. Sabio (http:/ / ca.supremecourt.gov.ph/ index. php?action=resume_of_justices& x=25)
[27] As. J. Bienvenido L. Reyes (http:/ / ca. supremecourt.gov. ph/ index. php?action=resume_of_justices& x=27)
[28] "G.R. No. 114849 August 24, 1998" (http:/ / www. lawphil. net/ judjuris/ juri1998/ aug1998/ gr_114849_1998. html). Lawphil.net. .
Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[29] "sunstar.com.ph, Justice Sabio tags bro in Meralco row" (http:/ / www. sunstar. com. ph/ static/ net/ 2008/ 08/ 12/ justice. sabio. tags. bro. in.
meralco.row. html). Sunstar.com.ph. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[30] "manilastandardtoday, Sabio implicates brother as GSIS lobbyist" (http:/ / www. manilastandardtoday. com/ ?page=news3_aug12_2008).
Manilastandardtoday.com. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[31] Profile of J. Roxas (http:/ / ca. supremecourt.gov.ph/ index. php?action=resume_of_justices& x=58)
[32] "CA justice says misquote was inadvertent" (http:/ / www. inquirer. net/ specialfeatures/ subicrapecase/ view. php?db=1& story_id=43256).
Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2007-01-13. . Retrieved 2007-01-23.
[33] A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA, 2005 Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA), Specific Amendments to, 2002 Internal Rules of the
Court of Appeals, February 28, 2005 (http:/ / ca. supremecourt. gov. ph/ images/ references_corner/ 2002ircaamendments. pdf)
[34] A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA, 2005 Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA), Specific Amendments to, 2002 Internal Rules of the
Court of Appeals, February 28, 2005 (http:/ / 209.85.175. 104/ search?q=cache:Np_slLIEjMwJ:ca. supremecourt. gov. ph/ images/
references_corner/ 2002ircaamendments.pdf+ RIRCA& hl=tl& ct=clnk& cd=7& gl=ph& client=firefox-a)
19
[35] Joselito Guianan Chan, Managing Partner, Chan Robles & Associates Law Firm. "2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals" (http:/ /
www.chanrobles. com/ courtofappealsinternalrules2002. html). Chanrobles.com. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[36] A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE 2002 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (http:/ / 209. 85.
175. 104/ search?q=cache:Np_slLIEjMwJ:ca.supremecourt. gov. ph/ images/ references_corner/ 2002ircaamendments. pdf+ RIRCA& hl=tl&
ct=clnk& cd=7& gl=ph& client=firefox-a)
[37] A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE 2002 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (http:/ / ca.
supremecourt.gov. ph/ images/ references_corner/ 2002ircaamendments. pdf)
[38] manilatimes.net, CA violated own rules (http:/ / www. manilatimes. net/ national/ 2008/ aug/ 06/ yehey/ metro/ 20080806met1. html)
[39] "newsinfo.inquirer.net, Senators want Sabio sacked from PCGG" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/ nation/ view/
20080813-154316/ Senators-want-Sabio-sacked-from-PCGG). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. 2008-08-13. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[40] "chanrobles.com, Direct Bribery" (http:/ / www.chanrobles. com/ revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2. htm). Chanrobles.com. .
[41] "RPC, Book II" (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2. htm). Chanrobles.com. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[42] "chanrobles.com, Article 6, RPC" (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook1. htm). Chanrobles.com. .
[43] Joselito Guianan Chan, Managing Partner, Chan Robles & Associates Law Firm. "chanrobles.com, Rule 140, as amended, Discipline of
Judges, Justices" (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ amno018102001sc. htm). Chanrobles.com. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[44] Joselito Guianan Chan, Managing Partner, Chan Robles & Associates Law Firm (1988-04-13). "chanrobles.com, Rule 139-B, Rules of
Court" (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ rulesofcourtrule139-b. htm). Chanrobles.com. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[45] Joselito Guianan Chan, Managing Partner, Chan Robles & Associates Law Firm (1960-08-17). "R.A. 3019" (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/
republicactno3019.htm). Chanrobles.com. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[46] "QTV: gmanews.tv, CA justice says decision on Meralco-GSIS row railroaded, 07/31/2008" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ video/ 26500/
QTV-CA-justice-says-decision-on-Meralco-GSIS-row-railroaded). Gmanews.tv. 2008-07-31. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[47] "QTV: gmanews.tv/largevideo, CDO Businessman: Justice Sabio named his price to favor GSIS over Meralco" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/
largevideo/ home/ 26537/ -QTV---CDO-Businessman-Justice-Sabio-named-his-price-to-favor-GSIS-over-Meralco). Gmanews.tv.
2008-07-31. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[48] "gmanews.tv/story, Businessman turns tables on CA justice over alleged Meralco bribe" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 110682/
Businessman-turns-tables-on-CA-justice-over-alleged-Meralco-bribe). Gmanews.tv. 2008-07-31. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[49] "inquirer.net, De Borja insists Sabio cited P50-M figure" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/ 20080801-152102/
De-Borja-insists-Sabio-cited-P50-M-figure). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[50] abs-cbnnews.com, Lopez denies trying to bribe CA justice (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage. aspx?StoryId=127020)
[51] "gmanews.tv, Sabio accuser in CA bribery try agrees to lie detector test" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 111141/
Sabio-accuser-in-CA-bribery-try-agrees-to-lie-detector-test). Gmanews.tv. 2008-08-03. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[52] "gmanews.tv/story, CA justice mum on identity of broker in GSIS-Meralco row" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 110534/
CA-justice-mum-on-identity-of-broker-in-GSIS-Meralco-row). Gmanews.tv. 2008-07-31. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[53] "manilastandardtoday.com, 65 justices to review fishy Meralco order" (http:/ / www. manilastandardtoday. com/
?page=news2_july31_2008). Manilastandardtoday.com. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[54] "inquirer.net, SC to probe conflict, bribery attempt in CA on Meralco case" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/
20080731-151800/ UPDATE-2-CA-seeks-SC-probe-over-P10-M-bribe-try). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. 2008-07-31. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[55] "gmanews.tv, SC to investigate bribery issue" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 110989/ SC-to-investigate-bribery-issue). Gmanews.tv.
2008-08-02. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[56] "inquirer.net, Justice bares P10-M bribe, Sabio tags emissary of Meralco" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/
20080731-151732/ Justice-bares-P10-M-bribe). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. 2008-07-31. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[57] "sunstar.com.ph, Sabio: I have proof of de Borja bribery (2:21 p.m.)" (http:/ / www. sunstar. com. ph/ static/ net/ 2008/ 08/ 01/ sabio. i. have.
proof. of. de. borja.bribery.(2. 21. p. m. ).html). Sunstar.com.ph. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[58] "manilastandardtoday.com, Un-Sabio-ry affair" (http:/ / www. manilastandardtoday. com/ ?page=business6_aug1_2008).
[59] "newsinfo.inquirer.net, Sabio denies asking for P50-M from Meralco emissarym Bribery, perjury raps mulled vs De Borja" (http:/ /
newsinfo.inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/ 20080801-152050/ Sabio-denies-asking-for-P50-M-from-Meralco-emissary).
Newsinfo.inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[60] "gmanews.tv/story, CDO trader says de Borja asked for Sabio's number" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 110924/
CDO-trader-says-de-Borja-asked-for-Sabios-number). Gmanews.tv. 2008-08-01. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[61] manilatimes.net, Manolo lopez says Sabios charges a fabrication (http:/ / www. manilatimes. net/ national/ 2008/ aug/ 02/ yehey/
top_stories/ 20080802top2. html)
[62] "gmanews.tv/story, Meralco chairman denies allegations of bribery" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 110953/
(Updated-1030-pm)-Who-is-De-Borja). Gmanews.tv. 2008-08-01. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[63] manilatimes.net, Sabio: Lopezes my slayers, Businessmans bribe allegations filthy lies (http:/ / www. manilatimes. net/ national/ 2008/ aug/
02/ yehey/ top_stories/ 20080802top1.html)
20
[64] http:/ / www.abs-cbnnews. com/ images/ news/ newspics/ slideshows/ images/ frontdoor/ 20080801Justice-Jose-Sabio-jrKC3M7250PAG.
jpgInsert Abs Cbn, picture of the August 1, 2008 press conference in his chambers
[65] "manilastandardtoday.com, Delicadeza at the court" (http:/ / www. manilastandardtoday. com/ ?page=alvinCapino_aug1_2008).
[66] "Sabio, Lopez friend trade lies on live TV" (http:/ / www. manilastandardtoday. com/ ?page=news1_aug2_2008).
[67] manilatimes.net, FROM THE SIDELINES A court jurisdictional issue (http:/ / www. manilatimes. net/ national/ 2008/ july/ 31/ yehey/
opinion/ 20080731opi7. html)
[68] abs-cbnnews.com, CA head decides for Sabio in rift on Meralco case (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage. aspx?StoryId=126888)
[69] abs-cbnnews.com, Meralco legal war causes dissent among CA justices (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage.
aspx?StoryID=126887)
[70] abs-cbnnews.com, GSIS asks Supreme Court to reverse CA on Meralco ruling (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage.
[71] pacificnewscenter.com, Philippine Supreme Court Investigates Bribery Accusations Surrounding Court of Appeals Judge (http:/ / www.
pacificnewscenter. com/ index. php?option=com_content& view=article&
id=2014:philippine-supreme-court-investigates-bribery-accusations-surrounding-court-of-appeals-judge& catid=66:philippines& Itemid=142)
[72] abs-cbnnews.com, Three retired justices to hear CA bribery scandal (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage. aspx?StoryId=127251)
[73] S.C. Res. dated 4 August, 2008 (http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov. ph/ 08-8-11-SC. pdf)
[74] "newsinfo.inquirer.net, 3 retired SC justices to probe CA bribery case" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/ nation/ view/
20080805-152660/ 3-retired-SC-justices-to-probe-CA-bribery-case). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[75] "gmanews.tv, 3-man panel on CA bribery controversy to convene Wednesday" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 111623/
3-man-panel-on-CA-bribery-controversy-to-convene-Wednesday). Gmanews.tv. 2008-08-05. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[76] "inquirer.net/breakingnews, SC, not retired justices, should hear CA bribery case" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/
view/ 20080805-152791/ SC-not-retired-justices-should-hear-CA-bribery-case). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[77] "reuters.com, Manila high court reins in judges over bribery scandal" (http:/ / www. reuters. com/ article/
rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/ idUSMAN33895120080909). Reuters.com. 2008-09-09. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[78] "allheadlinenews,Philippine Supreme Court Axes 1 Court Of Appeals Justice, Suspends Another Over Bribery Case" (http:/ / www.
allheadlinenews. com/ articles/ 7012229081). Allheadlinenews.com. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[79] supremecourt.gov.ph, Sept. 9, 2008, Decision, RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP
NO. 103692 (Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.) A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA (http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov.
ph/ jurisprudence/ 2008/ september2008/ 08-8-11-CA.htm)
[80] "gulf-times.com, Boost for Philippine campaign against hoodlums in robes" (http:/ / www. gulf-times. com/ site/ topics/ article.
asp?cu_no=2& item_no=241386& version=1& template_id=45& parent_id=25). Gulf-times.com. 2008-09-14. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[81] SC Denies MR of CA Justices (http:/ / www.supremecourt. gov. ph/ news/ courtnews flash/ 2008/ 10/ 10150801. php)
[82] "newsinfo.inquirer.net, SC upholds ruling vs CA justices, trader" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/
20081015-166524/ SC-upholds-ruling-vs-CA-justices-trader). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. 2008-10-15. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[83] supremecourt.gov.ph/news, CA Justices Sign Covenant to Moral Enhancement (http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov. ph/ news/ courtnews flash/
2008/ 09/ 09150803.php)
[84] "inquirer.net, CA justices vow to overcome controversy" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/ nation/ view/ 20080916-160930/
CA-justices-vow-to-overcome-controversy). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. 2008-09-16. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[85] "inquirer.net, DoJ calls more witnesses to CA bribe probe" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/ 20080917-161219/
DoJ-calls-more-witnesses-to-CA-bribe-probe). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. 2008-09-17. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[86] "gmanews.tv, 2 admin solons want alleged Meralco bribe try probed" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 111391/
2-admin-solons-want-alleged-Meralco-bribe-try-probed). Gmanews.tv. 2008-08-04. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[87] "newsinfo.inquirer.net, House probe sought on CA controversy; resolution filed" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/
view/ 20080805-152770/ House-probe-sought-on-CA-controversy-resolution-filed). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[88] "www.sws.org.ph, New Diagnostic Study Sets Guideposts for Systematic Development of the Judiciary" (http:/ / www. sws. org. ph/
pr061210. htm). Sws.org.ph. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[89] "www.sws.org.ph, New SWS Study of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession Sees Some Improvements, But Also Recurring Problems"
(http:/ / www. sws.org. ph/ pr050125. htm). Sws.org.ph. 2005-01-25. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[90] elibrary.supremecourt.gov.ph, Decision, CA Justice J Elvi Asuncion (http:/ / elibrary. supremecourt. gov. ph/ decisions.
php?doctype=Decisions / Signed Resolutions& docid=a45475a11ec72b843d74959b60fd7bd6460c2cfb6cf5e#sam)
[91] abs-cbnnews.com, SC dismissed CA justices in the past (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage. aspx?StoryId=127279)
[92] lawphil.net, En Banc, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: Derogatory News Items, Interference for suspected drug Queen, CA
Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria (http:/ / www. lawphil. net/ judjuris/ juri2001/ mar2001/ am_00-7-09-ca_2001. html)
[93] manilatimes.net/national, Court of Appeals justice dismissed (http:/ / www. manilatimes. net/ national/ 2007/ mar/ 21/ yehey/ top_stories/
20070321top1. html)
[94] Manila Bulletin, IBP Cebu City opposes abolition of CA Cebu (http:/ / www. mb. com. ph/ PROV20070819100756. html)
21
[95] manilatimes.net, CA acts against Dirty 12, lamppost accused (http:/ / www. manilatimes. net/ national/ 2007/ apr/ 03/ yehey/ top_stories/
20070403top5. html)
[96] mb.com.ph, The Court of Appeals: The Second Highest Court of the Land (http:/ / www. mb. com. ph/ OPED20080201115915. html)
[97] "gmanews.tv, GSIS chief urges 2 CA justices to resign" (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 110668/
P10-M-bribe-try-GSIS-chief-urges-2-CA-justices-to-resign P10-M bribe try:). Gmanews.tv. 2008-07-31. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[98] abs-cbnnews.com, SC urged to 'swiftly' probe bribery scandal in CA (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage. aspx?StoryId=127033)
[99] "newsinfo.inquirer.net, Corruption in Court of Appeals widespread - senators" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/
20080804-152639/ Corruption-in-Court-of-Appeals-widespread----senators). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. 2010-06-09. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[100] Headlines Joker to SC: Act on CA mess swiftly By Aurea Calica Sunday, August 3, 2008 (http:/ / www. philstar. com/ index.
php?Headlines& p=49& type=2& sec=24& aid=20080802147)
[101] Abigail Kwok (2008-08-01). "inquirer.net/specialfeatures, Sabios law students express support" (http:/ / www. inquirer. net/
specialfeatures/ education/ view.php?db=1& article=20080801-152063). Inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[102] abs-cbnnews.com, Lopez: We don't bribe people to win cases (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ topofthehour. aspx?StoryId=127049)
[103] "inquirer.net, Corruption in CA notorious-Salonga" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/ 20080802-152264/
Corruption-in-CA-notorious--Salonga). Newsinfo.inquirer.net. . Retrieved 2012-02-19.
