ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.
com™
Like 0 Tweet Share
Custom Search Search
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
January-1990 Jurisprudence
G.R. Nos. 59568-76 January 11, 1990 - PETER
NIERRAS v. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, ET AL.
G.R. No. 59731 January 11, 1990 - ALFREDO CHING
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 76238 January 11, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. BENJAMIN NOGUERRAS
G.R. No. 85332 January 11, 1990 - BIENVENIDO
PAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-87-104 January 11, 1990 - OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JOSE M. ESTACION,
JR.
G.R. No. 45355 January 12, 1990 - PROVINCE OF
MISAMIS ORIENTAL v. CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER
AND LIGHT CO., INC.
G.R. No. 59284 January 12, 1990 - JUANITO
CARDOZA v. PABLO S. SINGSON, ET AL.
G.R. No. 75679 January 12, 1990 - ROSAURO C.
CRUZ v. AUGUSTO E. VILLARIN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 76752 January 12, 1990 - ST. MARY’S
COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMM., ET AL.
G.R. No. 83982 January 12, 1990 - JESUS C.
JAKIHACA v. LILIA AQUINO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 30670 January 17, 1990 - PASTOR
TANCHOCO, ET AL. v. FLORENDO P. AQUINO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 52728 January 17, 1990 - AVELINO C.
AGULTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 74938-39 January 17, 1990 - ANGELINA
J. MALABANAN v. GAW CHING, ET AL.
G.R. No. 75663 January 17, 1990 - ANTONIO G.
AMBROSIO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 75979 January 17, 1990 - RAYMUNDO
MARABELES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 79436-50 January 17, 1990 - EASTERN
ASSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. SECRETARY OF
LABOR, ET AL.
G.R. No. 85915 January 17, 1990 - PAGKAKAISA NG
MGA MANGGAGAWA SA TRIUMPH INT’L., ET AL. v.
PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 88864 January 17, 1990 - PACIFIC MILLS,
INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.
G.R. No. 44414 January 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. WILFREDO TALLA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 57455 January 18, 1990 - EVELYN DE
LUNA, ET AL. v. SOFRONIO F. ABRIGO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 41835 January 19, 1990 - PRUDENTIAL
BANK v. FILOMENO GAPULTOS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 43495 January 20, 1990 - TROPICAL HUT
EMPLOYEES’ UNION, ET AL. v. TROPICAL HUT FOOD
MARKET, INC., ET AL.
G.R. No. 42735 January 22, 1990 - RAMON L. ABAD
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 43830 January 22, 1990 - LILY SAN
BUENAVENTURA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 46238 January 22, 1990 - LAUREANA
TAMBOT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 47663 January 22, 1990 - BELSTAR
TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. BOARD OF TRANS., ET AL.
G.R. No. 54908 January 22, 1990 - COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MITSUBISHI METAL CORP.,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 62805 January 22, 990
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME BUENAFLOR
G.R. No. 68520 January 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. VIRGILIO PASCO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 68935 January 22, 1990 - JOSE PENEYRA,
ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 72138 January 22, 1990 - FELICIDAD M.
ALVENDIA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 72654-61 January 22, 1990 - ALIPIO R.
RUGA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMM., ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 74062-63 January 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JOEL TRIPOLI
G.R. No. 76422 January 22, 1990 - UNITED
HOUSING CORP. v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 76788 January 22, 1990 - JUANITA SALAS
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 77853 January 22, 1990 - MARINA PORT
SERVICES, INC. v. CRESENCIO R. INIEGO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 78212 January 22, 1990 - T.H.
VALDERAMA & SONS, INC., ET AL. v. FRANKLIN
DRILON, ET AL.
