ALMARIO V.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY The Solicitor Generals Contention: While the President exercises control over the
G.R. No. 189028
16 July 2013
Leonardo-de Castro, J.:
Doctrine: The Presidents discretion is circumscribed by her constitutional duty to
faithfully execute the laws and observe the applicable rules, guidelines, and
policies.
FACTS:
On 6 May 2009, the Chairperson of NCCA and the President and Artistic Director of
the CCP sent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo a letter containing the
recommendation of the Board of Trustees of both the NCCA and the CCP that the
following persons be proclaimed National Artists: (1) Manuel Conde (posthumous)
for Film and Broadcast Arts, (2) Ramon Santos (Santos) for Music, (3) Lazaro
Francisco (posthumous) for Literature, and (4) Federico Aguilar-Alcuaz for Visual
Arts.
The said letter was supposedly referred by the Office of the President to the
Committee on Honors. In the meantime, the Office of the President allegedly
received nominations from various sectors, cultural groups, and individuals
strongly endorsing other persons for the same conferment, namely, (1) Cecile
Guidote-Alvarez (Guidote-Alvarez), (2) Carlo Magno, (3) Jose Caparas (Caparas),
(4) Francisco Maosa, and (5) Jose Moreno (Guidote-Alvarez et al.).
The Committee on Honors thereafter submitted a memorandum to the President
recommending the conferment of the Order of National Artists on the four
recommendees of the NCCA and the CCP Boards, as well as on Guidote-Alvarez
et al.
Acting on this recommendation, several proclamations were made declaring
Manuel Conde, Lazaro Francisco, Federico Aguilar-Alcuaz, and Guidote-Alvarez et
al. as National Artists.
Consequently, Almario, his fellow National Artists, a number of cultural workers and
academics, and the Concerned Artists of the Philippines (Almario et al.) filed a
Petition for Prohibition, Certiorari, and Injunction before the Supreme Court
assailing the declaration of Guidote-Alvarez et al. as National Artists.
Almario et al.s Contention: The President gravely abused her discretion in
disregarding the results of the rigorous screening and selection process for the
Order of National Artists and in substituting her own choice for those of the
deliberation panels.
Caparas Contention: The function of the NCCA and the CCP Boards is simply to
advise the President. The award of the Order of National Artists is the exclusive
prerogative of the President who is not bound in any way by such recommendation.
The implementing rules and regulations or guidelines of the NCCA cannot restrict
or limit the exclusive power of the President to select the recipients of the Order of
National Artists.
NCCA and the CCP, she has the duty to faithfully execute the laws, including the
NCCA-CCP guidelines for the selection of National Artists and the implementing
rules of Executive Order No. 236, Series of 20031.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the President gravely abused her discretion in declaring Guidote-
Alvarez et al. National Artists.
Held:
YES!!
Guidote-Alvarez et al. were not recommended by the NCCA and CCP Board of
Trustees and consequently, their declaration as National Artists were done in
disregard of the applicable rules.
The Presidents discretion in the conferment of the Order of National Artists should be
exercised in accordance with the duty to faithfully execute the relevant laws.The
faithful execution clause is best construed as an obligation imposed on the President,
not a separate grant of power.It simply underscores the rule of law and, corollarily, the
cardinal principle that the President is not above the laws but is obliged to obey and
execute them. An administrative regulation adopted pursuant to law has the force and
effect of law and thus, the rules, guidelines, and policies regarding the Order of
National Artists jointly issued by the CCP Board of Trustees and the NCCA pursuant
to their respective statutory mandates have the force and effect of law and until set
aside, they are binding upon executive and administrative agencies, including the
President herself as chief executor of laws.In view of the various stages of
deliberation in the selection process and as a consequence of her duty to faithfully
enforce the relevant laws, the discretion of the President in the matter of the Order of
National Artists is confined to the names submitted to her by the NCCA and the CCP
Boards.This means that the President could not have considered conferment of
the Order of National Artists on any person not considered and recommended
by the NCCA and the CCP Boards. The President could not have properly
considered Guidote-Alvarez et al., as their names were not recommended by
the NCCA and the CCP Boards. The NCCA and CCP Guidelines provide that
Board members and consultants and NCCA and CCP officers and staff are
automatically disqualified from being nominated.
Consequently, Guidote-Alvarez, who was the Executive Director of the NCCA at that
time, could not have even been nominated and hence, she was not qualified to be
considered and conferred the Order of National Artists.The Presidents discretion on
the matter does not extend to removing a legal impediment or overriding a legal
restriction. It was well within the Presidents power and discretion to proclaim all, or
some or even none of the recommendees of the CCP and the NCCA Boards, without
having to justify his or her action.