[104] tribune.net.ph Explain root of scandal, GSIS chief asks two justices SC urged to focus on case switching, 08/03/2008 (http:/ / www.
tribune.net. ph/ headlines/ 20080803hed1.html)
External links
Website Court of Appeals (http:/ / ca. supremecourt. gov. ph/ )
History of the Court of Appeals (http:/ / ca. supremecourt. gov. ph/ index. php?action=profile)
Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997, Republic Act No. 8291 (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/
legal4gsis. htm)
Personal information on the Justices of the Court of Appeals (http:/ / www. i-site. ph/ Databases/ Judiciary/
CourtofAppeals/ personal/ cajustices-roster. html)
A History of the Court of Appeals (http:/ / ca. supremecourt. gov. ph/ index. php?action=mnuactual_contents&
ap=history)
Philippines: Gov.Ph: About the Philippines (http:/ / www. gov. ph/ cat_justice/ default. asp) Justice category
List of CA Justices (http:/ / ca. supremecourt. gov. ph/ index. php?action=justices_list) List of Justices of the
CA
The Supreme Court of the Philippines (http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov. ph) Official website
History of the Supreme Court (http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov. ph/ history. htm)
Philippines Judicial Department (http:/ / www. photius. com/ countries/ philippines/ government/
philippines_government_judicial_department. html)
GSIS website (http:/ / www. gsis. gov. ph/ )
Meralco website (http:/ / www. meralco. com. ph/ )
ABS-CBN website (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ index. aspx)
Revised Penal Code, Book I (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook1. htm)
Revised Penal Code, Book II (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2. htm)
Revised Rules of Court (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ rulesofcourt. htm)
Rule 139-B, Disbarment of Judges/Lawyers (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ rulesofcourtrule139-b. htm)
Rule 140, as amended, Discipline of Judges, Justices (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ amno018102001sc. htm)
Philippine Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices laws (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ republicactno3019. htm)
Portal to Philippine politics and current events dialogues (http:/ / www. philippinepolitics. net)
A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA 2005 Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA), Specific Amendments to,
2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, February 28, 2005 (http:/ / ca. supremecourt. gov. ph/ images/
references_corner/ 2002ircaamendments. pdf)
2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ courtofappealsinternalrules2002.
html)
22
A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA, 2005 Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA), Specific Amendments to,
2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, February 28, 2005 (http:/ / 209. 85. 175. 104/
search?q=cache:Np_slLIEjMwJ:ca. supremecourt. gov. ph/ images/ references_corner/ 2002ircaamendments.
pdf+ RIRCA& hl=tl& ct=clnk& cd=7& gl=ph& client=firefox-a)
Code of Judicial Conduct, 1989 (http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ codeofjudicialconduct. html)
Transcript of final deliberation, Court of Appeals 8th Division (GSIS vs Meralco), July 14, 2008 (http:/ / www.
abs-cbnnews. com/ images/ news/ newspics/ downloads/ Transcript of final deliberation, Court of Appeals 8th
Division (GSIS vs Meralco). pdf)
Letters of CA Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal (GSIS vs. Meralco) (http:/ / www.
abs-cbnnews. com/ images/ news/ newspics/ downloads/ Letters of CA Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Myrna
Dimaranan Vidal (GSIS vs. Meralco). pdf)
Memroandum of CA Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr. (GSIS vs. Meralco) (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/
images/ news/ newspics/ downloads/ Memroandum of CA Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr. (GSIS vs. Meralco).
pdf)
Letter of CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. to fellow justices (GSIS vs. Meralco) (http:/ / www.
abs-cbnnews. com/ images/ news/ newspics/ downloads/ Letter of CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. to
fellow justices (GSIS vs. Meralco). pdf)
CA Justice Vicente Roxas's statement to the en banc (GSIS vs. Meralco) (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/
images/ news/ newspics/ downloads/ CA Justice Vicente Roxas's statement to the en banc (GSIS vs. Meralco).
pdf)
Abs-Cbn, 2002 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS August 22, 2002 (http:/ / www.
abs-cbnnews. com/ images/ news/ newspics/ downloads/ internal rules. doc)
Abs-Cbn, Timeline: The Meralco-GSIS clash (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage.
aspx?StoryID=127270)
S.C. Res. dated 4 August, 2008, A.M. No. 08-8-11-SC. August 4, 2008 Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado
M. Vasquez, Jr. (http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov. ph/ 08-8-11-SC. pdf)
Sept. 9, 2008, Decision, RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R.
SP NO. 103692 (Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.) A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA
(http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2008/ september2008/ 08-8-11-CA. htm)
AM No. 08-8-11-CA, Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA-GR SP No. 103692,
October 15, 2008 (http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2008/ october2008/ 08-8-11-CA. htm)
Neri vs. Senate
23
Neri vs. Senate
Romulo L. Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations, Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on
National Defense and Security
Decided 25 March 2008
M.R. denied 4 September 2008
Ponente Teresita Leonardo-De Castro
G.R. No. 180643
Majority: 9
Quisumbing, Carpio (also filed dissent), Corona, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-De Castro,
Brion
Dissent: 6
Puno, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio (also filed concurrence), Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna
Neri vs. Senate Committee, et al. is a controversial ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines which affirmed
the invocation of executive privilege by petitioner Romulo Neri, member of the Cabinet of President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, regarding questions asked during a Congressional inquiry on the controversial multi-million
dollar National Broadband Network (NBN) Project. The Supreme Court finally affirmed this ruling on September 4
and 23, 2008 by denying the defendant Senate Committees' first and second Motions for Reconsideration.
The facts and the Court's ruling
Petitioner Romulo Neri, then Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), was
invited by the respondent Senate Committees to attend their joint investigation on the alleged anomalies in the
National Broadband Network (NBN) Project. This project was contracted by the Philippine Government with the
Chinese firm Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE), which involved the amount of US$ 329,481,290.
When he testified before the Senate Committees, he disclosed that then Commission on Elections Chairman
Benjamin Abalos, brokering for ZTE, offered him P200 million in exchange for his approval of the NBN Project. He
further narrated that he informed President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she
instructed him not to accept the bribe. However, when probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project,
petitioner refused to answer, invoking executive privilege. In particular, he refused to answer the questions on 1.)
whether or not the President followed up the NBN Project, 2.) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and 3.)
whether or not she directed him to approve it.
Later on, respondent Committees issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum to petitioner, requiring him to appear and
testify on 20 November 2007. However, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita sent a letter dated 15 November to the
Committees requesting them to dispense with Neri's testimony on the ground of executive privilege. Ermita invoked
the privilege on the ground that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as
economic relations with the Peoples Republic of China, and given the confidential nature in which these
information were conveyed to the President, Neri cannot provide the Committee any further details of these
conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect. Thus, on 20 November, Neri
did not appear before the respondent Committees.
On 22 November, respondents issued a Show Cause Letter to Neri requiring him to show cause why he should not be
cited for contempt for his failure to attend the scheduled hearing on 20 November. On 29 November, Neri replied to
the Show Cause Letter and explained that he did not intend to snub the Senate hearing, and requested that if there be
new matters that were not yet taken up during his first appearance, he be informed in advance so he can prepare
Neri vs. Senate
24
himself. He added that his non-appearance was upon the order of the President, and that his conversation with her
dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of the bribery scandal
involving high government officials and the possible loss of confidence of foreign investors and lenders in the
Philippines. Respondents found the explanation unsatisfactory, and later on issued an Order citing Neri in contempt
and consequently ordering his arrest and detention at the Office of the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms until he appears and
gives his testimony.
Filing of the petition
Neri filed this present petition asking the Court to nullify both the Show Cause Letter and the Contempt Order for
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and stressed that his
refusal to answer the three questions was anchored on a valid claim to executive privilege in accordance with the
ruling in the landmark case of Senate vs. Ermita
[1]
(G.R. No. 169777, 20 April 2006).
[2]
For its part, the Senate
Committees argued that they did not exceed their authority in issuing the assailed orders because there is no valid
justification for Neri's claim to executive privilege. In addition, they claimed that the refusal of petitioner to answer
the three questions violates the peoples right to public information, and that the executive is using the concept of
executive privilege as a means to conceal the criminal act of bribery in the highest levels of government.
The main issue and the Court's ruling
The main substantial issue sought to be resolved in the case was whether the three questions that petitioner Neri
refused to answer were covered by executive privilege, making the arrest order issued by the respondent Senate
Committees void.
The divided Supreme Court (voting 9-6)
[3]
was convinced that the three questions are covered by presidential
communications privilege, and that this privilege has been validly claimed by the executive department, enough to
shield petitioner Neri from any arrest order the Senate may issue against him for not answering such questions.
Validity of claim to executive privilege
Citing the case of United States vs. Nixon (418 U.S. 683), the Court laid out the three elements needed to be
complied with in order for the claim to executive privilege to be valid. These are: 1.) the protected communication
must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable presidential power; 2.) it must be authored, solicited, and received
by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in
operational proximity with the President; and, 3.) it may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the
information sought likely contains important evidence, and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by
an appropriate investigating authority.
Anent the first element, executive privilege may be validly claimed by the executive department only in cases where
the power subject of the legislative inquiry is expressly granted by the Constitution to the President. Such powers
include the commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic powers. In light of the doctrine of separation
of powers, the said powers of the President enjoy a greater degree of confidentiality than other presidential powers.
In the present case, Executive Secretary Ermita claimed executive privilege on the argument that the
communications elicited by the three questions fall under conversation and correspondence between the President
and public officials necessary in her executive and policy decision-making process, and that the information
sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the Peoples Republic of
China. It is clear then that the basis of the claim is a matter related to the quintessential and non-delegable
presidential power of diplomacy or foreign relations.
As to the second element, the communications were received by a close advisor of the President. Under the
operational proximity test, petitioner Neri can be considered a close advisor, being a member of the President's
Cabinet.
Neri vs. Senate
25
And as to the third element, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of
the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
Presidential communications are presumptively privileged and that the presumption can be overcome only by mere
showing of public need by the branch seeking access to such conversations. In the present case, respondent
Committees failed to show a compelling or critical need for the answers to the three questions in the enactment of
any law under Sec. 21, Art. VI. Instead, the questions veer more towards the exercise of the legislative oversight
function under Sec. 22, Art. VI. As ruled in Senate vs. Ermita, the the oversight function of Congress may be
facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.
Compulsory process and Congress' oversight function
In determining whether Congress correctly ordered Neri's arrest for his refusal to answer the three questions, a
distinction must be first laid down between Sections 21 and 22, Article VI of the Philippine Constitution. Sec. 21
relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Its aim is to elicit information that may be used for the
enactment of laws. On the other hand, Sec. 22 pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of
which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress' oversight function over the executive department. Compulsory
process is available in Congress' exercise of its powers under Sec. 21. In Sec. 22, it is NOT.
Senate vs. Ermita is clear: When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing
the statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom, as
Chief Executive, such department heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty. In such
instances, Section 22, in keeping with the separation of powers, states that Congress may only request their
appearance. Nonetheless, when the inquiry in which Congress requires their appearance is in aid of legislation
under Section 21, the appearance is mandatory.
Use of executive privilege in concealing a crime
Respondent Committees argue that a claim of executive privilege does not guard against a possible disclosure of a
crime or wrongdoing. The Court does not contest this. It has been settled that the specific need for evidence in a
pending criminal trial outweighs the Presidents generalized interest in confidentiality. However, the present case
DOES NOT INVOLVE A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING where the information sought from Neri would help in
meeting the demands of fair administration of criminal justice. Instead, the present controversy arose from a
legislative inquiry. There is a clear difference between Congress' legislative tasks and the responsibility of a criminal
court. While fact-finding by a legislative committee is undeniably a part of its task, legislative judgments normally
depend more on the predicted consequences of proposed legislative actions and their political acceptability, than on
precise reconstruction of past events; Congress frequently legislates on the basis of conflicting information provided
in its hearings. In contrast, the responsibility of the criminal court turns entirely on its ability to determine whether
there is probable cause to believe that certain named individuals did or did not commit specific crimes.
Executive privilege and the people's right to information
It should be noted that petitioner Neri appeared before the respondent Committees and answered all of their
questions except the three where he claimed executive privilege. Nevertheless, his refusal to answer based on the
claim of executive privilege does not violate the people's right to information on matters of public concern simply
because Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution itself provides that this right is subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law. As correctly pleaded by Neri, he is precluded from divulging the answers to the three questions by
Sec. 7 of R.A. 6713, Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code, Sec. 3(k) of R.A. 3019, and Section 24(e), Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court. These are in addition to the larger concept of executive privilege, which recognizes the public
interest in the confidentiality of certain information.
Neri vs. Senate
26
Right of Congress to information and the right to public information
In addition, respondent Committees have a wrong understanding of the people's right to public information. The
right of Congress or any of its Committees to obtain information in aid of legislation cannot be equated with the
peoples right to public information. As laid down in Senate vs. Ermita, the demand of a citizen for the production
of documents pursuant to his right to information does not have the same obligatory force as a subpoena duces tecum
issued by Congress. Neither does the right to information grant a citizen the power to exact testimony from
government officials. These powers belong only to Congress, not to an individual citizen.
Even if Congress is composed of representatives elected by the people, it does not follow, except in a highly
qualified sense, that in every exercise of its power of inquiry, the people are exercising their right to information.
The members of respondent Committees should not invoke as justification in their exercise of power a right properly
belonging to the people in general. This is because when they discharge their power, they do so as public officials
and members of Congress.
Abuse of discretion in ordering Neri's arrest
In fine, the Court gave five reasons for ruling that respondents exceeded their authority in issuing the assailed orders:
1.) There being a legitimate claim of executive privilege, the issuance of the contempt Order is void.