G.R. No. 78265 January 22, 1990 - ESTANISLAO
CARBUNGCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 80102 January 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JOVENCIO LUCAS
G.R. No. 82146 January 22, 1990 - EULOGIO
OCCENA v. PEDRO M. ICAMINA, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 84843-44 January 22, 1990 -
NURHUSSEIN A. UTUTALUM v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 85251 January 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. FELICISIMO ARENGO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 44617 January 23, 1990 - CECILIO
ORTEGA , ET AL. v. DOMINADOR AGRIPA TAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 75304 January 23, 1990 - BIENVENIDA
PANGILINAN, ET AL. v. FIDEL RAMOS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 86100-03 January 23, 1990 -
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 86301 January 23, 1990 - JULIAN SY, ET
AL. v. JAIME D. DISCAYA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 87449 January 23, 1990 - SOUTH
MOTORISTS ENTERPRISES v. ROQUE TOSOC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 77854 January 24, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROMEO BACANI
G.R. No. 42514 January 25, 1990 - RODOLFO P.
GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. REGINA ORDOÑEZ-BENITEZ, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 78325 January 25, 1990 - DEL MONTE
CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 34019 January 29, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. REYNALDO LINGATONG
G.R. No. 38387 January 29, 1990 - HILDA
WALSTROM v. FERNANDO MAPA, JR., ET AL.
G.R. No. 50464 January 29, 1990 - SUNBEAM
CONVENIENCE FOODS INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 52491 January 29, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF
LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 67301 January 29, 1990 - MANUEL V. BALA
v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. 69018 January 29, 1990 - ERNESTO S.
DIZON, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM.,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 77088 January 29, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. BONIFACIO YAGONG
G.R. No. 77429 January 29, 1990 - LAURO SANTOS
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. 79956 January 29, 1990 - CORDILLERA
BROAD COALITION v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 81066 January 29, 1990 - SIXTO PROVIDO
v. PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, ET AL.
G.R. No. 82028 January 29, 1990 - FILOMENO N.
LANTION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMM., ET AL.
G.R. No. 85281 January 29, 1990 - CARLOS
VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 90878 January 29, 1990 - PABLITO V.
SANIDAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 33777 January 30, 1990 - PACIFIC
PRODUCTS, INC. v. VICENTE S. ONG
G.R. No. 43356 January 30, 1990 - THELMA FERNAN
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 46345 January 30, 1990 - RESTITUTO
CENIZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 49188 January 30, 1990 - PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 62370 January 30, 1990 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK v. ROSALIO A. DE LEON, ET AL.
G.R. No. 66386 January 30, 1990 - GUILLERMO
BAÑAGA, ET AL. v. COMM. ON THE SETTLEMENT OF
LAND PROBLEMS., ET AL.
G.R. No. 76902 January 30, 1990 - LAND BANK OF
THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 78555 January 30, 1990 - ROMULO S.
BULAONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 80508 January 30, 1990 - EDDIE GUAZON,
ET AL. v. RENATO DE VILLA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 83341 January 30, 1990 - ARNEL P.
MISOLAS v. BENJAMIN V. PANGA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 85266 January 30, 1990 - PHIL. VETERANS
INVESTMENT DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 85934 January 30, 1990 - SSK PARTS
CORPORATION v. TEODORICO CAMAS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 86383 January 30, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. REYNALDO ROSELL
G.R. No. 88421 January 30, 1990 - AYALA
CORPORATION, ET AL. v. JOB B. MADAYAG, ET AL.
A.C. No. 3360 January 30, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. FE T. TUANDA
A.M. No. P-87-119 January 30, 1990 - THELMA A.
PONFERRADA v. EDNA RELATOR
Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > January 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 90878 January 29,
1990 - PABLITO V. SANIDAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 90878. January 29, 1990.]