Thus, the exclusion of Santos did not constitute grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the former President. There was a violation of the equal protection
1
clause of the Constitution when the President gave preferential treatment to Guidote-
Alvarez et al.The Presidents constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws and
observe the rules, guidelines, and policies of the NCCA and the CCP as to the
selection of the nominees for conferment of the Order of National Artists proscribed
her from having a free and uninhibited hand in the conferment of the said award.
The manifest disregard of the rules, guidelines, and processes of the NCCA and the
CCP was an arbitrary act that unduly favored respondents Guidote-Alvarez et al.
RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID
SUZARA, Petitioners,
vs.
ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, and JOHN
DOES, Respondents.
(a) Julia and Julienne drinking hard liquor and smoking cigarettes inside a bar; and
(b) Julia and Julienne along the streets of Cebu wearing articles of clothing that show
virtually the entirety of their black brassieres. What is more, Escuderos students
claimed that there were times when access to or the availability of the identified
students photos was not confined to the girls Facebook friends, 4 but were, in fact,
viewable by any Facebook user.5
Upon discovery, Escudero reported the matter and, through one of her students
Facebook page, showed the photosto Kristine Rose Tigol (Tigol), STCs Discipline-in-
Charge, for appropriate action. Thereafter, following an investigation, STC found the
identified students to have deported themselves in a manner proscribed by the
schools Student Handbook, to wit:
1. Possession of alcoholic drinks outside the school campus;

VELASCO, JR., J.:

2. Engaging in immoral, indecent, obscene or lewd acts;

The individual's desire for privacy is never absolute, since participation in society is
3. Smoking and drinking alcoholicbeverages in public places;
an equally powerful desire. Thus each individual is continually engaged in a personal
adjustment process in which he balances the desire for privacy with the desire for
disclosure and communication of himself to others, in light of the environmental 4. Apparel that exposes the underwear;
conditions and social norms set by the society in which he lives.
5. Clothing that advocates unhealthy behaviour; depicts obscenity; contains
- Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1967) sexually suggestive messages, language or symbols; and 6. Posing and
uploading pictures on the Internet that entail ample body exposure.
FACTS:
On March 1, 2012, Julia, Julienne, Angela, and the other students in the pictures in
question, reported, as required, to the office of Sr. Celeste Ma. Purisima Pe (Sr.
Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia) and Julienne Vida Suzara (Julienne), both minors, were,
Purisima), STCs high school principal and ICM6Directress. They claimed that during
during the period material, graduating high school students at St. Theresa's College
the meeting, they were castigated and verbally abused by the STC officials present in
(STC), Cebu City. Sometime in January 2012, while changing into their swimsuits for
the conference, including Assistant Principal Mussolini S. Yap (Yap), Roswinda
a beach party they were about to attend, Julia and Julienne, along with several
Jumiller, and Tigol. What is more, Sr. Purisima informed their parents the following
others, took digital pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments. These
day that, as part of their penalty, they are barred from joining the commencement
pictures were then uploaded by Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) on her
exercises scheduled on March 30, 2012.
Facebook3 profile.

A week before graduation, or on March 23, 2012, Angelas mother, Dr. Armenia M.
Back at the school, Mylene Rheza T. Escudero (Escudero), a computer teacher at
Tan (Tan), filed a Petition for Injunction and Damages before the RTC of Cebu City
STCs high school department, learned from her students that some seniors at STC
against STC, et al., docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-38594. 7 In it, Tan prayed that
posted pictures online, depicting themselves from the waist up, dressed only in
defendants therein be enjoined from implementing the sanction that precluded Angela
brassieres. Escudero then asked her students if they knew who the girls in the photos
from joining the commencement exercises.
are. In turn, they readily identified Julia, Julienne, and Chloe Lourdes Taboada
(Chloe), among others.
On March 25, 2012,petitioner Rhonda Ave Vivares (Vivares), the mother of Julia,
joined the fray as an intervenor. On March 28, 2012, defendants inCivil Case No.
Using STCs computers, Escuderos students logged in to their respective personal
CEB-38594 filed their memorandum, containing printed copies of the photographs in
Facebook accounts and showed her photos of the identified students, which include:
issue as annexes. That same day, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order
(TRO) allowing the students to attend the graduation ceremony, to which STC filed a
motion for reconsideration.
Despite the issuance of the TRO,STC, nevertheless, barred the sanctioned students
from participating in the graduation rites, arguing that, on the date of the
commencement exercises, its adverted motion for reconsideration on the issuance
ofthe TRO remained unresolved.