2.) Respondents did not comply with the requirement laid down in Senate vs. Ermita that the invitations should
contain the possible needed statute which prompted the need for the inquiry, along with the usual indication of the
subject of inquiry and the questions relative to and in furtherance thereof, as required in Sec. 21 and 22, Art. VI of
the Constitution.
3.) Only a minority of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee was present during the deliberation for the issuance of the
contempt Order. This is in violation of Sec. 18 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation,
which provides that the Committee, by a vote of majority of all its members, may punish for contempt any witness
before it who disobeys any order of the Committee or refuses to be sworn or to testify or to answer proper questions
by the Committee or any of its members.
4.) Respondents violated Sec. 21, Art. VI of the Philippine Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be in accordance
with the duly published rules of procedure. This requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of
procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it.
Since Senatorial elections are held every three years for one-half of the Senates membership, the composition of the
Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit.
Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate
are therefore procedurally infirm.
5.) The issuance of the contempt Order is arbitrary and precipitate. The respondent Committees did not first pass
upon the claim of executive privilege and inform petitioner of their ruling. Instead, they dismissed his explanation as
unsatisfactory and simultaneously issued the Order citing him in contempt and ordering his immediate arrest and
detention, even if he has expressed his desire to appear before them to answer other questions except those covered
by executive privilege.
Neri vs. Senate
27
Doctrines laid down
1.) Compulsory process in legislative proceedings can only be exercised by Congress in inquiries in aid of legislation
under Sec. 21 Art. VI, and not in the exercise of its oversight function under Sec. 22 Art. VI.
2.) Executive privilege cannot be used to conceal a crime or a possible wrongdoing. Thus, the specific need for
evidence in a pending criminal trial outweighs the Presidents generalized interest in confidentiality. However, there
is a difference between a criminal investigation and a legislative inquiry, and the presumption in favor of
confidentiality precedes the right to demand information if the information is elicited in legislative inquiries and not
in criminal investigations.
3.) The right of Congress or any of its Committees to obtain information in aid of legislation cannot be equated with
the peoples right to public information. The demand of a citizen for the production of documents pursuant to his
right to information does not have the same obligatory force as a subpoena duces tecum issued by Congress. In the
exercise of its power, Congress cannot invoke a right properly belonging to the people in general. This is because
when they discharge their power, they do so as public officials and members of Congress.
References
[1] http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov. ph/ DECISION%20EO%20464%20Final. htm
[2] Senate vs. Ermita (http:/ / www. supremecourt.gov. ph/ DECISION EO 464 Final. htm)
[3] http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2008/ march2008/ 180643_index. htm
People v. Hernandez
People of the Philippines v. Hernandez , 99 Phil. Rep 515 (1956), was a case decided by the Philippine Supreme
Court which held that the crime of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines is charged as a single
offense, and that it cannot be made into a complex crime. While it was decided on an almost divided opinion, it
nevertheless became a stable doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence.
Facts
It was the height of the Government action against communists and the Hukbalahap guerillas. President Elpidio
Quirino, through his Defense Secretary (and later, President) Ramon Magsaysay intensified the campaign against
them, and the crackdown was on against communist organizations. Due to such government action, several
communist leaders like Luis Taruc and the Lava brothers were soon in government custody.
On January 20, 1951, the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) headquarters was raided. Writer (and future
National Artist for Literature) Amado V. Hernandez, himself a labor leader, was arrested on January 26 for various
rebellious activities with the CLO. Upon his arrest, he was charged in the criminal information of Rebellion with
Murder, Arson and Robbery. Five years after his arrest, Hernandez asked for bail with the court where his case was
pending, but was denied on the basis of the nature of the offense (if the crime was complexed, the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed). Thus, he filed a petition to the Supreme Court.
People v. Hernandez
28
Arguments
The government, headed by Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, argued that the gravity of the crime committed
required the denial of the bail. Moreover, the complex crime charged by the government against Hernandez has been
successfully imposed with other arrested communist leaders and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Decision
The Supreme Court, through then Associate Justice Roberto Concepcion, ruled that rebellion cannot be complexed
with other crimes, such as murder and arson. Rebellion in itself would include and absorb the said crimes, thus
granting the accused his right to bail. Murder and arson are crimes inherent and concomitant when rebellion is taking
place. Rebellion in the Revised Penal Code constitutes one single crime and that there is no reason to complex it with
other crimes. As basis, the Court cited several cases convicting the defendants of simple rebellion although they
killed several persons.
Thus, the petition for bail was granted. On May 30, 1964, the Supreme Court acquitted Hernandez (People v.
Hernandez (1964)
[1]
).
Legacy
The Court was divided upon the decision, having a vote of 6-4 (one justice died a month before its promulgation).
But it was later on accepted as valuable jurisprudence, starting with the subsequent case of People of the Philippines
v. Geronimo (100 Phil. Reports 90). The case is now a standard case study in Philippine law schools.
According to Justice J.B.L. Reyes, during the deliberations of the Hernandez case, Justice Sabino Padilla (who is the
brother of the Solicitor General, Ambrosio Padilla) openly accused Chief Justice Ricardo Paras for being prejudiced
against the Government and asking biased questions during the oral argument. Riled, Paras rebutted, and a heated
exchange soon ensued between the Chief Justice and Padilla, which would have worsened had not they restrained
themselves.
As of 1990, the Philippine Supreme Court again revisited the doctrine in Hernandez, where Juan Ponce Enrile was
similarly charged with the same offense as Hernandez. The Supreme Court upheld anew the Hernandez decision
(Enrile v. Salazar (1990)
[2]
), maintaining that it is still good law and applicable.
References
Agoncillo, Teodoro A. (1990). History of the Filipino People (8th edition). Garotech Publishing, Quezon City
Cruz, Isagani A. (2000). Res Gestae: A Brief History of the Supreme Court. Rex Book Store, Manila
Reyes, Luis B. (2001). The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law, Vol. 2. Rex Book Store, Manila
References
[1] http:/ / www. lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1964/ may1964/ gr_l-6025_1964. html
[2] http:/ / www. lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1990/ jun1990/ gr_92163_1990. html
Philippine habeas corpus cases
29
Philippine habeas corpus cases are cases decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, concerning the writ of
habeas corpus.
The writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in order to prevent any in the earth violence in cases of rebellion or
insurrection, as the case may be. In Philippine jurisdiction, the present 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III,
Section 15 provides that The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it. In Article 8, Section 18, there are limitations imposed in
case of suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Barcelon v. Baker (5 Phil. Reports 87, 1905 read the case
[1]
)
At the early years of the American Rule in the Philippines, lawlessness was rampant and criminal activities were at
large. Governor-General James Francis Smith, with the consent of the Philippine Commission, suspended the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the provinces of Batangas and Cavite. A petition was raised questioning
such suspension of the writ.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling sustaining the suspension of the privilege of the writ. It said that the decision of
the Governor-General is his duty on his part, and that the court cannot question the acts of the executive and
legislative branches of government. Simply put, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is a
political question that courts cannot decide upon.
Montenegro v. Castaeda (91 Phil. Reports 882, 1949)
President Elpidio Quirino suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in some parts of Luzon in order to
stifle the emergence of the Hukbalahap guerillas. Such suspension was again questioned in the Supreme Court. The
court affirmed the presidents acts of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, based on the decision in
the Barcelon case.
Lansang v. Garcia (G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971; 42 SCRA 448 read
the case
[2]
)
On August 21, 1972, grenades exploded at Plaza Miranda in the city of Manila during a public meeting of the
Liberal Party. Acting on such an event, on August 23, 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos suspended the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus on the entire country. Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court for the release of several
arrested persons.
The Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, ruled that the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus was proper for having factual and legal basis clearly provided forth by the government. But the
Supreme Court, reversing the Barcelon and Montenegro cases, declared that the Judiciary has the authority to inquire
into the factual basis of such suspension, and that the suspension is to be annulled if no legal ground would be
established. Thus, such action is now considered justiciable to be decided by the courts.
30
Aquino v. Enrile (G.R. No. L-35546, September 17, 1974, 59 SCRA 183 read
the case
[3]
)
Decided during martial law, it involved the petition of habeas corpus of Marcos critics, notably Benigno Aquino, Jr.
and Jose W. Diokno. The Supreme Court decided unanimously to dismiss the petitions, but as Chief Justice Querube
Makalintal put it, "there was no agreement as to the manner the issues would be treated and developed. The same
destination would be reached, so to speak, but through different routes and by means of different vehicles of
approach." He said that the reason why the Court did not produce a single, collegial opinion, among others, was that
the members of the Supreme Court are conscious of "the future verdict of history" upon their stand.
Even before the cases were decided, Diokno, to the chagrin of the Supreme Court, opted to withdraw his petition on
the ground that no fair decision can be made of the court to render him justice. What made it worse was the fact that
before the Supreme Court could respond to Diokmos challenge, Marcos issued an order releasing him and the other
petitioners, leaving Aquino behind.
Justice Fred Ruiz Castro opined that the declaration of martial law automatically suspends the application of the said
writ, thus Aquino cannot be released. He said that martial law "is founded upon the principle that the state has a right
to protect itself against those who would destroy it, and has therefore been likened to the right of an individual to
self-defense."
Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile (L-61388, April 20, 1983 ,121 SCRA 472, read the case
[4]
)
In this decision involving subversion, the Supreme Court reversed the Lansang ruling and reverted back to the
Barcelon and Montenegro ruling that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is a political
question.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution
The present Philippine Constitution, in reaction to the Marcos regime, adopted a procedure in cases of suspension of
the writ or declaration of martial law by the president.
It states that in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, the President may suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for a period not exceeding sixty days, or place the Philippines or any part of
the country under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The
Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke
or extend such proclamation or suspension. If Congress is not in session it shall, convene without need of a call
within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension.
Such check and balance placed on the Supreme Court relied heavily on the Lansang case. It is provided that the
Supreme Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof. It is mandated to promulgate its decision within
thirty days from its filing by any citizen.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses
inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
31
References
Bernas, Joaquin (2003). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: a Commentary. Rex Book
Store, Manila
Magsalin, Mariano (2004). Philippine Political Law, Arellano Law Foundation
Mijares, Primitivo(1976). The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, Union Square
Publications, San Francisco, U.S.A.
References
[1] http:/ / www. lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1905/ sep1905/ gr_2808_1905. html
[2] http:/ / www. lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1971/ dec1971/ gr_33964_1971. html
[3] http:/ / www. lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1974/ sep1974/ gr_l_35546_1974. html
[4] http:/ / www. lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1983/ apr1983/ gr_l_61388_1983. html
Quinto vs. COMELEC
32
Quinto vs. COMELEC
Eleazar Quinto and Gerino Tolentino Jr. vs. Commission on Elections
Decided December 1, 2009
M.R. granted 22 February 2010
Ponente Reynato Puno
G.R. No. 189698
Majority: 10
Puno, Carpio, Carpio Morales, Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez,
Mendoza
Dissent: 5
Corona, Velasco Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin
Eleazar Quinto and Gerino Tolentino Jr. vs. Commission on Elections is a controversial decision of the Supreme
Court of the Philippines which paved way, albeit temporarily, for incumbent appointive executive officials to stay in
office after filing their certificates of candidacy for election to an elective office. The decision was first decided by a
slim majority of 8-6, but was eventually reversed 10-5 upon a Motion for Reconsideration after the retirement of one
justice and the appointment of two new ones.
The assailed Comelec Resolution
In preparation for the upcoming 2010 National Elections, the Commission on Elections issued Resolution No. 8678
to govern the filing of Certificates of Candidacy for national and local positions. Section 4 of the Resolution reads:
Sec. 4. Effects of Filing of Certificates of Candidacy. (a) Any person holding a public appointive office
or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and
employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned
from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. (b) Any person holding an elective office
or position shall not be considered resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the same or
any other elective office or position.
Since they intend to run for elective office in the 2010 Elections, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Undersecretary Eleazar Quinto (running for Pangasinan congressman) and DENR Land Management Bureau
Director Gerino Tolentino Jr. (running for Manila councilor) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify
sec. 4(a) of Resolution 8678. According to them, imposing automatic resignation against appointive officials who
file their certificates of candidacy is offensive to the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the Philippines
because it gives an undue advantage to elective officials who are allowed to remain in office despite the filing of
their certificates of candidacy.
Representing the Commission, the Solicitor General raised several arguments against the petition. Firstly, certiorari
and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are not the proper remedies against the assailed Comelec
Resolution. Secondly, petitioners have no legal standing to question the Resolution because they are not yet
candidates. Lastly, no error was committed by the Comelec in issuing sec. 4(a) of Resolution 8678 because it was
merely copied verbatim from sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 9363 and sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code. However,
the Solicitor General was of the opinion that the resign-to-run rule results to certain absurdities, and that it no longer
has a place in our present election laws.
The petitioners thus raise the questions on: (1) Whether the resort to certiorari and prohibition was the proper
remedy; (2) Whether the petitioners have legal standing to assail Resolution 8678; and, (3) Whether applying the
resign-to-run rule to appointive officials and not to elective ones violates the equal protection clause of the
Quinto vs. COMELEC
33
Constitution.
Ruling on the procedural question
The resort to certiorari and prohibition was inappropriate. While certiorari under Rule 65 (in relation to Rule 64)
applies only to acts of the Comelec in exercise of its quasi-judicial powers, Resolution 8678 was issued in the
exercise of the Commissions quasi-legislative functions. Thus, certiorari was not the proper remedy to question the
said Resolution. Likewise, prohibition under Rule 65 must fail because what the petitioners actually sought was the
proper construction of the Resolution and the declaration of their rights thereunder. The Court ruled that the petition
was actually one for declaratory relief, which was not within jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, since the
constitutionality of the Resolution and the law from which it was based were being questioned, the Court
nevertheless decided to take cognizance of the case.
On the issue on the petitioners locus standi, while it is true that the petitioners were not yet candidates at the time the
petition was filed, they still have the legal standing to assail the Resolution because they are qualified voters. The
Court held that any restriction on candidacy affects the rights of the voters to choose their public officials; therefore,
both candidate and voter may question the validity of such restriction.
Original ruling on the substantial issues
Right to run for elective office as a fundamental right
The original decision struck down as unconstitutional not only sec. 4(a) of Resolution 8678, but also sec. 13 of R.A.
9369 and sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code. In nullifying these provisions, Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachuras
ponencia extensively quoted Mancuso vs. Taft (476 F.2d 187, March 20, 1973), a 1973 decision of the United States
Court of Appeals involving Kenneth Mancuso, a police officer who was nominated to the legislature of the State of
Rhode Island. In that case, the U.S. appellate court ruled in favor of Mancuso and nullified the law which required a
civil service official to vacate his post upon nomination to another public office. It held that the right to run for
public office is a fundamental right protected by the Bill of Rights, and being so, any restriction thereto has to be
subjected to strict equal protection review.
To justify the application of the strict equal protection test to sec. 4(a), the original majority ruled that the petitioners
interest to run for public office was likewise protected by the Philippine Constitution, specifically section 4 on
Freedom of Expression and section 8 Right to Association of Article III (Bill of Rights).
Overbroad application of the restriction
Applying the strict equal protection test to the assailed Resolution, the original decision held that sec. 4(a) of
Resolution 8678 (and its sources, sec. 13 of R.A. 9369 and sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code) created a
sweeping effect on all appointive government officials and employees since the resign-to-run rule applied to all of
them without any consideration to the kind of appointive office the candidate may actually hold.
The original majority was convinced that the sweeping restriction of sec. 4(a) would create an absurdity that even a
utility worker who intends to run for an elective post would be automatically resigned even if he cannot in any way
use his position as utility worker to influence the results of the election. Thus, it was held that this restriction was
overbroad since it applied to all appointive officials indiscriminately without regard to the degree of influence that
their office may actually have.
Quinto vs. COMELEC
34
Violation of the equal protection clause
The original ruling also saw no valid justification in applying the automatic resignation rule exclusively to
appointive officials and not to elected ones. The classification between the two classes of officials failed to pass the
test of equal protection, which requires a valid classification to be: (1) based upon substantial distinctions; (2)
germane to the purposes of the law; (3) not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applicable equally to all
members of the class.
The first ponencia held that the classification under section 4 of Resolution 8678 must be struck down because it
fails to satisfy the second requisite that the classification must be germane to the purposes of the law. If the purpose
of the automatic resignation rule is to prevent either undue influence or neglect of duty on the part of the candidate,
there is no reason to exclude elected officials from the coverage of the law. The original majority agreed that these
fears are equally applicable to elected and appointive officials alike, thus, treating the one differently from the other
should fail the test of equal protection.
The original decision also noted that the substantial distinction between elective and appointive government officials
laid down in the case of Farias vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003) cannot be used to
justify the different treatment of the two classes of officials because that doctrine was a mere obiter dictum. In that
case, sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 was questioned as an invalid rider in so far as it repealed sec. 67 of the Omnibus Election
Code without mention of it in the laws title. Incidentally, said sec. 67 provided for the automatic resignation of
elected officials upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy. By repealing sec. 67, only the automatic
resignation of appointive officials under sec. 66 remained in the law. Nevertheless, the Court upheld sec. 14 of R.A.
9006 on the ground, among others, that Congress merely recognized the substantial distinction between elective and
appointive officials when it imposed the resign-to-run rule only on the latter. According to Justice Nachura, since the
primary issue in that case was whether sec. 14 was an invalid rider, the discussion on substantial distinction was
merely incidental and nothing but an obiter dictum.
Reversed ruling on the substantial issues
After the retirement of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario (who agreed with the Nachura decision) and the appointment of
Justices Jose Perez and Jose C. Mendoza (who both agreed to Puno's opinion), the Supreme Court resolved to
reverse the original decision and adopt the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Reynato Puno.
In opposition to the Justice Nachuras original ponencia, Justice Reynato Puno made a very exhaustive discussion on
the implications of the original ruling. The new Decision stressed that the doctrine of substantial distinction in
Farias was not an obiter dictum because the seemingly unfair treatment caused by the repeal of sec. 67 and
retention of sec. 66 was squarely raised in that case. Thus, the discussion on substantial distinction between
appointive and elected officials was not merely incidental, but was actually necessary for the determination of that
case.
The new Decision upheld sec. 4(a) of Resolution 8678, sec. 13 of R.A. 9363 and sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election
Code. Nine other justices adopted Justice Punos view that these provisions satisfy the requisites of the equal
protection test, especially the second requirement that it must be germane to the purposes of the law. It was
emphasized that the purpose of the law is to defer to the sovereign will of the people by letting elective officials
serve until the end of the terms for which they were elected notwithstanding the filing of their certificates of
candidacy. On the contrary, the automatic resignation rule was imposed upon appointive officials because unlike
elected politicians, appointive officials, as officers and employees in the civil service, are strictly prohibited from
engaging in any partisan political activity or from taking part in any election, except to vote (Sec. 55 of the
Administrative Code of 1987).
Interestingly, the Chief Justice underscored the fact that Mancuso vs. Taft, the U.S. Court of Appeals case that was
heavily relied upon by the Nachura's ponencia, had already been overturned by prevailing jurisprudence in the
Quinto vs. COMELEC
35
United States. The Court cited several decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court stating that the right to express ones
views through candidacy is not a fundamental right and is neither covered by the freedom of expression nor the right
to association. More importantly, it was ruled that the resign-to-run rule on appointive officials does not violate a
persons right to run for public office because such right must give way to the substantial public interest being
protected by the ruleto maintain a civil service that is impartial and free from the evils of partisan politics.
References
Ratification Cases
Ratification Cases, officially titled as Javellana v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1973; 50
SCRA 30) was a case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court in 1973, said decision becoming the legal basis for
the 1973 Philippine Constitution to be of full force and effect, and paving the way for the extension of the term of
President Ferdinand Marcos and rule by absolute force and decree until his ouster by the People Power Revolution in
1986. The said decision also became the cornerstone of subsequent decisions whenever the question of the validity
of the 1973 Constitution is put into question.
Factual Milieu
Marcos declared the Philippines under martial law on September 21, 1972. Upon its declaration, Congress was
padlocked, and full legislative authority was vested upon Marcos via rule of decree. Many prominent members of the
opposition, notably Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Jose W. Diokno, among others, was arrested and placed in military
stockades.
It was also during that time that the proceedings of the 1971 Constitutional Convention were still continuing despite
the declaration of martial law. Eventually, on November 29, 1972, the Convention approved the new constitution.
The next day, Marcos issued Presidential Decree 73, "submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection
the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and
appropriating funds therefore," as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the Proposed
Constitution on January 15, 1973. At this instance, Charito Planas (a staunch critic and later vice-mayor of Quezon
City) filed a case (known as the Plebiscite Cases, Planas v. COMELEC (1973)
[1]
) before with the Supreme Court
calling the stop the proposed ratification upon the grounds, among others, that the Presidential Decree "has no force
and effect as law because the calling... of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the
prescription of the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public
funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress..." and "there is no proper submission
to the people there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the
people of the contents thereof."
On January 15, 1973, while the Plebiscite Cases were being heard in the Supreme Court, the president signed
Proclamation 1102, which states that the 1973 Constitution was supposedly "ratified by an overwhelming majority of
all the votes cast by the members of all the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies) throughout the Philippines..."
By virtue of the said decree, the Supreme Court dismissed the case for being moot and academic, without prejudice
to the filing of a case questioning the validity of Proclamation 1102. Thus, the Ratification cases came into being for
the purpose of questioning such Proclamation.
Ratification Cases
36
The Parties
On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana initially filed the case questioning the said Proclamation. Similar petitions
followed suit, among others, by Vidal Tan, J. Antonio Araneta, Alejandro Roces, Manuel Crudo, Antonio U.
Miranda, Emilio de Peralta and Lorenzo M. Taada on January 23, 1973; on February 3, 1973, by Eddie Monteclaro,
(as President of the National Press Club of the Philippines); and on February 12, 1973, by Napoleon V. Dilag,
Alfredo Salapantan, Jr., Leonardo Asodisen, Jr. and Raul M. Gonzalez. Likewise, on January 23, 1973, several
senators filed a case against the Executive Secretary, as well as Senate President Gil J. Puyat and Senate President
Pro Tempore Jose Roy, alleging that Congress must still hold session, and that they are being prevented to do so by
agents of the Government, invoking Proclamation 1102, and that said Proclamation has a shadow of doubt as to its
validity.
The lawyers representing the petitioners included Ramon A. Gonzales, Lorenzo Taada, Jovito Salonga, Sedfrey
Ordoez, Francisco Soc Rodrigo, Pablo Sanidad, Joker Arroyo and Rogelio B. Padilla, and Raul M. Gonzalez.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Solicitor Vicente V. Mendoza and Solicitor Reynato S. Puno represented the
government, as well as Arturo Tolentino for Gil J. Puyat and Jose Roy.
Morning and afternoon hearings were held by the Supreme Court from February 1216, 1973. During the
deliberations, former Senator Lorenzo Taada occasionally rebuked the justices. After the deliberations, the parties
were allowed to submit their notes and other arguments.
The Composition of the Court
The Supreme Court at that time consisted of Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, and Associate Justices Querube
Makalintal, Calixto Zaldivar, Fred Ruiz Castro, Enrique Fernando, Claudio Teehankee, Antonio Barredo, Felix
Makasiar, Felix Antonio and Salvador Esguerra. Of the members of the court, Concepcion, Makalintal and Zaldivar
were the justices not initially appointed by Marcos, Concepcion being appointed in 1954 (he was later appointed
Chief Justice in 1966), Makalintal in 1962 and Zaldivar in 1964.
The decision of the Plebiscite Cases by the court showed the diverse opinions placed individually by the members of
the court. It turned out that the said case would be a precursor to the decision of the Ratification Cases.
The Decision
Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, similarly in the Plebiscite Cases, wrote the decision. In the said decision, he
wrote the summary of facts, then his own dissenting opinion of the case (which he said that the 1973 Constitution
has not been properly ratified according to law), then proceeded to make the summary of votes by the members of
the court.
The issues raised would be as follows:
1. 1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a (political) question?
2. 2. Has the 1973 Constitution been ratified validly?
3. 3. Has the aforementioned proposed Constitution been acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the
people?
4. 4. Are petitioners entitled to relief? And
5. 5. Is the aforementioned proposed Constitution in force?
The court was severely divided on the following issues raised in the petition: but when the crucial question of
whether the petitioners are entitled to relief, six members of the court (Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo,
Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra) voted to dismiss the petition. Concepcion, together Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and
Teehankee, voted to grant the relief being sought, thus upholding the 1973 Constitution and made legitimate the rule
of Marcos.
Ratification Cases
37
Unusual Circumstances
In the issue of whether or not the 1973 Constitution has been ratified validly, six members of the court (the Chief
Justice, and Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee), answered that the said Constitution was
not validly ratified. (Barredos opinion was equivocal in its nature according to Cruz, but Joaquin Bernas, in his book
on the Constitution, annotates that his opinion would be counted as concurring with the six justices). But it is unusual
that of those who said that the Constitution was not validly ratified, Querube Makalintal and Fred Ruiz Castro voted
to dismiss the petitions. Makalintal and Castro, in a joint opinion, justified their non-granting of relief on the basis of
a case in relation to Luther v. Borden (48 U.S. (7 Harv.) 1; 12 L.Ed. 581, 1849). It said that the inquiry was indeed a
political determination and not a judicial one.
It was speculated that the two Justices, being next in line for the position of Chief Justice, voted as such so as not to
lose favor with Marcos. Such speculation was seen as Makalintal was subsequently appointed Speaker of the Interim
Batasang Pambansa, and Castro evidently showing his support of the Marcos regime through his court decisions and
public statements.
The last sentence of the decision contained the following last words:
"This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in
force and effect"
It is disputed as to whether or not Concepcion placed the said sentence intentionally, or that someone intercalated the
said words after he signed the decision.
Aftermath
The Ratification Cases erased any doubt as to the legality of the Marcos regime, thus he had absolute power as
President of the Philippines until he was forced out of power in 1986. It also showed that his acts cannot be
questioned, proof of such absolute power is shown by a rubber-stamp legislature and a Supreme Court, which
virtually under his thumb, is there to affirm or consent any government act being questioned.
Chief Justice Concepcion took leave 18 days after the decision became public (50 days from his scheduled
retirement) supposedly because he was disappointed on the outcome of the decision. He would later become a
member of the Constitutional commission that drafted the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Drawing from his
experiences in the martial law years, he introduced several new innovations designed to assure the independence of
the Supreme Court, such as the Judicial and Bar Council and the express conferment on the Court the power to
review any acts of government.
In The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, It was aptly observed by Primitivo Mijares in the
Chapter "Spineless Judiciary: Legitimizing A Pretender" that, while the Ratification Cases was resolved in a matter
of months, the other cases involving Marcos imprisoned critics were not decided until a year or two later. In fact,
some of the critics withdraw their petitions, mostly for writ of habeas corpus, due to the lack of confidence that the
Supreme Court would grant their relief.
Makalintal, when he became Chief Justice, also took a similar approach of Concepcion in deciding the case of the
Habeas Corpus Cases of Benigno Aquino, Jr. (Aquino, Jr. v. Enrile (1973)
[3]
) by summarizing the diverse votes of
the members of the court. He explained the reason why there was no collegial opinion by the Court, among others,
that the justices of the Supreme Court are conscious of "the future verdict of history".
At the time of Chief Justices Castro and Fernando, the Supreme Court, using the legitimizing power, affirmed the
legality of the Ratification Cases through several cases (see Sanidad v. COMELEC (1976)
[2]
and Occena v.
COMELEC (1981)
[3]
).
Of the four justices who voted to grant relief, Concepcion and Calixto Zaldivar left the court due to retirement.
Justices Teehankee, first identified with the regime, began to show his independence by consistently dissenting on
Ratification Cases
38
several decisions made by the court. He was accompanied by Justice Cecilia Muoz-Palma, and later, by Vicente
Abad Santos, in such dissents. Fernando, though expected that he would be one to oppose the excesses of the
Marcos regime, became its supporter. Fernando was later caught on camera holding an umbrella to First Lady
Imelda Marcos, an act many considered inappropriate for a Chief Justice.
Legacy
The decision in the Ratification Cases are still studied by students of Philippine Law with respect to the proper
ratification and approval of a new Constitution. It also gave a lesson and reminder of the Marcos regime and its
effects to the Filipino people.
It also shows that the Supreme Court are composed of human beings susceptible of error, in the words of Justice
Isagani Cruz, "...is not an ivory tower occupied by demigods but not an infallible institution composed of persons
slightly higher than their fellowmen, perhaps, but also showing their foibles and failings."
External links
Javellana v. Executive Secretary (1973)-main decision
[4]
References
Bernas, Joaquin (2003). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: a Commentary. Rex Book
Store, Manila
Mijares, Primitivo(1976). The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, Union Square
Publications, San Francisco, U.S.A.
References
[1] http:/ / www. lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1973/ jan1973/ gr_35925_1973. html
[2] http:/ / www. lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1976/ oct1976/ gr_44640_1976. html
[3] http:/ / www. lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1981/ apr1981/ gr_56350_1981. html
[4] http:/ / www. lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1973/ mar1973/ gr_36142_1973. html
Sema v. COMELEC
39
Sema v. COMELEC
Bai Sandra S. A. Sema vs. COMELEC and Didagen P. Dilangalen & Perfecto F. Marquez
vs. COMELEC
Decided 16 July 2008
Ponente Antonio Carpio
G.R. Nos. 177597 & 178628
Majority: 7
C.J. Puno, Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Nachura and J.
Reyes
Dissent: 6
Ynares-Santiago, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Leonardo-De Castro and Brion
Sema v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 177597, 2008) is a court case that was heard before the Supreme Court of the
Philippines. It was consolidated with Marquez v. Comelec (G.R. No. 178628, 2008). It held that the Regional
Assembly of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao does not have the power to create provinces and cities.
Thus, the creation of the province of Shariff Kabunsuan was unconstitutional and that province no longer exists as a
political entity in the Philippines.
[1]
The cases
These consolidated certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and declaratory relief petitions sought the annulment of
Commission on Elections "Resolution No. 7902" (10 May 2007), treating Cotabato City as part of the legislative
district of Shariff Kabunsuan.
In G.R. No. 177597, Bai Sandra S. A. Sema (Sema), asked the COMELEC "to exclude from the canvassing the votes
cast in Cotabato City for representative of the legislative district in question in the Philippine general election, 2007."
In G.R. No. 178628, Perfecto Marquez, asked the Court "to order the COMELEC to conduct a special election for
representative of the First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City.
Sema v. COMELEC
40
The facts
Shariff Kabunsuan.
The Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines apportioned 2 legislative districts for
Maguindanao. The first consists of Cotabato City and 8
municipalities. Maguindanao forms part of the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), created under its
Organic Act, Republic Act No. 6734 (RA 6734), as amended
by Republic Act No. 9054 (RA 9054). Cotabato City, as part
of Maguindanaos first legislative district, is not part of the
ARMM but of Region XII (having voted against its inclusion
in November 1989 plebiscite).
On 28 August 2006, the ARMMs legislature, the ARMM
Regional Assembly, exercising its power to create provinces
under Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, enacted Muslim
Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 (MMA Act 201) creating
the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan composed of the 8
municipalities in the first district of Maguindanao.
Later, 2 new municipalities were carved out of the original 9, constituting Shariff Kabunsuan, resulting to total of 11.
Cotabato City is not part of Maguindanao. Maguindanao voters ratified Shariff Kabunsuans creation in 29 October
2006 plebiscite.
On 6 February 2007, Cotabato City passed Board Resolution No. 3999, requesting the COMELEC to clarify the
status of Cotabato City in view of the conversion of the First District of Maguindanao into a regular province under
MMA Act 201. The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 07-0407 on 6 March 2007 "maintaining the status quo with
Cotabato City as part of Shariff Kabunsuan in the First Legislative District of Maguindanao. Resolution No.
07-0407, adopted the COMELECs Law Department recommendation under a Memorandum dated 27 February
2007. The COMELEC issued on 29 March 2007 Resolution No. 7845 stating that Maguindanaos first legislative
district is composed only of Cotabato City because of the enactment of MMA Act 201.
On 10 May 2007, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7902 (subject of these cases), amending Resolution No.
07-0407 by renaming the legislative district in question as Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City
(formerly First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City).
Meanwhile, the Shariff Kabunsuan creation plebiscite was supervised and officiated by the COMELEC pursuant to
Resolution No. 7727
[2]
.
Option Votes
In favor for creation 285,372
Against the creation 8,802
The following municipalities seceded from Maguindanao and formed the new province. All of them were from the
first legislative district of Maguindanao.
Sema v. COMELEC
41
Barira Northern Kabuntalan
Buldon Parang
Datu Blah T. Sinsuat Sultan Kudarat
Datu Odin Sinsuat Sultan Mastura
Kabuntalan Upi
Matanog
Kabuntalan was chosen as the capital of the new province. The province was the first to be created under Republic
Act No. 9054 or the Expanded ARMM law.
Sandra Sema questioned COMELEC Resolution 7902 which combined Shariff Kabunsuan and Cotabato City into a
single legislative district during the Philippine general election, 2007. Sema lost to incumbent Congress
representative of the Shariff Kabunsuan and Cotabato district, Didagen Dilangalen.
[3]
Issues
The Court was asked to rule on "whether Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, delegating to the ARMM Regional
Assembly the power to create provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, is constitutional; and if in the
affirmative, whether a province created by the ARMM Regional Assembly under MMA Act 201 pursuant to Section
19, Article VI of RA 9054 is entitled to one representative in the House of Representatives without need of a national
law creating a legislative district for such province."
Further, the High Tribunal had to render judgment on "whether COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 is valid for
maintaining the status quo in the first legislative district of Maguindanao (as Shariff Kabunsuan Province with
Cotabato City [formerly First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City]), despite the creation of the Province of
Shariff Kabunsuan out of such district (excluding Cotabato City)."
Conclusion
On July 16, 2008 the Supreme Court of the Philippines's 33-page judgment (8-6) penned by Antonio Carpio annulled
"Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act 201", which created Shariff Kabunsuan (carved out of Maguindanao,
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao). Justice Antonio Carpio opined: "We rule that (1) Section 19, Article VI
of RA 9054 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces
and cities; (2) MMA Act 201 creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan is void; and (3) COMELEC Resolution No.
7902 is valid."
Carpio stressed that only Congress can create provinces and cities because the creation of provinces and cities
necessarily includes the creation of legislative districts. Creation of province or a city inherently involves the power
to create a legislative district. The Constitution mandates that a province or a city with at least 250,000 inhabitants is
entitled to at least one representative."
The Court also declared unconstitutional the RLAs power to create provinces and cities in the region but it did not
pass upon the constitutionality of the creation of new municipalities and barangays. Under Republic Act No. 9140 or
the Expanded ARMM Law, the RLA has the power to create new LGUs and to set its own criteria in creating,
dividing, merging, or abolishing LGUs.
[4]
Carpio further ruled that "in the present 14th Congress, there are 219 district representatives out of the maximum 250
seats in the House of Representatives. Since party-list members shall constitute 20 percent of total membership of
the House, there should at least be 50 party-list seats available in every election in case 50 party-list candidates are
proclaimed winners. This leaves only 200 seats for district representatives, much less than the 219 incumbent district
representatives. Thus, there is a need now for Congress to increase by law the allowable membership of the House,
even before Congress can create new provinces."
Sema v. COMELEC
42
Summary
Carpio tersely put the judgment in this manner: "In summary, we rule that Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, insofar
as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces and cities, is void for being contrary to
Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of Article X of the Constitution, as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance
appended to the Constitution. Only Congress can create provinces and cities because the creation of provinces and
cities necessarily includes the creation of legislative districts, a power only Congress can exercise under Section 5,
Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. The ARMM Regional
Assembly cannot create a province without a legislative district because the Constitution mandates that every
province shall have a legislative district. Moreover, the ARMM Regional Assembly cannot enact a law creating a
national office like the office of a district representative of Congress because the legislative powers of the ARMM
Regional Assembly operate only within its territorial jurisdiction as provided in Section 20, Article X of the
Constitution. Thus, we rule that MMA Act 201, enacted by the ARMM Regional Assembly and creating the
Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, is void.
Consequently, we hold that COMELEC Resolution No. 7902, preserving the geographic and legislative district of
the First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City, is valid as it merely complies with Section 5 of Article VI and
Section 20 of Article X of the Constitution, as well as Section 1 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution."
Aftermath
The landmark ruling resulted in the Philippines' reverting back to 80 provinces. The ruling also nullified the elections
of the governor, vice governor and provincial board of Shariff Kabunsuan and the entire provincial bureaucracy is
deemed scrapped as Shariff Kabunsuan reverts back as integral part of Maguindanao.
[5]
Uncertainty loomed about the legal fate of local elected provincial officials in Shariff Kabunsuan. Among the
proclaimed winners in the 2007 local election are 2 board members and the vice governor. Former Sultan Kudarat
mayor and 2007 Shariff Kabunsuan gubernatorial candidate Tucao Mastura said: "What will happen to the elected
governor, vice governor, and board members? We cannot afford to be under a governor not elected by the people of
Shariff Kabunsuan." Rep. Didagen Dilangalen of Shariff Kabunsuan, meanwhile, said "there is a need to declare
vacant the position of governor, vice-governor, and board members in new Maguindanao province. There is no
election held for the purpose of electing officials in the undivided Maguindanao. The election held there
(Maguindanao) is an exercise in futility."
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) leaders on July 16, 2008 warned that the Court ruling would
cause leadership problem and unemployment in the province, for it will cause some of the elected officials and
government employees in Shariff Kabunsuan to lose their jobs. Sema v. Comelec reduced the number of provinces in
ARMM to 5. ARMM is composed of Maguindanao, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Lanao del Sur, Basilan (excluding Isabela
City) and the city of Marawi.
Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan, however, would welcome the judgment, for it reverted to the old province 2
crucial sources of income covered by Shariff Kabunsuan: the Parang seaport and Awang Airport in Datu Odin
Sinsuat.
Shariff Kabunsuan Vice Governor Ibrahim Ibay said that "among those severely affected by the decision are the
more than 400 government employees in his province, half of which used to work in the old Maguindanao provincial
government. What will happen to them? We dreamed for a separate province and now it is voided."
The ruling may also affect the conduct of August automated election in the region, since Shariff Kabunsuan and
Maguindanao are expected to use different kinds of machine for the elections. Maguindanao will use a direct
recording electronic technology that uses a touch-screen technology for voting, while Shariff Kabunsuan, along with
other ARMM provinces, will use optical mark reader technology, which will require voters to use a paper-based
ballot to be fed to a machine.
[6]
Sema v. COMELEC
43
References
[1] supremecourt.gov.ph Text of Supreme Court Ruling (http:/ / sc. judiciary. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2008/ july2008/ 177597. htm)
[2] http:/ / comelec. wordpress.com/ files/ 2006/ 10/ com_res_7727. pdf
[3] inquirer.net, SC zaps Kabunsuan; RP down to 79 provinces (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/ nation/ view/
20080718-149158/ SC-zaps-Kabunsuan-RP-down-to-79-provinces)
[4] abs-cbnnews.com, Supreme Court voids creation of Shariff Kabunsuan (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage. aspx?StoryId=125379)
[5] abs-cbnnews.com, SC zaps Kabunsuan; RP down to 79 provinces (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage. aspx?StoryId=125533)
[6] abs-cbnnews.com, Jobless officials, confusing poll preparations follow province's dissolution (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ storypage.
External links
supremecourt.gov.ph, BAI SANDRA S. A. SEMA versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DIDAGEN P.
DILANGALEN, G.R. No. 177597, & PERFECTO F. MARQUEZ versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
G.R. No. 178628, En Banc, July 16, 2008 (http:/ / sc. judiciary. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2008/ july2008/ 177597.
htm)
Summary of Voting (http:/ / www. supremecourt. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2008/ july2008/ 177597_summary.
htm)
COMELEC Resolution No. 7727, Plebiscite to ratify the creation of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan (http:/ /
comelec. wordpress. com/ files/ 2006/ 10/ com_res_7727. pdf)
Vizconde massacre
The Vizconde Massacre was the multiple homicide of members of the Vizconde family on June 30, 1991 at their
residence in BF Homes, Paraaque City, Metro Manila, Philippines.
[1]
Estrellita, 49, had suffered thirteen stab
wounds; Carmela, 19, had suffered seventeen stab wounds and had been raped before she was killed; and Jennifer, 6,
had nineteen stab wounds.
[1]
Lauro Vizconde, Estrellita's husband, and the father of Carmela and Jennifer, was in the
United States on business when the murders took place.
The lead suspect was Hubert Webb, whose father Freddie Webb was famous as an actor, former basketball player,
and former Congressman and Senator. The other defendants were Antonio Lejano II, Hospicio Fernandez, Michael
Gatchalian, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, Joey Filart and Artemio Ventura.
[2]
In the Trial Court (People of the
Philippines vs. Hubert Webb, et al., G.R. No. 176864), it became one of the most sensational cases in the
Philippines, becoming the "trial of the century". The men were convicted by the Paraaque Regional Trial Court
which the Court of Appeals affirmed. Except for Filart and Ventura who had been convicted in absentia, the men
were later acquitted by the Supreme Court on December 14, 2010 for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The reinvistigation concluded that Hubert Webb was in the Philippines in 1991.
[3]
Case
The case remained unsolved for almost four years until eyewitness Jessica Alfaro, a self-confessed former drug
addict, came forward on April 28, 1995 to shed light on the killing of the Vizcondes. Alfaro implicated the children
of wealthy and prominent families including Hubert Webb, Antonio Lejano II, Hospicio Fernandez, Michael
Gatchalian, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, Joey Filart and Artemio Ventura.
[4]
Alfaro's testimony coincides with the angle that was being explored by Supt. Rodolfo Sison, the police investigator
originally assigned to the case in 1991. Sison was ordered to desist from further investigating that angle by then
Philippine National Police Capital Region Commander Marino Filart after six members of akyat bahay
gang(burglars) were arrested by Regional Police Unit in October 1991.
[4][5][6]
The suspects said they were tortured
and forced to confess to the crime before they were presented by Filart to the media.
[7]
They were acquitted by a trial
Vizconde massacre
44
judge in September 1993 for insufficient evidence.
[7]
Trial
Prosecution
The trial began in August 1995 before Paranaque City RTC Judge Amelita Tolentino. Alfaro had testified that she
knew the suspects and was at the Vizconde house when the crime was committed. By Alfaro's account, after a drug
session with the group, Hubert Webb allegedly had hatched his plan to rape Carmela Vizconde. Webb wanted
Alfaro, the then girlfriend of one of the accused men, Peter Estrada, to join them because Estrellita Vizconde only
allowed her daughter to go out and entertain female visitors.
Alfaro testified that as Webb followed Carmela into the dining room, she decided to step outside for a smoke. From
there she allegedly saw Lejano and Ventura take a knife from the kitchen drawer, while the rest of the gang acted as
lookouts. Alfaro said Estrellita was killed before Webb began to rape Carmela. Jennifer woke up and, seeing Webb
violating her sister, jumped on him and bit him. He then hurled the little girl to a wall and started stabbing her.
Alfaro said that when she went back to the house, she saw the bodies of Estrellita and Jennifer on the bed and Webb
raping Carmela on the floor. Lejano and Ventura also took turns raping Carmela, before finishing her off with
numerous stabs.
[1]
Alfaro said that policeman Gerardo Biong "was instructed by Webb, in my presence, to take care
of the house where the incident happened". Alfaro also said that she bumped into Biong at the Faces Disco in Makati
in March 1995 and relayed to her the offer of the group to give her a free ticket to the United States to shut her up.
She added that suspect Miguel Rodriguez warned her to "shut up or you're gonna get killed" in the same disco on
April 8, 1995 prompting her to voluntarily submit herself to the National Bureau of Investigation(NBI) for
protection.
[8]
According to the footage of the trial, Alfaro had been able to identify all the defendants by their names.
The defense questioned Alfaro's credibility noting that she admitted to being under the influence of drugs when she
allegedly witnessed the crime and had made inconsistent statements on her two affidavits. Alfaro said she was then
having reservations when she first executed the first affidavit and held back vital information due to her natural
reaction of mistrust.
[9]
Alfaro's testimony was corroborated by other witnesses including: Lolita Birrer, a former live-in partner of
policeman Gerardo Biong, who narrated the manner of how Biong investigated and tried to cover up the crime.
Birrer said she had accompanied Biong to the Vizconde house to destroy the evidence and to retrieve Webbs jacket
and the murder weapon. She also testified that Biong received money at a house that she later learned belonged to
then Paraaque Congressman Freddie Webb; the Webb family's maids, Mila Gaviola and Nerissa Rosales, who both
testified that Hubert Webb was at home on June 30, 1991. At about 4 a.m. on June 30, 1991, Gaviola woke up and
entered the bedrooms to get the Webb's dirty laundry and wash it as part of her job. She said that when she entered
Huberts room, she saw him wearing only his pants, awake and smoking in bed. While washing Hubert Webb's
clothing, Gaviola said she noticed fresh bloodstains on his shirt. After she finished the laundry, she went to the
servant's quarters. But feeling uneasy, she decided to go up to the stockroom near Hubert's room to see what he was
doing. In the said stockroom, there is a small door going to Hubert's room and in that door there is a small opening
where she used to see Hubert and his friends sniffing on something. She observed Hubert was quite irritated, uneasy,
and walked to and from inside his room.
[1][10]
Security guards Justo Cabanacan and Normal White. Cabanacan said
Webb had entered the subdivision(where the Vizconde house was located) a few days before the massacre and that
he even identified himself as the son of then Congressman Webb. White, on the other hand, said he saw the three
cars enter the subdivision on the night of June 29, as Alfaro had testified; White also testified that policeman
Gerardo Biong was the first to arrive at the crime scene.
[11][12]
Other prosecution witnesses were: Carlos J. Cristobal who alleged that on March 9, 1991 he was a passenger of
United Airlines Flight No. 808 bound for New York and who expressed doubt on whether Hubert Webb was his
co-passenger in the trip; NBI medico-legal Dr. Prospero Cabanayan, Belen Dometita and Teofilo Minoza, two of the
Vizconde massacre
45
Vizconde maids; and Manciano Gatmaitan, an engineer.
[13]
Defense
The defense produced documents and presented 95 witnesses, including Hubert Webb himself and his father, along
with other relatives and friends to support Webbs alibi that he was in the United States from March 9, 1991, to
October 26, 1992. On October 1, 1996, Judge Amelita Tolentino admitted only 10 of the 142 pieces of evidence the
defense presented.
[10]
(Under Philippine law, generally, alibi is the weakest defense, especially where there is direct
testimony of an eyewitness, duly corroborated by another. People vs. Bello, G.R. No. 124871, May 13, 2004.)
Among evidence that was not admitted by Judge Tolentino, was the note verbale from the United States Embassy in
Manila claiming that Webb entered the United States in March 1991 and left in October 1992. This coincided with
his passport and Philippine Immigration records but were dismissed by Tolentino due to belief that these documents
can possibly be falsified. .(The Philippine Rules of Evidence require official attestation of the authenticity of any
public document presented in evidence; as per Sec. 24, Rule 134, R. Evid.)
Moreover, Judge Tolentino also denied Webb's request to subject semen samples to DNA testing on the belief that
the samples may no longer be intact. The accused alleged that by rejecting 132 of the 142 pieces of evidence,
Tolentino had set the tone for their conviction.
[10]
On July 24, 1997, the Supreme Court noted that Tolentino erred
when she refused to admit the 132 pieces of evidence presented by the defense, although these were later admitted in
court through an order issued by Tolentino.
[10][14]
Among the defense witnesses was Artemio Sacaguing, a former, now deceased NBI official who testified that Alfaro
was an NBI asset who only volunteered to assume the role of the eyewitness when she could not produce the actual
witness to the Vizconde killings.
Former NBI official Pedro Rivera however dismissed as lies the testimony of Sacaguing saying that Agent
Sacaguing had a record of notoriety in the NBI which prompted his transfer to remote places of assignment until
his early retirement. According to Rivera, Sacaguing was never part of the NBI team assigned to investigate the
Vizconde massacre and that his former colleague took Alfaros statement in April 1995 without the presence of a
lawyer. Sacaguing broke the guidelines in taking affidavits from witnesses. His intention was very, very dubious,
he said.
[15]
Decision
On January 6, 2000, Judge Tolentino rendered her decision, finding Hubert Webb, Peter Estrada, Hospicio
Fernandez, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio Lejano II and Miguel Rodriguez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape with homicide. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to indemnify the Vizconde
family Php 3 million for the murders.
[1]
Two of the accused remain fugitives from the law: Joey Filart and Artemio
Ventura. Former Paranaque City policeman Gerardo Biong was found guilty as an accessory for burning bedsheets
and tampering with other evidence in the crime. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison. Biong was released
from jail on November 30, 2010 after serving his sentence.
[16]
In her decision, Tolentino described the testimony of defense witnesses as full of inconsistencies and biased. She
said the US-based defense witnesses, most of whom are relatives or friends of the Webb family suffered from
"incorrigible and selective memory syndrome". She cited the testimony of Alex del Toro, husband of Webb's
relative, who said he hired Hubert Webb as an employee at his pesticide company in California. Both Webb and del
Toro could not describe in court what Hubert's work was, Tolentino said. Tolentino also found it hard to believe that
Webb was working with a pesticide company because he was asthmatic and allergic to various substances. Webb's
testimony was also contradicted by other US-based defense witnesses who said they usually saw him "going to the
beach, malling, bar-hopping or playing basketball. Tolentino also said, the photographs and videotapes purportedly
showing Webb in the United States appeared to be tampered.
[1]
Tolentino said the certificates issued by the US
Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Philippine Bureau of Immigration "could have easily been obtained
Vizconde massacre
46
by the powerful Webb family".
[17]
Court of Appeals decision
The Court of Appeals' Third Division voted 3-2 to deny Webb's motion for reconsideration and upheld the ruling of
Judge Tolentino on December 16, 2005.
[1][18]
The court ruled that the Paraaque RTC was correct in sentencing Webb et. al. due to "overwhelming evidence that
showed Webb and the other accused had conspired to rape Carmela and, in the process, kill her and the rest of the
family." The court also amended the award of damages from 100,000 pesos to 200,000 pesos, and also upheld the
conviction of Biong as accessory to the crime "by abusing his public functions... to conceal and destroy the physical
evidence in order to prevent the discovery of the crime and by allowing the destruction of the physical evidence,
Biong facilitated the escape of the principal accused."
[19]
Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court acquitted Webb and the others tried by the court:
seven justices voted to acquit, four dissented, two inhibited, one did
not participate in the deliberations and another was on official leave.
In April 2010, the Supreme Court approved DNA
testing to be performed on the semen specimen
obtained during autopsy from Carmela Vizconde. This
has resulted in the revelation by the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) that they no longer had the
specimens as these were remanded to the Paraaque
courts.
[20]
On October 8, 2010, Webb filed an urgent motion for
acquittal.
[21]
On November 26, 2010, Lauro Vizconde
voiced his concern to media about the purported
lobbying of Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
for the reversal of the guilty verdict. Carpio testified for
the defense during the trial. The Volunteers Against
Crime and Corruption(VACC) asked Justice Antonio
Carpio and his cousin Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales
to take a leave while the case is being decided to avoid undue influence on the court's decision.
[22]
This was
categorically denied by the Supreme Court as Justice Carpio had in fact inhibited himself from the case and was not
going to take part in the deliberation.
[23][24]
On December 14, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the earlier judgment of the lower court and Court of Appeals
and acquitted seven of the nine accused, including Hubert Webb, finding that the prosecution failed to prove that the
accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court put to question the quality of the testamentary
evidence furnished by the witnesses. No acquittal has been made as to the two accused, Filart and Ventura, who
remain at-large. Of the 15 Justices, 7 voted for acquittal while four dissented and four Justices, including Carpio, did
not participate.
[25]
Composition
Vizconde massacre
47
Concurred (7) Dissented (4) Did not take part (1) On leave (1) Inhibited (2)
Roberto Abad Renato Corona Antonio Carpio Presbitero Velasco, Jr. Antonio Eduardo Nachura
Conchita Carpio-Morales Martin Villarama Mariano del Castillo
Diosdado Peralta Teresita Leonardo-De Castro
Lucas Bersamin Arturo Brion
Jose Perez
Jose Catral Mendoza
Ma. Lourdes Sereno
Concurring opinion
Seven justices based its decision on the following points:
1. 1. Loss of DNA evidence not a ground for outright acquittal
2. 2. Unreliability of Jessica Alfaro's testimony:
Alfaro had prior knowledge on the facts of the case having been an asset of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI)
Alfaro was not able to explain why the house was ransacked if robbery was not the motive of Webb and his
group
3. 3. Unreliability of testimony from other witnesses
4. Webb's strong alibi that he was in the United States
Alfaro's testimony will fall apart if Webb was not in the crime scene and will relieve the others accused of the
crime
Loss of DNA evidence
Webb, citing Brady v. Maryland, said "that he is entitled to outright acquittal on the ground of violation of his right
to due process given the States failure to produce on order of the Court either by negligence or willful suppression
the semen specimen taken from Carmela." The court argued that the cited case has been superseded by Arizona v.
Youngblood, "where the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process does not require the State to preserve the semen
specimen although it might be useful to the accused unless the latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the
prosecution or the police".
The court considered the accused's "lack of interest in having such test done" in which they concluded that the state
"cannot be deemed put on reasonable notice that it would be required to produce the semen specimen at some future
time".
[26]
Alfaro's testimony
The court ruled that Alfaro was "a stool pigeon, one who earned her living by fraternizing with criminals so she
could squeal on them to her NBI handlers." The court also said that it was "possible for Alfaro to lie" on the details
of the case. Alfaro, who had "practically lived" at the NBI's offices, would have been able to hear about the details,
and gain access to the documents, without difficulty. The court noted the inconsistency between Alfaro's testimony
of Webb being Carmela's girlfriend, who had no reason in breaking the glass panel of the house's front door to enter
the house; Alfaro said that Webb "picked up some stone and, out of the blue, hurled it at the glass-paneled front
door". Alfaro, upon explaining on how the house was ransacked, (the Paraaque police had earlier blamed house
robbers as suspects), said that Ventura was looking for the front-door key and the car key.
The court said the "portion of Alfaro's story appears tortured to accommodate the physical evidence of the
ransacked house" adding that "it is a story made to fit in with the crime scene although robbery was supposedly not
the reason Webb and his companions entered that house". The court also said the same for the issue of the garage
Vizconde massacre
48
light: she claimed that Ventura climbed the car's hood, using a chair, to turn the light off. But, unlike the house
robbers, however the court points out that "Webb and his friends did not have anything to do in a darkened
garage."
[26]
In general, the court said that Alfaro's story "lacks sense or suffers from inherent inconsistencies."
[26]
Corroborating witnesses
The court held that security guard Normal E. White, Jr.'s testimony was unreliable. White was mistaken in saying
that Gatchalian and company went in and out of the gated community many times, since they only entered once.
[26]
Justo Cabanacan, the security supervisor of the gated community, said that he saw Webb enter the gated community,
although he did not record Webb entering in his log book.
[26]
The court also held that the testimony of the Webb's maid, Mila Gaviola, was also unreliable since she was not able
to distinguish if it was Hubert whom she saw on June 30, 1991, nor "did she remember any of the details that
happened in the household on the other days".
[26]
Webb's alibi
The court said that "among the accused, Webb presented the strongest alibi". The lower courts, however, reasoned
that "Webb's alibi cannot stand against Alfaro's positive identification of him." The court said that Alfaro was not a
credible witness and that her "story of what she personally saw must be believable, not inherently contrived".
[26]
For the alibi to be established "the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence... that he was
present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and that it was physically impossible for him to
be at the scene of the crime". The lower courts, the Supreme Court said, held that "Webb was actually in Paraaque
when the Vizconde killings took place". However, the court pointed out that while Webb or his parents may be able
to "arrange for the local immigration to put a March 9, 1991 departure stamp on his passport and an October 27,
1992 arrival stamp", they could not fix a foreign airlines passenger manifest, and the U.S. Immigrations record
system. The court also said that if Webb was in the U.S. when the crime was committed, the Alfaro's testimony
would not hold together: "Without it, the evidence against the others must necessarily fall."
[26]
Conclusion
The court maintained that for a person to be convicted there should not be "a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his
guilt." As a result, the court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquits Webb, et al.
[26]
Dissenting opinion
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Villarama argued that the claim of Webb that he could not have committed the
crime because he left for the United States on March 9, 1991 and returned to the Philippines only on October 26,
1992 was correctly rejected by the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals. Given the financial resources and
political influence of his family, it was not unlikely that Webb could have traveled back to the Philippines before
June 2930, 1991 and then departed for the US again, and returning to the Philippines in October 1992. Webb's
travel documents and other paper trail of his stay in the US are unreliable proof of his absence in the Philippines at
the time of the commission of the crime charged. Webb's reliance on the presumption of regularity of official
functions, stressing the fact that the US-INS certifications are official documents, is misplaced. The presumption
leaned on is disputable and can be overcome by evidence to the contrary. In this case, the existence of an earlier
negative report on the NIIS record on file concerning the entry of appellant Webb into and his exit from the US on
March 9, 1991 and October 26, 1992, respectively, had raised serious doubt on the veracity and accuracy of the
subsequently issued second certification dated August 31, 1995 which is based merely on a computer print-out of his
alleged entry on March 9, 1991 and departure on October 26, 1992. Villarama noted that the alleged Passport,
Passenger Manifest of United Airlines Flight and United Airline ticket of accused Webb offered in evidence were
mere photocopies of an alleged original, which were never presented. He adds, this Court takes judicial notice of
reported irregularities and tampering of passports in the years prior to the recent issuance by the Department of
Vizconde massacre
49
Foreign Affairs(DFA) of machine-readable passports.
[27]
Reactions to Webb's Acquittal
Pro
Freddie Webb: "Kami right now are on cloud nine. Bago sa lahat, there is so much to be thankful for (Right now
we are on Cloud Nine. There is so much to be thankful for)".
[28]
"You have to understand he has lost 15 years of
his life. Since day one, we were saying he was in the United States but only a few people believed it. We cannot
blame them because at that time, there were so many things being written in the newspapers that, if I didn't know
anything about the case, I would be the one to throw a stone at Hubert Webb. The emotions are there because we
are talking of 15 years wasted in the life of my son. He lost the most critical years of any person, that's from 26
years old to 41. He should not be in jail not for a minute or even a second ".
[29]
Former National Bureau of Investigation (19921995) Director Epimaco Velasco: I maintain my position. It was
not Hubert. Walang pruweba na magpapatunay na sina Hubert Webb ang pumatay"(There's no proof it was
Hubert Webb who killed[Vizconde family])
[30]
Winnie Monsod: I cannot speak for all the SC justices who were part of either the voting majority or the minority.
But there are two justices whose integrity I can vouch for: Justice Conchita Carpio Morales and Justice Ma.
Lourdes Sereno, who both not only voted for acquittal, but also wrote a concurring opinion and a separate
concurring opinion, respectively. But other than that, Vizconde's charge does not seem to be supported by the
history of the case, because if money could really buy the decision in this case, why were these wealthy people in
jail for 15 years?
[31]
Ramon Tulfo: "With my defense of Webbs innocence, I feel that I won in the grand lotto jackpot."
[32]
Gary Valenciano: Whatever has transpired now is only a step closer to more answers for the questions that have
been asked. Im happy for the Webb family. Hubert is basically going to begin from the very, very beginning. I
can only wish him the best this time. But Im confident, hes got a good family backing him up
[33]
Democrito Barcenas, former Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu City president and regional coordinator of the
Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG): I think that most of the justices are right in their decision. I expected this
decision because since the start, I knew that Jessica Alfaro was not entirely telling the truth.
[34]
Councilor Sisinio Andales, a lawyer, said he trusts in the wisdom of the justices of the Supreme Court.
[35]
Catholic Bishop Teodoro Bacani: "Si Hubert Webb talagang sa paniniwala ko ay walang sala at kaya naman ako
naniniwala diyan ay mayroon akong kaibigan na nasa States na nandun sa kanila si Hubert Webb noong diumano
ay pinatay ang itong anak ni Lauro Vizconde. (I believe Hubert Webb is innocent. Because I have a friend in the
States who said that Hubert Webb was there when the murders happened)
[36]
Con
Lauro Vizconde: "Is there still anyone among you who doubts that there is rampant corruption in our
government? Remember when I made the disclosure that someone is pressuring the justices to vote for a reversal?
I did that hoping to make them have second thoughts about doing so,.There is no justice in the Philippines. All
of us who have cases in court, dont we realize that if your opponent has money, brace yourself. Anyone can be
paid!"
[37]
Jessica Alfaro: Alfaros e-mail from abroad read. I stand by my story. Am I dismayed by the decision of the
(Supreme Court)? Yes, but what can I do (?). I am not an NBI agent nor an NBI asset. Thats all crap! Eh di sana
may sweldo ako. Di naman ako puwede magtrabaho don (If that's the case, then I should have had a salary. But I
could not work there)
[38]
"Nasira ang buhay ko para lang sa inyo and then ganito pa ang nangyari. Ayaw akong
paniwalaan. Ayoko na! Alfaro told Lauro Vizconde. (My life has been destroyed for you, and then this is what
happened. They would not believe me! I've had it!)."
[39]
Vizconde massacre
50
Former National Bureau of Investigation(19951996) Director Mariano Mison: Hindi ako pabor sa naging
desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Ginawa namin ang tama. Matagal na akong nagtitimpi. I refute all arguments,(I'm
not in favor of the Supreme Court's Decision. We did what is right. I've been holding myself back. I refute all
arguments)
[30]
Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption chairman Dante Jimenez: "Pera talaga ang laging umiiral sa ating
hustisya (Money always prevails in our justice system)".
[29]
Former Sandiganbayan Justice Manuel Pamaran: When it comes to the appreciation of facts especially on the
testimony of the witness, the trial court should be given the credence because it has the first opportunity to
observe the demeanor, gesture and tone of voice of the witness".
[40]
Presiding Justice of Sandiganbayan Edilberto Sandoval:The one who tried the case is in the best position to know
whether the witness is telling the truth or not because he has the opportunity which is denied the appellate justices
to observe the demeanor of the witness".
[40]
Ateneo law professor Alan Paguia: "The order of release is questionable as it appears to be undemocratic. It was
based on the rule of the minority and not the majority as they (the SC justices) had enunciated in Fortich v.
Corona." Thus the SC decision on the Vizconde massacre is flawed, Paguia averred, citing a portion of Fortich
v. Corona, 312 SCRA 751, at 758 where the SC itself ruled that unless the minimum number of EIGHT votes for
a majority is attained there is no decision to speak of, therefore the release order of the Webb group shouldnt
have been signed.
[41]
Former Vice President Teofisto Guingona: Guingona said he believes that Hubert Webb, son of former Senator
Freddie Webb, and his six other co-accused are guilty of killing Lauro's wife, Estrellita, 47, and his daughters
Carmela, 18, and Jennifer Vizconde, 7, in June 1991.
[42]
Thelma Chiong, national vice president of the Crusade Against Violence (CAV): I do not agree, I do not agree.
Im dismayed with our justice system"
[34]
Michael Yu, president of the Cebu City Integrated Bar of the Philippines: This is the sad day of our criminal
justice system, but the high court has spoken".
[34]
Lawyer Dave Duallo: The jurisprudence is consistent on this. The trial judge who observes a witness is in the
best position to judge the witnesss demeanor and veracity and to evaluate the credibility of his testimony.
[35]
Catholic Bishop Dinualdo Gutierrez expressed sadness at the Supreme Courts decision and also spoke about a
higher justice: I was telling the ordinary people here that this is our legal systemeven if you already know who
the culprits are, but if you dont have the evidence Anyway, there is always divine justice
[43]
Aftermath
President Benigno Aquino III ordered the law enforcement agencies to re-investigate the case six months before the
prescription period lapses. He also ordered the Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima to study the possibility of giving
compensation to Webb and others.
[44]
On December 28, 2010, new witnesses have come forward accusing Hubert Webb and others of allegedly being
behind the Vizconde massacre.
[45]
Other witnesses say Webb was in the Philippines at the time of the murders.
[46]
On January 4, 2011, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said suspect Joey Filart was spotted in the United States.
[47]
On January 18, 2011, the Supreme Court denied Lauro Vizconde's motion to reverse the acquittal because of double
jeopardy.
[48]
On March 18, 2011, Hubert Webb, filed a lawsuit against Jessica Alfaro for false testimony at the Paraaque
Prosecutor's Office.
[49]
On June 14, 2011, Hubert Webb filed a P180,000 compensation claim for "unlawful conviction" for the Vizconde
massacre.
[50]
Vizconde massacre
51
Result of the reinvestigation
The Inter-Agency Task Force assigned to reinvestigate Vizconde massacre case formed 6 teams or 3 parallel teams
to look into 3 sets of suspects linked to the murders. The 3 sets of suspects are: the Barroso Akyat-Bahay gang; the
group of construction workers with engineer Danilo Agwas tagged as mastermind; SPO3 Angel Viaje, PO3 Rodolfo
Colado, Ruben Pineda; and, the group of Hubert Webb.
[51]
On June 28, 2011, Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said Hubert Webb was in the Philippines when the murders took
place. This contradicted Hubert Webb's claim that he was in the United States from March 9, 1991 to October 27,
1992. De Lima said the evidence that showed Webb and any of the co-accused were in the country came from the
magnetic reel tape (MRT) of the Philippine Bureau of Immigration (BI) where all records of incoming and outgoing
passengers from the Philippines are recorded. The tapes were restored by IBM while being monitored by the
National Computer Center. There was entry of (former senator) Freddie Webb leaving the country in March 1991
but no Hubert Webb, De Lima said. She said the same MRT provided data that several Webbs arrived in the
country, including Hubert, sometime in October 1992. It is hard to believe this there is a record of supposed
arrival from other country but no record of departure in 1991 or in any month of 1991, she said. De Lima also said
seven new witnesses claimed they saw Webb in the country during the months of April, May and June 1991.
[3]
According to De Lima, all the new witnesses passed the polygraph test.
[52]
The witnesses include an electrician, a
drug dealer, a couple of neighborhood basketball players, a hairdresser and a village security guard. Pitong, an
electrician who since 1982, already knew the Webb family claimed he saw a laundry woman wash a bloodied t-shirt
on the morning of the crime. He also claimed to have heard Hubert shout, Putang ina nyo! Kung di ninyo ako
pinabayaan, 'di ako magkakaganito.(Fuck you all! I would not have ended up like this if you had not neglected me).
Three days after that, he was allegedly approached by Mrs. Webb who reportedly told him, You did not see
anything. A week after, Sen. Freddie Webb allegedly told him, You did not see anything. You will regret it.
[53][54]
Jack, a village security guard who kept records of the village where Webb lived said he saw Hubert Webb during the
time of the massacre.
[53]
George, a drug dealer, claimed he was introduced to Webb by former SPO1 Gerardo Biong
sometime in April 1991 where the young Webb allegedly purchased from him 10grams of shabu worth P10,000. He
alleged that Webb bought illegal drugs from him on two other occasions in May 1991. He alleged that he could not
forget Webb because Biong had allegedly threatened him, Do not cheat him. I will kill you, brandishing a shiny
revolver.
[55]
Mario, a hair stylist during the period June 1991, testified that Webb, along with Tony Boy Lejano and
Dong Ventura had their haircut. He said that he heard Hubert Webb quarrelling with another young looking
customer. Rey and Jerry claimed they saw Webb playing basketball between the months of June and July 1991
during a league in BF Homes.
[56]
The findings alo point to another set of suspects, namely Dong Villadolid and his brother Bing. The Villadolid
brothers were mentioned by a certain Rhoda Pujanes alias Dang, who claimed she overheard Villadolid and his
friends, including Miguel Rodriguez and Michael Gatchalian(both co-accused of Webb), talking about the massacre
during a pot session in 1991.
[3][57][58][59]
Dang claimed to have heard Dong Villadolid shouting at the top of his
voice, saying they had raped and killed a certain Maria(presumed to be Maria Carmela Vizconde) and other persons.
She also said that Bing was accosting Ging Rodriguez on why he had to stab and kill a young girl.
[55]
De Lima
believed Dong Villadolid is the same person as Dong Ventura, one of the co-accused who fled to the US following
the massacre. Another accused, Joey Filart also fled to the United States. De Lima said they could still go after Filart
and Ventura, as well as the Villadolid brothers, since the prescriptive period of 20 years for homicide does not apply
to them because they were abroad.
[60]
One team uncovered Black Maria, a woman whom one witness said had told
him she was with Webbs group inside the Vizconde home and saw the crime take place. She admitted to knowing
Webb and company but denied knowledge of the Vizconde massacre, NBI Death Investigation Division head
Romulo Asis said. De Lima said it was possible that it was Black Maria who was in the Vizconde home and not
Jessica Alfaro, the NBIs star witness during the trial.
[55]
Vizconde massacre
52
Although Webb's group can no longer be retried because of double jeopardy, De Lima said the purpose of the
reinvestigation was to uncover the truth and bring closure to Lauro Vizconde.
[60][61]
In popular culture
It was made into a movie in 1993: The Vizconde Massacre Story (God Help Us!) starring Kris Aquino as Carmela
Vizconde. A second movie released in 1994, The Untold Story: Vizconde Massacre II May The Lord Be With Us,
starring Vina Morales as Carmela and Joko Diaz as one of the assailants, is reportedly based on new evidence. The
Jessica Alfaro Story in 1995 had Alice Dixson as the star witness. The case was featured on a Philippine TV show
Case Unclosed as its ninth episode, "Vizconde Massacre Case."
Timeline
Night of June 2930, 1991: Estrellita, Carmela and Jennifer VIzconde were killed in their Paraaque home;
Carmela was found to have been raped.
April 28, 1995: Jessica Alfaro presents herself as a witness and accuses Hubert Webb, et al. of murder.
October 1, 1996: Judge Amelita Tolentino of the Paraaque RTC rejected 132 of the defense's 142 pieces of
evidence.
January 6, 2001: Tolentino finds Webb, et al. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentences them to
reclusion perpetua.
December 15, 2005: The Court of Appeals dismisses the defendants' appeal.
December 14, 2010: The Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al., except for the two defendants tried in absentia.
References
[1] Philippine Inquirer The Vizconde Case (http:/ / showbizandstyle. inquirer. net/ sim/ sim/ view/ 20081109-171119/ The-Vizconde-Case)
[2] Philippine Star coverage of the murders (http:/ / www.philstar. com/ Article. aspx?articleId=634949& publicationSubCategoryId=65)
[3] New evidence shatters Webb's alibi (http:/ / www.mb.com. ph/ articles/ 324544/
breaking-news-webb-was-country-during-and-after-visconde-massacre), Manila Bulletin, June 28, 2011
[4] Manila Standard, June 25, 1995 (http:/ / news. google. com/ newspapers?id=J68mAAAAIBAJ& sjid=FAsEAAAAIBAJ& pg=4051,3735558)
[5] Manila Standard, June 16, 1995 (http:/ / news. google. com/ newspapers?id=Jq8mAAAAIBAJ& sjid=FAsEAAAAIBAJ& pg=5791,3282360)
[6] Manila Standard, June 25, 1995 (http:/ / news. google. com/ newspapers?id=J68mAAAAIBAJ& sjid=FAsEAAAAIBAJ& pg=6500,3416385)
[7] Manila Standard, September 23, 1993 (http:/ / news. google. com/ newspapers?id=smYVAAAAIBAJ& sjid=FwsEAAAAIBAJ&
pg=6531,3397891)
[8] http:/ / news.google. com/ newspapers?id=Jq8mAAAAIBAJ& sjid=FAsEAAAAIBAJ& pg=6459,2733853
[9] http:/ / lawphil.net/ judjuris/ juri1995/ aug1995/ gr_121234_1995. html
[10] Manila Times: Questions linger in Vizconde case (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080402110246/ http:/ / www. manilatimes. net/ others/
special/ 2005/ jan/ 17/ 20050117spe1.html)
[11] http:/ / news. google.com/ newspapers?id=oJ8VAAAAIBAJ& sjid=1goEAAAAIBAJ& pg=4939,4599745
[12] http:/ / news. google.com/ newspapers?id=np8VAAAAIBAJ& sjid=1goEAAAAIBAJ& pg=4573,4109593
[13] G.R. No. 121234 August 23, 1995 HUBERT J. P. WEBB, ET AL. vs. RAUL E. DE LEON, ET AL. (http:/ / lawphil. net/ judjuris/ juri1995/
aug1995/ gr_121234_1995.html)
[14] Supreme Court G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 (http:/ / www. lawphil. net/ judjuris/ juri1997/ jul1997/ gr_127262_1997. html)
[15] The Philippine Daily Inquirer, December 31, 2010 (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/ 20101231-311914/
Vizconde-massacre-investigator-insists-witness-Alfaro-was-credible)
[16] "'Vizconde' convict freed" (http:/ / www. mb.com.ph/ articles/ 290209/ vizconde-convict-freed)
[17] http:/ / news. google.com/ newspapers?id=8Ic1AAAAIBAJ& sjid=jyUMAAAAIBAJ& pg=1599,22967496
[18] Court of Appeals Decision (http:/ / www.scribd.com/ doc/ 44380678/ Court-of-Appeals-GR-CR-HC-00336)
[19] Clapano, Jose Rodel (2005-12-17). "CA upholds ruling on Vizconde slays" (http:/ / www. philstar. com/ Article. aspx?articleId=312538&
publicationSubCategoryId=63). The Philippine Star. . Retrieved 2010-12-17.
[20] "NBI exec: We've turned over semen specimen from Vizconde girl to court" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ metro/ view/
20100427-266801/ NBI-exec-Weve-turned-over-semen-specimen-from-Vizconde-girl-to-court). .
[21] "Webb files urgent motion for acquittal" (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ nation/ 10/ 28/ 10/ webb-files-urgent-motion-acquittal). .
[22] 2 SC justices asked to go on leave pending Vizconde decision, GMA News (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 207099/
2-sc-justices-asked-to-go-on-leave-pending-vizconde-decision)
Vizconde massacre
53
[23] Philippine Daily Inquirer: "Home alone, Vizconde lives with spirits of murdered family" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/
nation/ view/ 20101128-305719/ Home-alone-Vizconde-lives-with-spirits-of-murdered-family)
[24] "SC sues for time, defers ruling on Vizconde case" (http:/ / www. manilatimes. net/ index. php/ top-stories/
33312-sc-sues-for-time-defers-ruling-on-vizconde-case). Philippine Daily Inquirer. 30 November 2010. .
[25] Philippine Daily Inquirer, SC Acquits Webb et al (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/ nation/ view/ 20101215-308970/
SC-acquits-Webb-et-al)
[26] "People vs. Webb et. al" (http:/ / sc.judiciary. gov.ph/ jurisprudence/ 2010/ december2010/ 176389. htm). Supreme Court of the
Philippines. 2010-12-14. . Retrieved 2010-12-16.
[27] G.R. No. 176864 DISSENTING OPINION, Villarama, 2010 (http:/ / sc. judiciary. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2010/ december2010/
176389_villarama.htm)
[28] Lauro Vizconde in tears, Webbs on 'cloud nine' (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 208280/ lauro-vizconde-in-tears-webbs-on-cloud-nine),
Philippine Daily Inquirer, December 15, 2010
[29] Massacre case ruling draws mixed reactions (http:/ / www. sunstar. com. ph/ manila/ local-news/
massacre-case-ruling-draws-mixed-reactions)
[30] Ex-NBI execs face off over Vizconde case (http:/ / www. sunstar. com. ph/ manila/ local-news/ ex-nbi-execs-face-over-vizconde-case),
Sunstar, December 23, 2010
[31] The impact of the Webb decision (http:/ / blogs. gmanews. tv/ winnie-monsod/ archives/ 32-The-impact-of-the-Webb-decision. html)
[32] Like winning the grand lotto (http:/ / newsinfo.inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/ metro/ view/ 20101215-309204/
Like-winning-the-grand-lotto), Philippine Daily Inquirer, December 15, 2010
[33] Gary, Kris speak up on Hubert's acquittal (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ entertainment/ 12/ 16/ 10/ gary-kris-speak-huberts-acquittal),
ABS CBN News, December 17, 2010
[34] Outrage over decision, sympathy for Vizconde (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/ nation/ view/ 20101215-309016/
Outrage-over-decision-sympathy-for-Vizconde), Philippine Daily Inquirer, December 15, 2010
[35] Ruling raises more questions, lawyers point out (http:/ / www. sunstar. com. ph/ cebu/ local-news/
ruling-raises-more-questions-lawyers-point-out), Sun Star Cebu, December 15, 2010
[36] Bishop believes Hubert Webb is innocent (http:/ / www. philstar. com/ Article. aspx?articleId=639183& publicationSubCategoryId=200),
Philippine Star, December 14, 2010
[37] Vizconde kin question why Webb was released so quickly (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/ 20101214-308928/
Vizconde-kin-question-why-Webb-was-released-so-quickly), Philippine Daily Inquirer, December 14, 2010
[38] Jessica Alfaro stands by story (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ inquirerheadlines/ nation/ view/ 20110107-312953/
Jessica-Alfaro-stands-by-story), Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 7, 2011
[39] Alfaro unwilling to testifying anew in Vizconde case Jessica Alfaro stands by story (http:/ / services. inquirer. net/ print/ print.
php?article_id=20101231-311911), Philippine Daily Inquirer, December 31, 2010
[40] Criminal law experts umalma sa pag-absuwelto ng SC kay Webb (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ video/ nation/ 12/ 16/ 10/
law-experts-react-webbs-acquittal), ABS CBN News, December 16, 2010
[41] Flawed SC ruling on Vizconde case (http:/ / www. tribuneonline. org/ commentary/ 20110130com4. html), The Daily Tribune, January 30,
2011
[42] Ex-VP Guingona to SC: Reverse Webb's acquittal to give justice to Vizconde (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 209999/
ex-vp-guingona-to-sc-reverse-webbs-acquittal-to-give-justice-to-vizconde), GMA News, January 7, 2011
[43] Dont lose hope, priest tells Vizconde patriarch (http:/ / services. inquirer. net/ print/ print. php?article_id=20101215-309199), Philippine
Daily Inquirer, December 15, 2010
[44] Bordadora, Norman (2010-12-17). "Aquino orders new Vizconde slay probe" (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/
20101217-309532/ Aquino-orders-new-Vizconde-slay-probe). Philippine Daily Inquirer. . Retrieved 2010-12-18.
[45] New Vizconde massacre witnesses surface, ABS CBN News (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ nation/ metro-manila/ 12/ 28/ 10/
new-vizconde-massacre-witnesses-surface)
[46] New witnesses to prove Webb in PH during Vizconde massacre, Philippine Daily Inquirer (http:/ / newsinfo. inquirer. net/ breakingnews/
nation/ view/ 20101217-309514/ New-witnesses-to-prove-Webb-in-PH-during-Vizconde-massacre)
[47] http:/ / www.mb. com.ph/ articles/ 296614/ semblance-truth-alfaro-story-doj
[48] http:/ / sc. judiciary. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2011/ january2011/ 176389. htm
[49] Hubert Webb sues witness Alfaro (http:/ / newsinfo.inquirer. net/ breakingnews/ nation/ view/ 20110318-326187/
Hubert-Webb-sues-witness-Alfaro), Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 18, 2011
[50] Hubert Webb seeks P180K compensation for 'unlawful' conviction (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 223393/ nation/
hubert-webb-seeks-p180k-compensation-for-unlawful-conviction), GMA News, June 14, 2011
[51] NBI, PNP teams probe 3 sets of Vizconde slay suspects (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ nation/ 12/ 21/ 10/
nbi-pnp-teams-probe-3-sets-vizconde-slay-suspects), ABS-CBN News, December 21, 2010
[52] Vizconde massacre has new set of witnesses (http:/ / www. philstar. com/ Article. aspx?articleId=700553& publicationSubCategoryId=63),
Philippine Star, June 28, 2011
[53] Evidence, witnesses 'shatter' Webb alibi: task force (http:/ / www. abs-cbnnews. com/ nation/ 06/ 28/ 11/
evidence-witnesses-shatter-webb-alibi-task-force), ABS CBN News, June 28, 2011
Vizconde massacre
54
[54] Webb here during killings (http:/ / newsinfo.inquirer. net/ 19005/ webb-here-during-killings), Philippine Daily Inquirer, June 28,
2011
[55] Webb here during killings (http:/ / newsinfo.inquirer. net/ 19005/ webb-here-during-killings), Philippine Daily Inquirer, June 29,
2011
[56] DoJ chief: No credible proof of Webb in crime scene (http:/ / www. tribuneonline. org/ headlines/ 20110629hed1. html), The Daily Tribune,
June 29, 2011
[57] New Vizconde massacre witness is 'Ms. X' (http:/ / www. philstar. com/ nation/ article. aspx?publicationSubCategoryId=65&
articleId=687510), Philippine Star, May 19, 2011
[58] De Lima hints at explosive breakthrough in Vizconde probe (http:/ / www. gmanews. tv/ story/ 215492/ nation/
de-lima-hints-at-explosive-breakthrough-in-vizconde-probe), GMA News, March 17, 2011
[59] 'Ms. X' key to real perpetrators of Vizconde murders? (http:/ / www. philstar. com/ Article. aspx?articleId=666919&
publicationSubCategoryId=65), Philippine Star, March 17, 2011
[60] 'Webb in Phl during massacre' (http:/ / www.philstar.com/ Article. aspx?articleId=700859& publicationSubCategoryId=63), Philippine
Star, June 28, 2011
[61] De Lima: Its to uncover truth (http:/ / newsinfo.inquirer. net/ 20177/ de-lima-its-to-uncover-truth), Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 1,
2011
External links
Philippine Inquirer, The Vizconde Case (http:/ / showbizandstyle. inquirer. net/ sim/ sim/ view/
20081109-171119/ The-Vizconde-Case)
Manila Times Special Report on the Vizconde Case (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080402110246/ http:/ /
www. manilatimes. net/ others/ special/ 2005/ jan/ 17/ 20050117spe1. html)
Court decisions
Trial court: G.R. No. 121234 Hubert Webb et al. vs. Raul de Leon et. al, 1995 (http:/ / lawphil. net/ judjuris/
juri1995/ aug1995/ gr_121234_1995. html)
Trial court: G.R. No. 127262 Hubert Webb, et al. vs. People of the Philippines et al., 1997 (http:/ / www. lawphil.
net/ judjuris/ juri1997/ jul1997/ gr_127262_1997. html)
Trial court: G.R. No. 132577 People of the Philippines vs. Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, 1999 (http:/ / www. lawphil.
net/ judjuris/ juri1999/ aug1999/ gr_132577_1999. html)
Supreme Court: G.R. No. 176864 People of the Philippines vs. Hubert Webb, et. al., 2010 (http:/ / sc. judiciary.
gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2010/ december2010/ 176389. htm)
Concurring opinions
Carpio Morales, 2010 (http:/ / sc. judiciary. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2010/ december2010/
176389_carpio-morales. htm)
Sereno, 2010 (http:/ / sc. judiciary. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2010/ december2010/ 176389_sereno. htm)
Supplemental opinion
Brion, 2010 (http:/ / sc. judiciary. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2010/ december2010/ 176389_brion. htm)
Dissenting opinion
Villarama, 2010 (http:/ / sc. judiciary. gov. ph/ jurisprudence/ 2010/ december2010/ 176389_villarama.
htm)
Article Sources and Contributors
55
Article Sources and Contributors
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=433850638 Contributors: Bearcat, Katharineamy, Talion1, 1 anonymous edits
GSIS-Meralco bribery case Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=490872976 Contributors: Aquatan, BD2412, Chris the speller, Christmasfairy, Destierro, Download, Eastlaw,
Florentino floro, Funandtrvl, Ground Zero, Howard the Duck, Karenjc, Kguirnela, Librarianrp, Lightmouse, Lotje, Maryols, Maxschmelling, Mk32, Nono64, R'n'B, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi,
Ruff12345, Skywalking, Tassedethe, Tim!, Tim1357, Varlaam, ViperSnake151, WikHead, Yellowdesk, 7 anonymous edits
Neri vs. Senate Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=425871413 Contributors: Florentino floro, Ground Zero, Hammersoft, Heinzee, JL 09, Peripitus, RHaworth, Talion1, Tim!,
39 anonymous edits
People v. Hernandez Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=403208480 Contributors: Alansohn, Anyo Niminus, Prohacvice, Tim!, 1 anonymous edits
Philippine habeas corpus cases Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=473162495 Contributors: BlueDevil, Howieblitzer, Ikari, Prohacvice, Tim!, 4 anonymous edits
Quinto vs. COMELEC Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=466176498 Contributors: Hammersoft, Howard the Duck, PKT, Talion1, Tim!, 4 anonymous edits
Ratification Cases Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=421815525 Contributors: Anomalocaris, Howard the Duck, Prohacvice, 5 anonymous edits
Sema v. COMELEC Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=436294955 Contributors: Aeon17x, BD2412, Chanheigeorge, Florentino floro, Howard the Duck, Jcala69, Joseph Solis
in Australia, Lenticel, Lightmouse, Maxschmelling, Seav, Sky Harbor, Tabletop, The Anome, Tim!, Ulric1313, Village Idiot Sabant, 7 anonymous edits
Vizconde massacre Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=481182313 Contributors: AOC25, Areaseven, Arthena, Beao, Bender235, Broomwick, Delpilarlunabonifaciomabini,
Difu Wu, Dinarphatak, Eaglestorm, EoGuy, FadulJA, Freehubertwebb, Gabi S., Good Olfactory, Hiddenstranger, Hoping To Help, Howard the Duck, Island Monkey, Ivyjean, Jncraton,
Jnestorius, Joaquin008, Jupiterxzy, Kguirnela, Klemen Kocjancic, Naniwako, Night w, Optimist on the run, Otterlakeninetyfour, Quess, Random User 937494, Rjwilmsi, Rms125a@hotmail.com,
Ryulong, SPH3442011, Salt Yeung, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Shaliya waya, Supergabbyshoe, Tassedethe, The ed17, Twelveoaks, Unholyguard, WayKurat, Wikiuserphil, Windows72106, 95
anonymous edits
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
56
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
File:Grino aquino.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Grino_aquino.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Anyo Niminus
File:ShariffKab.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ShariffKab.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Original uploader was Acom12 at en.wikipedia
File:Supreme Court of the Philippines.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike
3.0 Contributors: Mike Gonzalez (TheCoffee)
License
57
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Book 2 Some Major Philippine Court Cases

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Book 2 Some Major Philippine Court Cases

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information.

PDF generated at: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:42:21 UTC

S-ar putea să vă placă și