PABLITO V. SANIDAD, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2167, SECTION 19 THEREOF; HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. — Section 19 of Comelec
Resolution No. 2167, which provides: "Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or
announcers. — During the plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on plebiscite day, no mass
media columnist, commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time
to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues." Respondent Comelec maintains that the questioned
provision of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is not violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom
of expression and of the press. Rather, it is a valid implementation of the power of the Comelec to
supervise and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C, Section 4
of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. It is stated further by respondent that
Resolution 2167 does not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and or from campaigning for
or against the Organic Act. He may still express his views or campaign for or against the act through the
Comelec space and airtime. This is provided under Sections 90 and 92 of BP 881. The contention is
without merit. While the limitation does not absolutely bar petitioner’s freedom of expression, it is still a
restriction on his choice of the forum where he may express his view. No reason was advanced by
respondent to justify such abridgement. We hold that this form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction
of petitioner’s freedom of expression for no justifiable reason. Plebiscite issues are matters of public
concern and importance. The people’s right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make
a decision would be better served by access to an unabridged discussion of the issues, including the
forum. The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by
restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised. Comelec spaces and Comelec
radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information
to the public concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific
radio or television times.
2. ID.; RULING IN THE CASE OF BADOY JR. V. COMELEC (L-32546, OCTOBER 16, 1970), NOT APPLICABLE
IN A PLEBISCITE; REASON THEREFOR. — In the case of Badoy, Jr. v. Comelec, L-32546, Oct. 16, 1970,
where the constitutionality of the prohibition of certain forms of election propaganda was assailed, We
ruled therein that the prohibition is a valid exercise of the police power of the state "to prevent the
perversion and prostitution of the electoral apparatus and of the denial of equal protection of the laws."
The evil sought to be prevented in an election which led to Our ruling in that case does not obtain in a
plebiscite. In a plebiscite, votes are taken in an area on some special political matter unlike in an election
where votes are cast in favor of specific persons for some office. In other words, the electorate is asked to
vote for or against issues, not candidates in a plebiscite.
DECISION
MEDIALDEA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167
on the ground that it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press.
On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR
THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. Pursuant to said law, the City of Baguio
and the Cordilleras which consist of the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and
Kalinga-Apayao, all comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region, shall take part in a plebiscite for the
ratification of said Organic Act originally scheduled last December 27, 1989 which was, however, reset to
January 30, 1990 by virtue of Comelec Resolution No. 2226 dated December 27, 1989.
The Commission on Elections, by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus
Election Code (BP 881), said R.A. 6766 and other pertinent election laws, promulgated Resolution No.
2167, to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous
Region.
In a petition dated November 20, 1989, herein petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to be a
newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly newspaper
circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras, assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec
Resolution No. 2167, which provides: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers. — During the plebiscite campaign
period, on the day before and on plebiscite day, no mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or
personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite
issues." cralaw virtua1aw library
It is alleged by petitioner that said provision is void and unconstitutional because it violates the
constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press enshrined in the Constitution. chanrobles virtualawlibrary
chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
Unlike a regular newsreporter or news correspondent who merely reports the news, petitioner maintains
that as a columnist, his column obviously and necessarily contains and reflects his opinions, views and
beliefs on any issue or subject about which he writes. Petitioner believes that said provision of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2167 constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of the press
and further imposes subsequent punishment for those who may violate it because it contains a penal
provision, as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Article XIII, Section 122, Election Offenses and Banned Acts or Activities. — Except to the extent that the
same may not be applicable to a plebiscite, the banned acts/activities and offenses defined in and
penalized by the Omnibus Election Code (Sections 261, 262, 263 and 264, Article XXII, B.P Blg. 881) and
the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6646 shall be applicable to the plebiscite governed by this
Resolution." cralaw virtua1aw library
Petitioner likewise maintains that if media practitioners were allowed to express their views, beliefs and
opinions on the issue submitted to a plebiscite, it would in fact help in the government drive and desire to
disseminate information, and hear, as well as ventilate, all sides of the issue.
On November 28, 1989, We issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondent Commission on
Elections from enforcing and implementing Section 19 of Resolution No. 2167. We also required the
respondent to comment on the petition.
On January 9, 1990, respondent Commission on Elections, through the Office of the Solicitor General filed
its Comment.
Respondent Comelec maintains that the questioned provision of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is not
violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. Rather, it is a
valid implementation of the power of the Comelec to supervise and regulate media during election or
plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines.