Thereafter, petitioners filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Habeas Data, on the basis of the following considerations:
1. The photos of their children in their undergarments (e.g., bra) were taken
for posterity before they changed into their swimsuits on the occasion of a
birthday beach party;
2. The privacy setting of their childrens Facebook accounts was set at
"Friends Only." They, thus, have a reasonable expectation of privacy which
must be respected.
3. Respondents, being involved in the field of education, knew or ought to
have known of laws that safeguard the right to privacy. Corollarily,
respondents knew or ought to have known that the girls, whose privacy has
been invaded, are the victims in this case, and not the offenders. Worse,
after viewing the photos, the minors were called "immoral" and were
punished outright;
4. The photos accessed belong to the girls and, thus, cannot be used and
reproduced without their consent. Escudero, however, violated their rights by
saving digital copies of the photos and by subsequently showing them to
STCs officials. Thus, the Facebook accounts of petitioners children were
intruded upon;
5. The intrusion into the Facebook accounts, as well as the copying of
information, data, and digital images happened at STCs Computer
Laboratory; and
6. All the data and digital images that were extracted were boldly
broadcasted by respondents through their memorandum submitted to the
RTC in connection with Civil Case No. CEB-38594. To petitioners, the
interplay of the foregoing constitutes an invasion of their childrens privacy
and, thus, prayed that: (a) a writ of habeas databe issued; (b) respondents
be ordered to surrender and deposit with the court all soft and printed copies
of the subjectdata before or at the preliminary hearing; and (c) after trial,
judgment be rendered declaring all information, data, and digital images
accessed, saved or stored, reproduced, spread and used, to have been
illegally obtained inviolation of the childrens right to privacy.
Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the RTC, through an Order dated
July 5, 2012, issued the writ of habeas data. Through the same Order, herein
respondents were directed to file their verified written return, together with the
supporting affidavits, within five (5) working days from service of the writ.
In time, respondents complied with the RTCs directive and filed their verified written
return, laying down the following grounds for the denial of the petition, viz: (a)
petitioners are not the proper parties to file the petition; (b) petitioners are engaging in
forum shopping; (c) the instant case is not one where a writ of habeas data may
issue;and (d) there can be no violation of their right to privacy as there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy on Facebook.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On July 27, 2012, the RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for habeas
data.
The parties and media must observe the aforestated confidentiality.
To the trial court, petitioners failed to prove the existence of an actual or threatened
violation of the minors right to privacy, one of the preconditions for the issuance of
the writ of habeas data. Moreover, the court a quoheld that the photos, having been
uploaded on Facebook without restrictions as to who may view them, lost their
privacy in some way. Besides, the RTC noted, STC gathered the photographs
through legal means and for a legal purpose, that is, the implementation of the
schools policies and rules on discipline.
Not satisfied with the outcome, petitioners now come before this Court pursuant to
Section 19 of the Rule on Habeas Data.10
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the
life, liberty, or security of the minors involved in this case.
HELD:
NO!!
The writ of habeas datais a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.11 It is an independent and
summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and
freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce ones right
to the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to protect a persons right to control
information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is
being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.12
In developing the writ of habeas data, the Court aimed to protect an individuals
right to informational privacy, among others. A comparative law scholar has, in
fact, defined habeas dataas "a procedure designed to safeguard individual freedom
from abuse in the information age."13 The writ, however, will not issue on the basis
merely of an alleged unauthorized access to information about a person.Availment of
the writ requires the existence of a nexus between the right to privacy on the one
hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other.14 Thus, the existence of a
persons right to informational privacy and a showing, at least by substantial
evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or
security of the victim are indispensable before the privilege of the writ may be
extended.15
The right to informational privacy on Facebook
a. The Right to Informational Privacy
The concept of privacy has, through time, greatly evolved, with technological
advancements having an influential part therein. This evolution was briefly recounted
in former Chief Justice Reynato S. Punos speech, The Common Right to
Privacy,20 where he explained the three strands of the right to privacy, viz: (1)
locational or situational privacy;21 (2) informational privacy; and (3) decisional privacy.
as the right of individuals to control information about themselves.23
In this case, the core issue was the right to informational privacy, defined as the right
of individuals to control information about themselves. To what extent should the right
to privacy be protected in online social networks whose sole purpose is sharing
information over the web? The petitioners argued that the privacy settings on
Facebook limit who can see what information. This gives users a subjective
expectation of privacy. The Court agreed. However, the Court also ruled that before
one can have an expectation of privacy in her Facebook information, he or she must
manifest an intention to keep that information private by utilizing privacy tools. If
someone posts something on Facebook and does not limit who can see that
information, there is no expectation of privacy. The photos in the case at hand were
all viewable by the friends of the girls or by the general public. Therefore, the Court
ruled that the Defendants did not violate the minors privacy rights by viewing and
copying the pictures on the minors Facebook pages.
It is due to this notion that the Court saw the pressing need to provide for judicial
remedies that would allow a summary hearing of the unlawful use of data or
information and to remedy possible violations of the right to privacy.25 In the same
vein, the South African High Court, in its Decision in the landmark case, H v.
W,26promulgated on January30, 2013, recognized that "[t]he law has to take into
account the changing realities not only technologically but also socially or else
it will lose credibility in the eyes of the people. It is imperative that the courts
respond appropriately to changing times, acting cautiously and with wisdom."
Consistent with this, the Court, by developing what may be viewed as the Philippine
model of the writ of habeas data, in effect, recognized that, generally speaking,
having an expectation of informational privacy is not necessarily incompatible with
engaging in cyberspace activities
In finding that respondent STC and its officials did not violate the minors' privacy
rights, We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings and case disposition of the
court a quo.
In light of the foregoing, the Court need not belabor the other assigned errors.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision
dated July 27, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City in SP. Proc.
No. 19251-CEB is hereby AFFIRMED.
JOEY M. PESTILOS, et. al.v. MORENO GENEROSO AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 182601, 10 November 2014, SECOND DIVISION (Brion, J.)
Personal knowledge of a crime just committed does not require actual
presence at the scene while a crime was being committed; it is enough that
evidence of the recent commission of the crime is patent and the police officer
has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently committed the
crime.
FACTS:
On February 20, 2005, at around 3:15 in the morning, an altercation ensued between
petitioners Joey M. Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, Miguel Gaces, Jerry Fernandez, and
Roland Muoz and Atty. Moreno Generoso. The police officers arrived at the scene of
the crime less than one hour after the alleged altercation and they saw Atty. Generoso
badly beaten.cAtty. Generoso then pointed to the petitioners as those who mauled
him, which prompted the police officers to "invite" the petitioners for investigation. At
the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor found that the petitioners stabbed Atty.
Generoso with a bladed weapon. Consequently, the petitioners were indicted for
attempted murder. The petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
Investigation on the ground that they had not been lawfully arrested as there was no
valid warrantless arrest since the police officers had no personal knowledge that they
were the perpetrators of the crime. Thus, the inquest proceeding was improper, and a
regular procedure for preliminary investigation should have been performed.The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petitioners' Motion. On petition for certiorari
before the Court of Appeals (CA), the petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The
petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners were validly arrested without a warrant
HELD:
YES!!
The petitioners were validly arrested. In light of the discussion on the developments of
Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and our
jurisprudence on the matter, we hold that the following must be present for a valid
warrantless arrest: 1) the crime should have been just committed; and 2) the arresting
officer's exercise of discretion is limited by the standard of probable cause to be
determined from the facts and circumstances within his personal knowledge. The
requirement of the existence of probable cause objectifies the reasonableness of the
warrantless arrest for purposes of compliance with the Constitutional mandate against
unreasonable arrests.
UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015 To summarize, the arresting officers went
to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of his alleged mauling;
the police officers responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour after the
alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a community where Atty. Generoso
and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners as those
responsible for his mauling and, notably, the petitioners and Atty. Generoso lived
almost in the same neighborhood; more importantly, when the petitioners were
confronted by the arresting officers, they did not deny their participation in the incident
with Atty. Generoso, although they narrated a different version of what
transpired.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
With these facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered and which they
have personally observed less than one hour from the time that they have arrived at
the scene of the crime until the time of the arrest of the petitioners, we deem it
reasonable to conclude that the police officers had personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances justifying the petitioners' warrantless arrests. These circumstances
were well within the police officers' observation, perception and evaluation at the time
of the arrest. These circumstances qualify as the police officers' personal
observation, which are within their personal knowledge, prompting them to
make the warrantless arrests. In determining the reasonableness of the warrantless
arrests, it is incumbent upon the courts to consider if the police officers have complied
with the requirements set under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, specifically, the requirement of immediacy; the police officer's
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances; and lastly, the propriety of the
determination of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested
committed the crime. The records show that soon after the report of the incident
occurred, SPOl Monsalve immediately dispatched the arresting officer, SP02 Javier,
to render personal assistance to the victim. This fact alone negates the petitioners'
argument that the police officers did not have personal knowledge that a crime had
been committed - the police immediately responded and had personal knowledge that
a crime had been committed.