It is stated further by respondent that Resolution 2167 does not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing
his views and or from campaigning for or against the Organic Act. He may still express his views or
campaign for or against the act through the Comelec space and airtime. This is provided under Sections
90 and 92 of BP 881: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Section 90. Comelec Space. — The Commission shall procure space in at least one newspaper of general
circulation in every province or city: Provided, however, That in the absence of said newspaper, publication
shall be done in any other magazine or periodical in said province or city which shall be known as
"Comelec Space" wherein candidates can announce their candidacy. Said space shall be allocated, free of
charge, equally and impartially within the area in which the newspaper is circulated.
"Section 92. Comelec Time. — The Commission shall procure radio and television time to be known as
"Comelec Time" which shall be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates within the area of
coverage of all radio and television stations. For this purpose, the franchise of all radio broadcasting and
television stations are hereby amended so as to provide radio or television time, free of charge, during the
period of the campaign."
cralaw virtua1aw library
Respondent Comelec has relied much on Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of R.A. 6646
as the basis for the promulgation of the questioned Section 19 of Comelec Resolution 2167. chanrobles law library
Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution provides: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all
franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of communication
or information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation
or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space,
and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and
forums among candidates in connection with the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
credible elections."
cralaw virtua1aw library
Similarly, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 (The Electoral Reform Law of 1987) likewise provides: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Prohibited forms of election Propaganda. — In addition to the forms of election propaganda prohibited
under Section 85 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, it shall be unlawful: . . . .
"(b) for any newspaper, radio, broadcasting or television station, or other mass media, or any person
making use of the mass media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or
other political purposes except to the Commission as provided under Sections 90 and 92 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, or personality who is a
candidate for any elective office shall take a leave of absence from his work as such during the campaign
period." (Emphasis ours)
However, it is clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the Comelec was the
power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued for
the operation of transportation or other public utilities, media of communication or information to the end
that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor,
for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured. The evil sought to be
prevented by this provision is the possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give any undue
advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising space or radio or television time. This is also the reason
why a "columnist, commentator, announcer or personality, who is a candidate for any elective office is
required to take a leave of absence from his work during the campaign period (2nd par. Section 11(b)
R.A. 6646). It cannot be gainsaid that a columnist or commentator who is also a candidate would be more
exposed to the voters to the prejudice of other candidates unless required to take a leave of absence.
However, neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section 11(b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be
construed to mean that the Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the
exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods. Media
practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise
holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19
of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has no statutory basis.
In the case of Badoy, Jr. v. Comelec, L-32546, Oct. 16, 1970, where the constitutionality of the prohibition
of certain forms of election propaganda was assailed, We ruled therein that the prohibition is a valid
exercise of the police power of the state "to prevent the perversion and prostitution of the electoral
apparatus and of the denial of equal protection of the laws." The evil sought to be prevented in an election
which led to Our ruling in that case does not obtain in a plebiscite. In a plebiscite, votes are taken in an
area on some special political matter unlike in an election where votes are cast in favor of specific persons
for some office. In other words, the electorate is asked to vote for or against issues, not candidates in a
plebiscite.
chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
Anent respondent Comelec’s argument that Section 19 of Comelec Resolution 2167 does not absolutely
bar petitioner-columnist from expressing his views and or from campaigning for or against the organic act
because he may do so through the Comelec space and/or Comelec radio/television time, the same is not
meritorious. While the limitation does not absolutely bar petitioner’s freedom of expression, it is still a
restriction on his choice of the forum where he may express his view. No reason was advanced by
respondent to justify such abridgement. We hold that this form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction
of petitioner’s freedom of expression for no justifiable reason.
Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. The people’s right to be informed and to
be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be better served by access to an unabridged
discussion of the issues, including the forum. The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite
should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be
exercised. Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not
guarantee full dissemination of information to the public concerned because they are limited to either
specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television times.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is GRANTED. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is declared
null and void and unconstitutional. The restraining order herein issued is hereby made permanent. chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Back to Home | Back to Main
QUICK SEARCH
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
| Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED