Page 1 of 60

condones her act. Respondent Escritor

1. Diocese of Bacolod vs COMELEC testified that when she entered the judiciary
2. Imbong vs Ochoa in 1999, she was already a widow, her
husband having died in 1998. She admitted
3. Ang LADLAD vs COMELEC that she has been living with Luciano
Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage
for twenty years and that they have a son.
But as a member of the religious sect known
Estrada Vs Escritor
as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch
FACTS : Complainant Alejandro Estrada wrote Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal
to Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an arrangement is in conformity with their
investigation of rumors that respondent religious beliefs. In fact, after ten years of
Soledad Escritor, court interpreter, is living living together, she executed on July 28,
with a man not her husband. They allegedly 1991 a "Declaration of Pledging
have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. Faithfulness," insofar as the congregation is
Estrada is not personally related either to concerned, there is nothing immoral about
Escritor or her partner. Nevertheless, he filed the conjugal arrangement between Escritor
the charge against Escritor as he believes and Quilapio and they remain members in
that she is committing an immoral act that good standing in the congregation.
tarnishes the image of the court, thus she
should not be allowed to remain employed
therein as it might appear that the court
 Page 2 of 60

ISSUE : Whether or not respondent should States as shown by many traditional

be found guilty of the administrative charge government practices which An
of "gross and immoral conduct." accommodationist holds that it is good public
policy, and sometimes constitutionally
required, for the state to make conscious and
HELD : The two streams of jurisprudence - deliberate efforts to avoid interference with
separationist or accommodationist - are religious freedom. On the other hand, the
anchored on a different reading of the "wall strict neutrality adherent believes that it is
of separation." Separationist - This approach good public policy, and also constitutionally
erects an absolute barrier to formal required, for the government to avoid
interdependence of religion and state. religion-specific policy even at the cost of
Religious institutions could not receive aid, inhibiting religious exercise First, the
whether direct or indirect, from the state. accommodationist interpretation is most
Nor could the state adjust its secular consistent with the language of the First
programs to alleviate burdens the programs Amendment. Second, the accommodationist
placed on believers. the strict neutrality or position best achieves the purposes of the
separationist view is largely used by the First Amendment. Third, the
Court, showing the Court’s tendency to press accommodationist interpretation is
relentlessly towards a more secular society particularly necessary to protect adherents
Accommodationist - Benevolent neutrality of minority religions from the inevitable
thus recognizes that religion plays an effects of majoritarianism, which include
important role in the public life of the United ignorance and indifference and overt hostility
 Page 3 of 60

to the minority Fourth, the accommodationist exercise of religion The second step is to
position is practical as it is a commonsensical ascertain respondent’s sincerity in her
way to deal with the various needs and religious belief. Respondent appears to be
beliefs of different faiths in a pluralistic sincere in her religious belief and practice
nation. The "compelling state interest" test is and is not merely using the "Declaration of
proper where conduct is involved for the Pledging Faithfulness" to avoid punishment
whole gamut of human conduct has different for immorality. She did not secure the
effects on the state’s interests: some effects Declaration only after entering the judiciary
may be immediate and short-term while where the moral standards are strict and
others delayed and far-reaching. A test that defined, much less only after an
would protect the interests of the state in administrative case for immorality was filed
preventing a substantive evil, whether against herIndeed, it is inappropriate for the
immediate or delayed, is therefore necessary complainant, a private person, to present
In applying the test, the first inquiry is evidence on the compelling interest of the
whether respondent’s right to religious state. The burden of evidence should be
freedom has been burdened. There is no discharged by the proper agency of the
doubt that choosing between keeping her government which is the Office of the
employment and abandoning her religious Solicitor General. To properly settle the issue
belief and practice and family on the one in the case at bar, the government should be
hand, and giving up her employment and given the opportunity to demonstrate the
keeping her religious practice and family on compelling state interest it seeks to uphold
the other hand, puts a burden on her free in opposing the respondent’s stance that her
 Page 4 of 60

conjugal arrangement is not immoral and postage stamps for printing The more
punishable as it comes within the scope of important question raised refers to the
free exercise protection. alleged violation of the Constitution by the
respondent in issuing and selling postage
AGLIPAY, petitioner, vs. JUAN RUIZ, stamps commemorative of the Thirty-third
respondent. International Eucharistic Congress. It is
G.R. No. L-45459 March 13, 1937 GREGORIO alleged that this action of the respondent is
violative of the provisions of section 23,
Facts : In May, 1936, the Director of Posts subsection 3, Article VI, of the Constitution of
announced in the dailies of Manila that he the Philippines, which provides as follows: No
would order the issues of postage stamps public money or property shall ever be
commemorating the celebration in the City appropriated, applied, or used, directly or
of Manila of the Thirty-third international indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of
Eucharistic Congress, organized by the any sect, church, denomination, secretarian,
Roman Catholic Church. The petitioner, in the institution, or system of religion, or for the
fulfillment of what he considers to be a civic use, benefit, or support of any priest,
duty, requested Vicente Sotto, Esq., member preacher, minister, or other religious teacher
of the Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter or dignitary as such, except when such
to the President of the Philippines. In spite of priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
the protest of the petitioner's attorney, the assigned to the armed forces or to any penal
respondent publicly announced having sent institution, orphanage, or leprosarium.
to the United States the designs of the
 Page 5 of 60

ISSUE : WON the stamp is constitutional that church It appears from the latter of the
Director of Posts of June 5, 1936,
HELD : Act No. 4052 contemplates no incorporated on page 2 of the petitioner's
religious purpose in view. What it gives the complaint, that the only purpose in issuing
Director of Posts is the discretionary power to and selling the stamps was "to advertise the
determine when the issuance of special Philippines and attract more tourist to this
postage stamps would be "advantageous to country." The officials concerned merely,
the Government." Of course, the phrase took advantage of an event considered of
"advantageous to the Government" does not international importance "to give publicity to
authorize the violation of the Constitution. It the Philippines and its people What is
does not authorize the appropriation, use or emphasized is not the Eucharistic Congress
application of public money or property for itself but Manila, the capital of the
the use, benefit or support of a particular Philippines, as the seat of that congress. It is
sect or church. In the present case, however, obvious that while the issuance and sale of
the issuance of the postage stamps in the stamps in question may be said to be
question by the Director of Posts and the inseparably linked with an event of a
Secretary of Public Works and religious character, the resulting
Communications was not inspired by any propaganda, if any, received by the Roman
sectarian denomination. The stamps were Catholic Church, was not the aim and
not issue and sold for the benefit of the purpose of the Government. We are of the
Roman Catholic Church. Nor were money opinion that the Government should not be
derived from the sale of the stamps given to embarassed in its activities simply because
 Page 6 of 60

of incidental results, more or less religious in the unconstitutionality of the step taken, a
character, if the purpose had in view is one gap exists which is yet to be filled to justify
which could legitimately be undertaken by the court in setting aside the official act
appropriate legislation. The main purpose assailed as coming within a constitutional
should not be frustrated by its subordinate to inhibition.
mere incidental results not contemplated
But, upon very serious reflection, 6. ANDRES GARCES vs. Hon.
examination of Act No. 4052, and scrutiny of NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO
the attending circumstances, we have come G.R. No. L-53487. May 25, 1981.
to the conclusion that there has been no
constitutional infraction in the case at bar, FACTS:
Act No. 4052 grants the Director of Posts, Pursuant to Resolution No. 5 of the Barangay
with the approval of the Secretary of Public Council of Valencia, Ormoc City, a wooden
Works and Communications, discretion to image of San Vicente Ferrer was acquired by
misuse postage stamps with new designs "as the barangay council with funds raised by
often as may be deemed advantageous to means of solicitations and cash, duly ratified
the Government." Even if we were to assume by the barangay assembly in a plebiscite,
that these officials made use of a poor reviving the traditional socio-religious
judgment in issuing and selling the postage celebration of the feast day of the saint. As
stamps in question still, the case of the per Resolution No. 6, the image was brought
petitioner would fail to take in weight. to the Catholic parish church during the
Between the exercise of a poor judgment and saint's feast day which also designated the
 Page 7 of 60

hermano mayor as the custodian of the ISSUE:

image. After the fiesta, however, petitioner Whether the barangay council's resolution
parish priest, Father Sergio Marilao Osmeña, providing for purchase of saint's image with
refused to return custody of the image to the private funds in connection with barangay
council on the pretext that it was the fiesta, constitutional.
property of the church because church funds
were used for its acquisition until after the
latter, by resolution, filed a replevin case HELD:
against the priest and posted the required Yes. Resolution No. 5 of the barangay council
bond. Thereafter, the parish priest and his of Valenzuela, Ormoc City, "reviving the
co-petitioners filed an action for annulment traditional socio-religious celebration" every
of the council's resolutions relating to the fifth day of April "of the feast day of Señor
subject image contending that when they San Vicente Ferrer, the patron saint of
were adopted, the barangay council was not Valenzuela", and providing for: (I) the
duly constituted because the chairman of the acquisition of the image of San Vicente
Kabataang Barangay was not allowed to Ferrer; and (2) the construction of a waiting
participate; and that they contravened the shed as the barangay's projects, funds for
constitutional provisions on separation of which would be obtained through the "selling
church and state, freedom of religion and the of tickets and cash donations", does not
use of public money to favor any sect or directly or indirectly establish any religion,
church. nor abridge religious liberty, nor appropriate
money for the benefit of any sect, priest or
 Page 8 of 60

clergyman. The image was purchased with monotony and drudgery of the lives of the
private funds, not with tax money. The masses.
construction of the waiting shed is entirely a
secular matter. The wooden image was
purchased in connection with the celebration 7. Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals,
of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996
San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose DECISION
of favoring any religion or interfering with
religious beliefs of the barrio residents. One
of the highlights of the fiesta was the mass. PUNO, J.:
Consequently, the image of the patron saint
had to be placed in the church when the I. THE FACTS
mass was celebrated. If there is nothing
unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta Several pre-taped episodes of the TV
and having a patron saint for the barrio, then program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” of the
any activity intended to facilitate the worship religious group Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) were
of the patron saint (such as the acquisition rated “X” – i.e., not for public viewing – by
and display of his image) cannot be branded the respondent Board of Review for Moving
as illegal. As noted in the resolution, the Pictures and Television (now MTRCB).
barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. Its These TV programs allegedly “offend[ed] and
celebration is an ingrained tradition in rural constitute[d] an attack against other
communities. The fiesta relieves the religions which is expressly prohibited by
 Page 9 of 60

law” because of petitioner INC’s controversial with the CA decision, petitioner INC appealed
biblical interpretations and its “attacks” to the Supreme Court.
against contrary religious beliefs.
II. THE ISSUES
Petitioner INC went to court to
question the actions of respondent Board. (1) Does respondent Board have the
The RTC ordered the respondent Board to power to review petitioner’s TV program?
grant petitioner INC the necessary permit for
its TV programs. But on appeal by the (2) Assuming it has the power, did
respondent Board, the CA reversed the RTC. respondent Board gravely abuse its
The CA ruled that: (1) the respondent Board discretion when it prohibited the airing of
has jurisdiction and power to review the TV petitioner’s religious program?
program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the
respondent Board did not act with grave III. THE RULING
abuse of discretion when it denied permit for
the exhibition on TV of the three series [The Court voted 13-1 to REVERSE the
of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the ground that CA insofar as the CA sustained the action of
the materials constitute an attack against the respondent Board’s X-rating petitioner’s
another religion. The CA also found the TV Program Series Nos. 115, 119, and 121. It
subject TV series “indecent, contrary to law also voted 10-4 to AFFIRM the CA insofar as
and contrary to good customs.” Dissatisfied the CA it sustained the jurisdiction of the
 Page 10 of 60

respondent MTRCB to review petitioner’s TV

program entitled “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.”] [The Court however] reject petitioner’s
postulate. Petitioner’s public broadcast on TV
1. YES, respondent Board has of its religious program brings it out of the
the power to review petitioner’s TV bosom of internal belief. Television is a
program. medium that reaches even the eyes and ears
of children. The Court iterates the rule
Petitioner contends that the term thatthe exercise of religious freedom can be
“television program” [in Sec. 3 of PD No. regulated by the State when it will bring
1986 that the respondent Board has the about the clear and present danger of some
power to review and classify] should not substantive evil which the State is duty
include religious programs like its bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to
program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.” A contrary the more overriding interest of public health,
interpretation, it is urged, will contravene public morals, or public welfare. A laissez
section 5, Article III of the Constitution which faire policy on the exercise of religion can be
guarantees that “no law shall be made seductive to the liberal mind but history
respecting an establishment of religion, or counsels the Court against its blind adoption
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free as religion is and continues to be a volatile
exercise and enjoyment of religious area of concern in our country
profession and worship, without today. . . [T]he Court] shall continue to
discrimination or preference, shall forever be subject any act pinching the space for the
allowed.” free exercise of religion to a heightened
 Page 11 of 60

scrutiny but we shall not leave its rational especially the Catholic Church. An
exercise to the irrationality of man. For when examination of the evidence . . . will show
religion divides and its exercise destroys, the that the so-called “attacks” are
State should not stand still. mere criticisms of some of the deeply held
dogmas and tenets of other religions. The
2. YES, respondent Board videotapes were not viewed by the
gravely abuse its discretion when it respondent court as they were not presented
prohibited the airing of petitioner’s as evidence. Yet they were considered by the
religious program. respondent court as indecent, contrary to
law and good customs, hence, can be
[A]ny act that restrains speech is prohibited from public viewing under section
hobbled by the presumption of invalidity and 3(c) of PD 1986. This ruling clearly
should be greeted with furrowed brows. It is suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech
the burden of the respondent Board to and interferes with its right to free exercise
overthrow this presumption. If it fails to of religion. xxx.
discharge this burden, its act of censorship
will be struck down. It failed in the case at The respondent Board may disagree
bar. with the criticisms of other religions by
petitioner but that gives it no excuse to
The evidence shows that the interdict such criticisms, however, unclean
respondent Board x-rated petitioners TV they may be. Under our constitutional
series for “attacking” either religions, scheme, it is not the task of the State to
 Page 12 of 60

favor any religion by protecting it against an the clear and present danger rule.
attack by another religion. . . In In American Bible Society v. City of Manila,
fine, respondent board cannot squelch the this Court held: “The constitutional guaranty
speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply of free exercise and enjoyment of religious
because it attacks other religions, even if profession and worship carries with it the
said religion happens to be the most right to disseminate religious information.
numerous church in our country. In a State Any restraint of such right can be justified
where there ought to be no difference like other restraints on freedom of expression
between the appearance and the reality of on the ground that there is a clear and
freedom of religion, the remedy against bad present danger of any substantive evil which
theology is better theology. The bedrock of the State has the right to prevent.”
freedom of religion is freedom of thought and In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers
it is best served by encouraging the Union, we further ruled that “. . . it is only
marketplace of duelling ideas. When the where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent
luxury of time permits, the marketplace of an immediate and grave danger to the
ideas demands that speech should be met by security and welfare of the community that
more speech for it is the spark of opposite infringement of religious freedom may be
speech, the heat of colliding ideas that can justified, and only to the smallest extent
fan the embers of truth. necessary to avoid the danger.”

In x-rating the TV program of the The records show that the decision of
petitioner, the respondents failed to apply the respondent Board, affirmed by the
 Page 13 of 60

respondent appellate court, is business in the Philippines through its

completely bereft of findings of facts to Philippine agency established in Manila in
justify the conclusion that the subject video November, 1898
tapes constitute impermissible attacks · City of Manila is a municipal
against another religion. There is no showing corporation with powers that are to be
whatsoever leah pinkihan of the type of exercised in conformity with the provisions of
harm the tapes will bring about especially Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised
the gravity and imminence of the threatened Charter of the City of Manila
harm. Prior restraint on speech, including · American Bible Society has been
religious speech, cannot be justified by distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel
hypothetical fears but only by the showing of portions throughout the Philippines and
a substantive and imminent evil which has translating the same into several Philippine
taken the life of a reality already on ground. dialect
· City Treasurer of Manila informed
8. American Bible Society vs. City of American Bible Society that it was violating
Manila several Ordinances for operating without the
GR No. L-9637 | April 30, 1957 necessary permit and license, thereby
requiring the corporation to secure the
Facts: permit and license fees covering the period
· American Bible Society is a foreign, from 4Q 1945-2Q 1953
non-stock, non-profit, religious, missionary · To avoid closing of its business,
corporation duly registered and doing American Bible Society paid the City of
 Page 14 of 60

Manila its permit and license fees under Issue: WON American Bible Society liable to
protest pay sales tax for the distribution and sale of
· American Bible filed a complaint, bibles
questioning the constitutionality and legality
of the Ordinances 2529 and 3000, and Ruling: NO
prayed for a refund of the payment made to · Under Sec. 1 of Ordinance 3000, one
the City of Manila. They contended: of the ordinance in question, person or entity
a. They had been in the Philippines since engaged in any of the business, trades or
1899 and were not required to pay any occupation enumerated under Sec. 3 must
license fee or sales tax obtain a Mayor’s permit and license from the
b. it never made any profit from the sale City Treasurer. American Bible Society’s
of its bibles business is not among those enumerated
· City of Manila prayed that the · However, item 79 of Sec. 3 of the
complaint be dismissed, reiterating the Ordinance provides that all other businesses,
constitutionality of the Ordinances in trade or occupation not mentioned, except
question those upon which the City is not empowered
· Trial Court dismissed the complaint to license or to tax P5.00
· American Bible Society appealed to · Therefore, the necessity of the permit
the Court of Appeals is made to depend upon the power of the
City to license or tax said business, trade or
occupation.
 Page 15 of 60

· 2 provisions of law that may have different classes are sold in the same
bearing on this case: establishment, it shall not be compulsory for
a. Chapter 60 of the Revised the owner to secure more than one license if
Administrative Code, the Municipal Board of he pays the higher or highest rate of tax
the City of Manila is empowered to tax and prescribed by ordinance. Wholesale dealers
fix the license fees on retail dealers engaged shall pay the license tax as such, as may be
in the sale of books provided by ordinance
b. Sec. 18(o) of RA 409: to tax and fix the · The only difference between the 2
license fee on dealers in general provisions is the limitation as to the amount
merchandise, including importers and of tax or license fee that a retail dealer has
indentors, except those dealers who may be to pay per annum
expressly subject to the payment of some · As held in Murdock vs. Pennsylvania,
other municipal tax. Further, Dealers in The power to impose a license tax on the
general merchandise shall be classified as exercise of these freedoms provided for in
(a) wholesale dealers and (b) retail dealers. the Bill of Rights, is indeed as potent as the
For purposes of the tax on retail dealers, power of censorship which this Court has
general merchandise shall be classified into repeatedly struck down. It is not a nominal
four main classes: namely (1) luxury articles, fee imposed as a regulatory measure to
(2) semi-luxury articles, (3) essential defray the expenses of policing the activities
commodities, and (4) miscellaneous articles. in question. It is in no way apportioned. It is
A separate license shall be prescribed for flat license tax levied and collected as a
each class but where commodities of condition to the pursuit of activities whose
 Page 16 of 60

enjoyment is guaranteed by the Provided, however, That the income of

constitutional liberties of press and religion whatever kind and character from any of its
and inevitably tends to suppress their properties, real or personal, or from any
exercise. That is almost pahinga ka naman activity conducted for profit, regardless of
uniformly recognized as the inherent vice the disposition made of such income, shall
and evil of this flat license tax. be liable to the tax imposed under this Code
· Further, the case also mentioned that shall not be taxed
the power to tax the exercise of a privilege is · The price asked for the bibles and
the power to control or suppress its other religious pamphlets was in some
enjoyment. Those who can tax the exercise instances a little bit higher than the actual
of this religious practice can make its cost of the same but this cannot mean that
exercise so costly as to deprive it of the American Bible Society was engaged in the
resources necessary for its maintenance. business or occupation of selling said
Those who can tax the privilege of engaging "merchandise" for profit
in this form of missionary evangelism can · Therefore, the Ordinance cannot be
close all its doors to all those who do not applied for in doing so it would impair
have a full purse American Bible Society’s free exercise and
· Under Sec. 27(e) of Commonwealth enjoyment of its religious profession and
Act No. 466 or the National Internal Revenue worship as well as its rights of dissemination
Code, Corporations or associations organized of religious beliefs.
and operated exclusively for religious,
charitable, . . . or educational purposes, . . .:
 Page 17 of 60

Wherefore, and on the strength of the his resignation from EPWU claiming that as
foregoing considerations, We hereby reverse per RA 3350 he is an exemption to the close
the decision appealed from, sentencing shop agreement by virtue of his being a
defendant return to plaintiff the sum of member of the INC because apparently in
P5,891.45 unduly collected from it the INC, one is forbidden from being a
9. Pamil vs Teleron member of any labor union. It was only in
1974 that his resignation from the Union was
10. Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope acted upon by EPWU which notified ERF
the Constitution over Contractual Rights about it. ERF then moved to terminate
Victoriano due to his non-membership from
Benjamin Victoriano, an Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) the EPWU. EPWU and ERF reiterated that he
member, has been an employee of the is not exempt from the close shop agreement
Elizalde Rope Factory (ERF) since 1958. He because RA 3350, which provides that close
was also a member of the EPWU (Elizalde shop agreements shall not cover members of
Rope Workers’ Union). Under the collective any religious sects which prohibit affiliation
bargaining agreement (CBA) between ERF of their members in any such labor
and EPWU, a close shop agreement is being organization, is unconstitutional and that
enforced which means that employment in said law violates the EPWU’s and ERF’s
the factory relies on the membership in the legal/contractual rights.
EPWU; that in order to retain employment in
the said factory one must be a member of ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3350 is
the said Union. In 1962, Victoriano tendered unconstitutional.
 Page 18 of 60

HELD: No. The right to religion prevails over FACTS:

contractual or legal rights. As such, an INC 1. Petitioners belong to the Jehova’s Witness
member may refuse to join a labor union and whose children were expelled from their
despite the fact that there is a close shop schools when they refused to salute, sing the
agreement in the factory where he was anthem, recite the pledge during the conduct
employed, his employment could not be of flag ceremony. DO No. 8 issued by DECS
validly terminated for his non-membership in pursuant to RA 1265 which called for the
the majority therein. Further, the right to join manner of conduct during a flag ceremony.
a union includes the right not to join a union. The petitioners wrote the Secretary of
The law is not unconstitutional. It recognizes Education on their plight and requested to
both the rights of unions and employers to reinstate their children. This was denied.
enforce terms of contracts and at the same
time it recognizes the workers’ right to join 2. As a result, the petitioners filed for a writ
or not to join union. RA 3550 recognizes as of preliminary injunction against the
well the primacy of a constitutional right over Secretary and Director of Public Schools to
a contractual right. restrain them from implementing said DO
No. 8.
11. German vs Barangan-done
3. The lower court (RTC) declared DO 8
12. Gerona, et. al v SEC. OF EDUCATION invalid and contrary to the Bill of Rights.
106 Phil 2 Aug. 12, 1959
 Page 19 of 60

ISSUE: Whether or not DO 8 is valid or After all, the determination of whether a

constitutional certain ritual is or is not a religious ceremony
must rest with the courts. It cannot be left to
DO 8 is valid. Saluting the flag is not a a religious group or sect, much less to a
religious ritual and it is for the courts to follower of said group or sect; otherwise,
determine, not a religious group, whether or there would be confusion and
not a certain practice is one. misunderstanding for there might be as
many interpretations and meanings to be
1. The court held that the flag is not an given to a certain ritual or ceremony as there
image but a symbol of the Republic of the are religious groups or sects or followers.
Philippines, an emblem of national
sovereignty, of national unity and cohesion 2. The freedom of religious belief guaranteed
and of freedom and liberty which it and the by the Constitution does not and cannot
Constitution guarantee and protect. mean exemption form or non-compliance
Considering the complete separation of with reasonable and non-discriminatory laws,
church and state in our system of rules and regulations promulgated by
government, the flag is utterly devoid of any competent authority. In enforcing the flag
religious significance. Saluting the flag salute on the petitioners, there was
consequently does not involve any religious absolutely no compulsion involved, and for
ceremony. their failure or refusal to obey school
regulations about the flag salute they were
not being persecuted. Neither were they
 Page 20 of 60

being criminally prosecuted under threat of Order No. 8, series of 1955; that the
penal sacntion. If they chose not to obey the requirement of observance of the flag
flag salute regulation, they merely lost the ceremony or salute provided for in said
benefits of public education being Department Order No. 8, does not violate the
maintained at the expense of their fellow Constitutional provision about freedom of
citizens, nothing more. According to a religion and exercise of religion; that
popular expression, they could take it or compliance with the non-discriminatory and
leave it. Having elected not to comply with reasonable rules and regulations and school
the regulations about the flag salute, they discipline, including observance of the flag
forfeited their right to attend public schools. ceremony is a prerequisite to attendance in
public schools; and that for failure and
3. The Filipino flag is not an image that refusal to participate in the flag ceremony,
requires religious veneration; rather it is petitioners were properly excluded and
symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, of dismissed from the public school they were
sovereignty, an emblem of freedom, liberty attending.
and national unity; that the flag salute is not
a religious ceremony but an act and
profession of love and allegiance and pledge
of loyalty to the fatherland which the flag
stands for; that by authority of the 13. Ebralinag, et al vs. Div. Supt. of
legislature, the Secretary of Education was Schools of Cebu G.R. No. 95770, March 1,
duly authorized to promulgate Department 1993
 Page 21 of 60

G.R. No. 95770, March 1, 1993 teachers and school employees, and to
deprive the students and pupils from the
benefit of public education, if they do not
Facts: participate in daily flag ceremony and
doesn’t obey flag salute rule.
In 1989, DECS Regional Office in Cebu
received complaints about teachers and Members of the Jehovah’s Witness sect find
pupils belonging to the Jehovah’s Witness, such memorandum to be contrary to their
and enrolled in various public and private religious belief and choose not to obey.
schools, which refused to sing the Phil. Despite a number of appropriate persuasions
National Anthem, salute the flag and recite made by the Cebu officials to let them obey
the patriotic pledge. the directives, still they opted to follow their
conviction to their belief. As a result, an
Division Superintendent of schools, Susana order was issued by the district supervisor of
B. Cabahug of the Cebu Division of DECS and Daan Bantayan District of Cebu, dated July
her Assistant issued Division Memorandum 24, 1990, ordering the ‘dropping from the
No. 108, dated Nov. 17, 1989, directing list’ in the school register of all Jehovah’s
District Supervisors, High School Principals Witness teachers and pupils from Grade 1 to
and Heads of Private Educational institutions Grade 6 who opted to follow their belief
to remove from service, after due process, which is against the Flag Salute Law,
 Page 22 of 60

however, given a chance to be re-accepted if and enjoining respondent from barring them
they change their mind. from classes; and compelling the respondent
and all persons acting for him to admit and
Some Jehovah’s Witness members appealed order their(Petitioners) re-admission I their
to the Secretary of Education but the latter respective schools.
did not answer to their letter.
On November 27, 1990, Court issued a TRO
On Oct. 31, 1990, students and their parents and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction,
filed special civil actions for Mandamus, commanding the respondents to immediately
Certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the re-admit the petitioners to their respective
respondents acted without or in excess of classes until further orders.
their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
discretion in ordering their expulsion without On May 31, the Solicitor General filed a
prior notice and hearing, hence, in violation consolidated comment to the petitions
of their right to due process, their right to defending the expulsion orders issued by the
free public education and their right to respondents.
freedom of speech, religion and worship.
Petitioners prayed for the voiding of the Petitioners stressed that while they do not
order of expulsion or ‘dropping from the rolls’ take part in the compulsory flag ceremony,
issued by the District Supervisor; prohibiting they do not engage in ‘external acts’ or
 Page 23 of 60

behavior that would offend their countrymen citizens, under the 1987 Constitution, to
who believe in expressing their love of receive free education, for it is the duty of
country through observance of the flag the state to ‘protect and promote the right of
ceremony. They quietly stand at attention all citizens to quality education, and to make
during the flag ceremony to show their such education accessible to all (Sec. I, Art
respect for the right of those who choose to XIV). Nevertheless, their right not to
participate in the solemn proceedings. Since participate in the Flag Ceremony does not
they do not engage in disruptive behavior, give them a right to disrupt such patriotic
there is no warrant for their expulsion. exercises. If they quietly stand at attention
during flag ceremony while their classmates
Issue: and teachers salute the flag, sing the
Whether or not the expulsion of the national anthem and recite the patriotic
members of Jehovah’s Witness from the pledge, we do not see how such conduct
schools violates right receive free education. may possibly disturb the peace, or pose ‘a
grave and present danger of a serious evil to
Held: public safety, public morals, public health or
any legitimate public interest that the state
The expulsion of the members of Jehovah’s has a right and duty to prevent.
Witness from the schools where they are
enrolled will violate their right as Philippine
 Page 24 of 60

It is appropriate to recall the Japanese Is a remedy available to any person whose

occupation of our country in 1942-1944 right to life, liberty,or security is violated or
when every Filipino, regardless of religious threatened with violation by an unlawful act
persuasion, in fear of the invader, saluted or omission of a public official or employee,
the Japanese flag and bowed before every or of a private individual or entity.
Japanese soldier, perhaps if petitioners had
lived through that dark period of our history,
they would not quibble now about saluting FACTS:
the Phil. Flag.
Petitioner and 49 others were arrested in the
The petitions for certiorari and prohibition Manila Peninsula Hotel Seige and were
are granted and expulsion orders are hereby charged of the crime of rebellion under the
annulled and set aside. Revised Penal Code. DILG issued Hold
Departure Order in the interest of national
security and public safety.
REYES VS GONZALES
On December 13, 2007, RTC issued an order
WRIT OF AMPARO dismissing the charge for Rebellion against
the petitioner and 17 others for lack of
DEFINITION: probable cause. That petitioners and other
 Page 25 of 60

accused civilians were arrested because they violation by the issuance of the subject HDO,
ignored the call of the police despite the which would entitle him to the privilege of
deadline given to them to come out from the the writ of amparo.
2nd Floor of the Hotel and submit
themselves to the police authorities. HELD:

Counsel for petitioner file thru the DOJ for the No. The writ is a remedy for any person
lifting of the HDO since despite the dismissal whose wright to life, liberty or security is
of the crime of rebellion, he was held by the violated or threatened with violation by an
BID officials at NAIA as his name is included unlawful act or omission of a public official or
in the Hold Departure List. This happens employee, or of a private person or entity.
every time he left for abroad. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and
Writ of Amparo was filed on the ground that enforced disappearance or threats thereof.
the respondents violated the petitioner’s Liberty has been defined as the right to exist
constitutional right to travel. and the right to be free form arbitrary
ISSUE: restraint or servitude. The term cannot be
dwarfed from arbitrary into mere freedom
Whether or not the petitioner’s right to from physical restraint of the person of the
liberty has been violated or threatened with citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right
 Page 26 of 60

of man to enjoy the facilities he has been Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration
endowed by his Creator. dated October 27, 1989

Security is the freedom of persons from fear, Right to travel; liberty of abode and “right to
freedom from threat. return”

In the case at bar, the restriction on En banc

petitioner;s right to travel as a consequence
of the pendency of the criminal case filed Cortes, J.
against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has This is a petition for mandamus and
also failed to establish that his right to travel prohibition asking the Supreme Court to
was impaired in the manner and to the Order the respondents to issue travel
extent that it AMOUNTED to a serious documents to the petitioners and to enjoin
violation of his right to life, liberty and the implementation of the President’s
security for which there exists no readily decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
available legal recourse or remedy.
The case for the petitioners is founded on
FERDINAND MARCOS, ET AL. VS. HON. the assertion that their right to return to the
RAUL MANGLAPUS, ET AL., G.R. NO. Philippines is guaranteed by the following
88211, September 15, 1989 and the provisions of the Constitution:
 Page 27 of 60

travel because no law has authorized her to

do so.
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life
liberty or property without due process of Also, the petitioners claim that under
law, nor shall any person be denied equal international law, particularly the Universal
protection of the laws. Declaration of Humjan Rights guaranteed the
right of the Marcoses to return to the
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of Philippines. Thus:
changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired Art. 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom
except in the interest of national security, of movement and residence within the
public safety or public health, as may be borders of each state.
provided by law.

The petitioners contend that the President

has no power to impair the liberty of abode (2) Everyone has the right to leave any
of the Marcoses because only the Courts may country, including his own, AND TO RETURN
do so “within the limits prescribed by law”. TO HIS COUNTRY.
Nor may the President impair the right to
 Page 28 of 60

Likewise, under the International Covenant may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to
on Civil and Political Rights, which had been the Philippines.
ratified by the Philippines, provides:

Art. 12
The sub-issues, which could help in the
4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the determination of the main issue, are:
right to enter his own country.
1. Does the President have the power to bar
The respondents argue that the issue in this the Marcoses to return to the Philippines?
case involves a political question which is
therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the a. Is this a political question?
Court. Furthermore, they argue that the right 2. Assuming that the President has the power
of the state to national security prevails over to bar former Pres. Marcos and his family
individual rights, citing Section 4, Art. II of from returning to the Philippines, in the
the 1987 Philippine Constitution. interest of national security, public safety or
Issue: public health, has the President made a
finding that the return of the petitioners to
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers the Philippines is a clear and present danger
granted in the Constitution, the President to national security, public welfare or public
 Page 29 of 60

health. And if she has made that finding, leave a country and the right to enter one’s
have the requirements of due process been country as separate and distinct rights.
complied with in making such finding? Has
there been prior notice to the petitioners? THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONE’S COUNTRY
IS NOT AMONG THE RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY
Held: GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
WHICH TREATS ONLY OF THE LIBERTY OF
It must be emphasized that the individual ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL, BUT IT IS
right involved in this case is not the right to OUR WELL-CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE
travel from the Philippines to other countries RIGHT TO RETURN MAY BE CONSIDERED AS
or within the Philippines. These are what the A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF
right to travel connote. Essentially, the right INTERNATIONAL LAW, UNDER OUR
to return to one’s country, a totally distinct CONSTITUTION, IS PART OF THE LAW OF THE
right under international law, independent LAND.
from, though related to the right to travel.
Thus, even the Universal declaration of To the President, the problem is one of
Human Rights and the International balancing the general welfare and the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat common good against the exercise of rights
the right to freedom of movement and abode of certain individuals. The power involved is
within the territory of the state, the right to
 Page 30 of 60

the President’s RESIDUAL POWER to protect on the part of any branch or instrumentality
the general welfare of the people. of the government.”

NOTE:

The court cannot close its eyes to present The main opinion was concurred in by 7
realities and pretend that the country is not justices (CJ Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-
besieged by the insurgency, separatist Herrera, Gancayco, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea
movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies and Regalado) or a total of 8 justices in
to grab power, etc. With these before her, voting in favor of DISMISSING the petition.
the President cannot be said to have acted Seven justices filed separate dissenting
arbitrarily, capriciously and whimsically. opinions (Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano,
Padilla, Bidin and Sarmiento).

***********************
Lastly, the issue involved in the case at bar is
not political in nature since under Section 1, Gutierrez, Jr., J., dissenting.
Art. VIII of the Constitution, judicial power
now includes the duty to “determine whether With all due respect for the majority in the
or not there has been a grave abuse of Court that the main issue in this case is not
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction one of power but one on RIGHTS. If he comes
 Page 31 of 60

home, the government has the power to single piece of concrete evidence to back up
arrest and punish him but does it have the their apprehensions.
power to deny him his right to come home
and die among familiar surroundings? x x x Amazingly, however, the majority has come
The government has more than ample to the conclusion that there exist “factual
powers under existing laws to deal with a bases for the President’s decision” to bar
person who transgresses the peace and Marcos’s return. That is not my recollection
imperils public safety. BUT THE DENIAL OF of the impressions of the Court after the
TRAVEL PAPERS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE hearing.
POWERS BECAUSE THE BILL OF RIGHTS SAY SILVERIO VS CA
SO. THERE IS NO LAW PRESCRIBING EXILE IN
FOREIGN LAND AS THE PENALTY FOR G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991
HURTING THE NATION.
Facts:

Petitioner was charged with violation

1. The fears expressed by its representatives of Section 20 (4) of the Revised Securities
were based on mere conjectures of political Act in Criminal Case of the Regional Trial
and economic destabilization without any Court of Cebu. In due time, he posted bail for
his provisional liberty.
 Page 32 of 60

since the filing of the Information, “the

accused has not yet been arraigned because
More than two (2) years after the filing of the he has never appeared in Court on the dates
Information, respondent People of the scheduled for his arraignment and there is
Philippines filed an Urgent ex parte Motion to evidence to show that accused Ricardo C.
cancel the passport of and to issue a hold- Silverio, Sr. has left the country and has gone
departure Order against accused-petitioner abroad without the knowledge and
on the ground that he had gone abroad permission of this Court”. Petitioner’s Motion
several times without the necessary Court for Reconsideration was denied.
approval resulting in postponements of the
arraignment and scheduled hearings. Issue:

Overruling opposition, the Regional Trial Whether or not the right to travel may be
Court issued an Order directing the impaired by order of the court
Department of Foreign Affairs to cancel
Petitioner’s passport or to deny his Ruling:
application therefor, and the Commission on The Supreme Court held that the
Immigration to prevent Petitioner from foregoing condition imposed upon an
leaving the country. This order was based accused to make himself available at all
primarily on the Trial Court’s finding that times whenever the Court requires his
 Page 33 of 60

presence operates as a valid restriction of his freedom of movement in the 1935 and 1973
right to travel. A person facing criminal Constitutions.
charges may be restrained by the Court from
leaving the country or, if abroad, compelled
to return. So it is also that “An accused Caunca v Salazar (Constitutional Law)
released on bail may be re-arrested without GR. No. L-2690
the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to January I, 1949
depart from the Philippines without prior
permission of the Court where the case is Liberty of abode and travel
pending.

Petitioner takes the posture, however, Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing
that while the 1987 Constitution recognizes the same within the limits prescribed by law
the power of the Courts to curtail the liberty shall not be impaired except upon lawful
of abode within the limits prescribed by law, order of the court. Neither shall the right to
it restricts the allowable impairment of the travel be impaired except in the interest of
right to travel only on grounds of interest of national security, public safety or public
national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.
health, as compared to the provisions on
Facts:
 Page 34 of 60

This is an action for habeas corpus brought

by Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his cousin Issue:
Estelita Flores, an orphan and an illiterate,
who was employed by the Far Eastern Whether or Not an employment agency has
Employment Bureau, owned by Julia Salazar, the right to restrain and detain a maid
respondent herein. without returning the advance payment it
gave?
An advanced payment has already been
given to Estelita by the employment agency,
for her to work as a maid. However, Estelita Held:
wanted to transfer to another residence,
which was disallowed by the employment An employment agency, regardless of the
agency. Further she was detained and her amount it may advance to a prospective
liberty was restrained. The employment employee or maid, has absolutely no power
agency wanted that the advance payment, to curtail her freedom of movement. The fact
which was applied to her transportation that no physical force has been exerted to
expense from the province should be paid by keep her in the house of the respondent does
Estelita before she could be allowed to leave. not make less real the deprivation of her
personal freedom of movement, freedom to
 Page 35 of 60

transfer from one place to another, freedom indebted, such is not a valid reason for
to choose one’s residence. Freedom may be respondents to obstruct, impede or interfere
lost due to external moral compulsion, to with her desire to leave. Such indebtedness
founded or groundless fear, to erroneous may be multiplied by thousands or millions
belief in the existence of an imaginary power but would not in any way subtract an iota
of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly from the fundamental right to have a free
obeyed, to any other psychological element choice of abode. The fact that power to
that may curtail the mental faculty of choice control said freedom may be an effective
or the unhampered exercise of the will. If the means of avoiding monetary losses to the
actual effect of such psychological spell is to agency is no reason for jeopardizing a
place a person at the mercy of another, the fundamental human right. The fortunes of
victim is entitled to the protection of courts business cannot be controlled by controlling
of justice as much as the individual who is a fundamental human freedom. Human
illegally deprived of liberty by duress or dignity is not merchandise appropriate for
physical coercion. commercial barters or business bargains.
Fundamental freedoms are beyond the
Ratio: province of commerce or any other business
enterprise.
On the hypothesis that petitioner is really
 Page 36 of 60

Also, under the Revised Penal Code,

penalties are imposed "upon any person
who, in order to require or enforce the
payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
to work for him, against his will, as
household servant or farm laborer." In this original action for Mandamus,
petitioners pray that respondent Presidential
Moral restraint is a ground for the issuance of Commission on Good Government (PCGG, for
this writ, as where a housemaid is prevented short) be commanded to lift without delay
from leaving her employ because of the the Hold-Orders issued against them by the
influence of the person detaining her. said entity for being in violation of their right
to travel and for having been issued in grave
G.R. No. 79484 December 7, 1987 abuse of authority since they are in no way
KANT KWONG and YIM KAM SHING, involved in ill-gotten wealth nor in
petitioners, transactions connected therewith.
vs.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD Petitioners are foreign nationals who are the
GOVERNMENT, SECRETARY RAMON A. representatives of the Hongkong-Chinese
DIAZ and COMMISSIONER MARY investors who own 33% of the shares of
CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, respondents. stock in two domestic garment corporations,
 Page 37 of 60

namely, De Soleil Apparel Manufacturing calendared for hearing on said date. On 19

Corporation and American Inter-Fashion March 1987 the PCGG denied the Motion to
Manufacturing Corporation, which firms were Lift in an Order reading as follows:
ordered sequestered by the PCGG on 25
March 1986 on the thesis that the Marcoses, An "Urgent Motion to Lift Hold Order" dated
through nominees and dummies, appear to March 12, 1987 was filed by Kant Kwong and
control 67 % of the firms' shareholdings. Yim Kam Shing. These are the official
representatives of the Hongkong investors in
On 13 February 1987 respondent Ramon A. these two sequestered corporations. Based
Diaz, then Secretary of the PCGG, wrote the on records/evidence in the possession of the
Minister of Public Information advising the Commission, all made known to their
latter that petitioners had been included in principals, such as unexplained withholding
the Hold-Order list of the PCGG (Annex "L" of documents covering substantial past
Petition). shipments, deliberate delay in cashing
letters of credit resulting in the lapse thereof,
On 12 March 1987 petitioners filed before failure to remit payments due for past
the PCGG an Urgent Motion to Lift Hold-Order shipments, their obvious and unmitigated
with the request that the Motion be set for campaign to obstruct the release of funds
hearing on 16 March 1987 (Annex "M," needed for operations of the two garment
Petition). The Motion, however, was not firms, and orchestrated acts to discredit the
 Page 38 of 60

Officer-in-Charge of the garments firms and of their constitutional right of travel and
the Commission and to obstruct the smooth locomotion.
operations of the garment firms, there is
need for their presence in this country to B. The Hold-Order against the petitioners
resolve the above- enumerated issues, in is not authorized or sanctioned by Executive
order that operations of the corporations are Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14, nor by the Rules
not obstructed, production will not be and Regulations of respondent PCGG.
delayed and corporate funds may be C. The Hold-Order is an act of
released. The Commission therefore denies harrassment, motivated by ill-will and
the motion for lack of merit. vindictiveness, and violates the elementary
SO ORDERED. rules of due process, fair play and human
decency.
Hence, the present recourse predicated on
the following grounds: D. The Hold-Order has caused and is
causing damages and sufferings to the
petitioners and their families.

A. The Hold-Order issued against the On 24 September 1987, acting upon an

petitioners is a gross and unlawful violation Urgent Motion filed by petitioner Yim Kam
Shing, this Court lifted, effective
 Page 39 of 60

immediately, the Hold-Order issued against Section 3 of the same Executive Order
him for the purpose of allowing him to leave empowers the PCGG:
for Hongkong for urgent medical treatment.
(a) To conduct investigation as may be
Executive Order No. 1, dated 28 February necessary in order to accomplish and carry
1986, created the PCGG and tasked it out the purpose of this order.
principally with:
(b) To sequester or place or cause to be
Section 2. ... (a) The recovery of all ill-gotten placed under its control or possession any
wealth accumulated by former President building or office wherein any ill-gotten
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family wealth or properties may be found, and any
relative, subordinates and close associates, records pertaining thereto, in order to
whether located in the Philippines or abroad, prevent their destruction, concealment or
including the takeover or sequestration of all disappearance which would frustrate or
business enterprises and entities owned or hamper the investigation or otherwise
controlled by them during his administration, prevent the Commission from accomplishing
directly or through nominees, by taking its task.
undue advantage of their public office and/or
using their powers, authority, influence, (d) To enjoin or restrain any actual or
connections or relationship. threatened commission of acts by any
 Page 40 of 60

person or entity that may render moot and D) ... an order to temporarily prevent a
academic, or frustrate, or otherwise make person from leaving the country where his
ineffectual the efforts of the Commission to departure will prejudice, hamper or
carry out its task under this order. otherwise obstruct the task of the
Commission in the enforcement of Executive
(h) To promulgate such rules and regulations Orders Nos. I and 2, because such person is
as may be necessary to carry out the known or suspected to be involved in the
purposes of this order. properties or transactions covered by said
On 11 April 1986 the PCGG issued its Rules Executive Orders ...
and Regulations, the pertinent section of In this case, the justification for the issuance
which provides: of the Hold-Orders against petitioners has
SECTION 2. Writ of sequestration freeze and been summarized by the Solicitor General,
hold orders. To enable the Commission to thus:
accomplish its task of recovering ill-gotten ... Petitioners, instead of cooperating with
wealth, it may issue writs of sequestration respondent PCGG in its task of investigating
and freeze and/or hold orders. and recovering ill-gotten wealth of the
As defined in the same Rules and former President, his immediate family, close
Regulations, a Hold-Order is: relatives, associates or cronies, frustrated
 Page 41 of 60

and hampered the investigation or otherwise otherwise prevented respondent Commission

prevented the Commission from from accomplishing its task under Executive
accomplishing its task, by withholding Order No. 1 is to state here a consumate
documents covering substantial past understatement.
shipments, which hold the key to the
question earlier posed: Where have all the Hence, the issuance of the hold orders
dollars gone? Have they gone a flying one by against the petitioners remain unassailable.
one to Switzerland? 1

Petitioners likewise deliberately delayed the We find merit in the Petition. Petitioners'
cashing of letters of credit resulting in the right to travel has, in fact, been impaired.
lapse thereof; failed to remit payments due 1. The validity of the Hold-Orders issued
for past shipments; obstructed the release of against petitioners on 13 February 1987 has
funds needed for operations of the two already expired pursuant to the Rules and
garment firms, orchestrated acts to discredit Regulations of the PCGG, which specifically
the officer-in-charge of the garment firms provide:
and respondent PCGG; and obstructed the
smooth operations of the garment firms. To SECTION 1. ...
state that all the above acts of petitioners, in
one way or another, frustrated, hampered or
 Page 42 of 60

(D) ... A "hold-order" shall be valid only for a unexplained withholding of documents
maximum period of six months, unless for covering substantial past shipments,
good reasons extended by the Commission
en banc. " deliberate delay in cashing letters of credit
resulting in the lapse thereof,
The PCGG has not extended the life-span of
the Hold-Orders in question nor has it failure to remit payments due for past
advanced "good reasons" for doing so. shipments, their obvious and unmitigated
campaign to obstruct the release of funds
2. The grounds f or the issuance of the needed for operations of the two garment
Hold-Orders have become stale. firms,

(a) The PCGG Order denying petitioners' orchestrated acts to discredit the Officer-in-
Motion to Lift the Hold Orders against them Charge of the garments firms and the
states that "there is need for their presence Commission and to obstruct the smooth
in this country to resolve the issues (listed operations of the garment firms ...
hereinbelow), in order that operations of the (Paragraphing supplied).
corporations are not obstructed, production
will not be delayed and corporate funds may It strikes the Court, however, that although
be released. " The enumerated issues read: the business malpractices attributed to
petitioners may have furnished sufficient
 Page 43 of 60

basis for the issuance of the Hold-Orders years, by posting a modest profit thereby
against them, subsequent developments enabling the corporations to pay the
have apparently rendered them no longer government some P 697,000.00 in taxes i.e.
controlling. Thus, as a result of the from American Inter-Fashion alone.
sequestration, the PCGG has already
appointed an Officer-in-Charge for the two b. Discontinued the marketing
firms, with full authority to operate and agreement with Ringo Garments-Hongkong
manage the same (Annex "B", Petitioner); it and organized a Manila-based marketing and
has taken over the "management and procurement office.
operations of the sequestered corporations;" c. Firmed up new orders through the said
2 it has "initiated changes in the local marketing office enough to sustain the
management and operations of the two full production of the two companies up to
corporations aimed at protecting not only the the end of the year at prices 30-50% higher
interest of the government but also that of than the orders previously coursed by the
the workers;" 3 and since the take-over it has minority Hongkong investors through Ringo
been able to accomplish the following: Garments, their own conduit company in
a. Halted the losses in the operations of Hongkong.
the two corporations as declared by the
Hongkomg investors during the last two
 Page 44 of 60

d. Replaced the highly paid Hongkong- It would appear, therefore, that with the
Chinese technicians with qualified, changes made and the accomplishments
competent and deserving Filipino technicians achieved, operations of the sequestered
who were promoted from the ranks. firms are no longer obstructed, production no
longer delayed and funding is available.
e. Upgraded the wages and benefits of
the Filipino workers in the corporations. Indeed, if petitioners have 11 obstructed the
smooth operations" of the sequestered
f. Instituted cost-saving measures to garment firms and "discredited their Officer-
preserve the assets and to make operations in-Charge," might it not be preferable that
more profitable. they be out of the country to ensure the
g. Partially collected from Ringo cessation of their acts allegedly inimical to
Garments-Hongkong the amount of the operations of the sequestered garment
US$350,000.00 or P7, million representing firms?
the unpaid export bills due on past (b) Another reason given for the issuance
shipments. About $437,126.32 remains of the Hold-Orders is that petitioners had
unpaid despite the promise of Yim Kang "frustrated and hampered the investigation
Shing, representing the Hongkong investors or otherwise prevented the Commission from
to pay same. 4 accomplishing its task." The Court takes
 Page 45 of 60

judicial notice of the fact, however, that Civil SECTION 5. Who may contest. — The person
Case No. 0002 entitled "Republic of the against whom a writ of sequestration or
Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et als., freeze or hold order is directed may request
has been filed by the PCGG before the the lifting thereof in writing, either personally
Sandiganbayan on 16 July 1987. To all or through counsel within five (5) days from
appearances, therefore, the PCGG's receipt of the writ or order, or in the case of
investigative task relative to the sequestered a hold order, from date of knowledge thereof.
garment firms and their involvement, if any, "
in ill-gotten wealth or in any transactions
connected therewith, has terminated. SECTION 6. Procedure for review of writ or
Another reason, therefore, for petitioners' order. — After due hearing or motu propio for
continued presence in the country has been good cause shown, the Commission may lift
virtually eliminated. the writ or order unconditionally or subject to
such conditions as it may deem necessary,
We likewise find that petitioners have been taking into consideration the evidence and
denied the rudiments of fair play. The Rules the circumstances of the case ...
and Regulations of the PCGG specifically
provide: And yet, the PCGG has not given petitioners
any opportunity to contest the Hold-Orders
issued against them. After their issuance, no
 Page 46 of 60

hearing had been set; a request for the same Under the environmental circumstances of
had been disregarded. Petitioners' Motion to the case, the Hold-Orders against petitioners
Lift the Hold-Orders was summarily denied. preventing them "from leaving the country
The "issues" spelled out against petitioners cannot be prolonged indefinitely." The right
have remained unresolved over a period of to travel and to freedom of movement is a
nine (9) months. The PCGG must thus be fundamental right guaranteed by the 1987
faulted for a disregard of the requirements of Constitution 5 and the Universal Declaration
"fairness and due process" expressly of Human Rights to which the Philippines is a
mandated by Executive Order No. 14, signatory. 6 That right extends to all
reading: residents regardless of nationality. And
"everyone has the right to an effective
WHEREAS, the overriding considerations of remedy by the competent national tribunals
national interest and national survival require for acts violating the fundamental rights
that the Presidential Commission on Good granted him by the Constitution or by law. 7
Government achieve its vital task efficiently
and effectively, with due regard to the While such right is not absolute but must
requirements of fairness and due process yield to the State's inherent police power
(5th Whereas clause), upon which the Hold-Orders were premised,
no "good reasons" have been advanced
 Page 47 of 60

which could justify the continued to say that the writ will never issue to control
enforcement of the Hold-Orders. his discretion. There is an exception to the
rule if the case is otherwise proper, as in
Petitioners are foreign nationals. Their 33% cases of gross abuse of discretion, manifest
interest in the sequestered firms is injustice, or palpable excess of authority. 8
recognized by the PCGG itself. There is no
showing that those interests appear prima In this case, for reasons already stated, we
facie to be ill-gotten wealth. No charges have find that the PCGG acted with gross abuse of
been filed against them before the discretion in maintaining the Hold-Orders
Sandiganbayan. They face no criminal against petitioners for an indefinite length of
indictment nor have they been provisionally time. By so doing it has arbitrarily excluded
released on bail that their right to travel petitioners from the enjoyment of a
might be restricted. fundamental — right the right to freedom of
movement — to which they are entitled. 9
Although, as averred by respondents, the mandamus lies.
recognized rule is that, in the performance of
an official duty or act involving discretion, WHEREFORE, in the interest of the early and
the corresponding official can only be full restoration of petitioners' right to travel,
directed by mandamus to act but not to act the Court hereby LIFTS the Hold-Orders
one way or the other, "yet it is not accurate issued by respondent Presidential
 Page 48 of 60

Commission on Good Government against He is also involved in a case pending before

petitioners, effective immediately, upon the the Securities and Exchange Commission.
condition that they shall hold themselves
available if and whenever needed by said 2. The SEC requested the Commissioner on
Commission in the performance of its task. Immigration not to clear petitioner for
departure pending disposition of the case
SO ORDERED. involving him. The same was granted by the
Commissioner.

3. Petitioner subsequently filed before the

Manotoc vs. CA, trial courts a motion entitled “motion for
142 SCRA 149 permission to leave the country” stating as
ground therefor his desire to go to the United
1. Petitioner Ricardo Manotoc, Jr. has 6 States, “relative to his business transactions
criminal cases for estafa pending against and opportunities”.
him. In said cases he was admitted to bail
with the FGU Insurance Corporation as 4. The motion was denied by the lower
surety. courts and the matter was elevated to the
Court of Appeals which also denied the
same. Petitioner brings the matter to the S.C.
 Page 49 of 60

claiming his constitutional right to travel and amenable at all times to the orders and
also contending that having been admitted processes of the lower court, was to prohibit
to bail as a matter of right, neither the courts the accused from leaving the jurisdiction of
which granted him bail nor the SEC would the Philippines, because, otherwise, said
have jurisdiction over his liberty. orders and processes will be nugatory, and
inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts
HELD: from which they issued does not extend
Petition denied. beyond that of the Philippines they would
have no binding force outside of said
a. A court has the power to prohibit a jurisdiction.”(People vs. Uy Tuising, 61 Phil.
person admitted to bail from leaving the 404 (l935)
Philippines. This is a necessary consequence
of the nature and function of a bail bond. The c. To allow the petitioner to leave the
condition imposed upon petitioner to make Philippines without sufficient reason would
himself available at all times whenever the place him beyond the reach of the courts.
court requires his presence operates as a d. Petitioner cites the Court of Appeals case
valid restriction on his right to travel. of People vs. Shepherd (C.A.-G.R. No. 23505-
b. “x x x the result of the obligation R, Feb. 13, 1980) as authority for his claim
assumed by appellee to hold the accused that he could travel. The S.C. held however
 Page 50 of 60

that said case is not squarely on all fours just to give way for the most popular leader?
with the case at bar. Unlike the Shepherd Let's see what the Supreme Court will have
case, petitioner has failed to satisfy the to say. Lest we forget this long standing
courts of the urgency of his travel, the jurisprudence.
duration thereof, as well as the consent of
his surety to the proposed travel. Again this is a landmark case. In this classic
case of Villavicencio vs. Lukban, the
e. It may thus be inferred that the fact that Supreme Court upheld the right of Filipino
a criminal case is pending against an citizens to Freedom of Domicile.
accused does not automatically bar him from
travelling abroad. He must however convince Here's the facts:
the courts of the urgency of his travel, the Justo Lukban was then the Mayor of the City
duration thereof, and that his sureties are of Manila. Problem with this dude is he
willing to undertake the responsibility of ordered the deportation of 170 agogo
allowing him to travel. dancers and prostitutes to Davao. Which was
Villavicencio vs. Lukban then not a city yet I guess. This case is dated
1919 so take note, the President wasn't even
Question: Are we a government of laws or a born yet. Said women were inmates of the
government of men? Would we disregard law
 Page 51 of 60

houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Ynigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no
Street, in the district of Sampaloc. idea that the women being sent to work for
him were actually prostitutes.
(So there was a brothel house in that area
during those days) (Poor guy. Imagine all the commotion starting
to happen in your place and you're still
The mayor's reason for doing this was to fuckin' totally clueless)
preserve the morals of the people of Manila.
So the families of the prostitutes came
(This guy was probably the biggest hypocrite forward to file charges against 3 people.
there ever was during those early days) Lukban. Anton Hohmann, who was the Chief
He claimed that the prostitutes were sent to of Police who rounded and took custody of
Davao, purportedly, to work for an the the dancers and prostitutes, and
haciendero named Feliciano Ynigo. He had Francisco Sales, the Governor of Davao.
the prostitutes confined in houses meaning
the one in Gardenia Street before boarding
them, at the dead of night, in two boats (Of course there's a considered conspiracy
bound for Davao. The women were under between these three)
the assumption that they were being
transported to another police station while
 Page 52 of 60

They prayed for a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS knowledge and consent in his capacity as
to be issued against the respondents to Mayor.
compel them to bring back the 170 women
who were deported to Mindanao against their You know what the mayor did? He got
knowledge and will. During the trial, it came technical. The guy moved for the dismissal
out that, indeed, the women were deported of the case stating that those women were
without their consent. Infact there was no already out of his jurisdiction and that, it
law or order authorizing Lukban's deportation should be filed in the city of Davao instead.
of the 170 prostitutes. (Let me get my hands on him)
(So in effect, Lukban forcibly assigned them The trial court ruled in favor of the
a new domicile. Obviously the guy doesn't petitioners with the instructions to the
know anything about the law and respondents giving them 3 options (1)
fundamental human rights) Produce the bodies of the persons according
to the command of the writ. (2) Show by
affidavit that on account of sickness or
Liberty of abode was raised here versus the infirmity those persons (170 women subject
power of the executive of the Municipality in of the writ of habeas corpus) could not safely
deporting the women without their be brought before the court, or (3) Present
 Page 53 of 60

affidavits to show that the parties in question RULING:

or their attorney waived the right to be
present. The Supreme Court said "We are clearly a
government of laws". Lukban committed
(So the mayor resorted to technicalities in his grave abuse of discretion by deporting the
defense and he was slapped by the court prostitutes to a new domicile against their
through technicalities as well giving him a will.
dose of his own medicine)
There is no law expressly authorizing his
The three respondents hence appealed to action. On the contrary, there is a law
the Supreme Court. punishing public officials, not expressly
authorized by law or regulation, who compels
any person to change his residence.

Furthermore, the prostitutes are still, as

ISSUE: citizens of the Philippines, entitled to the
same rights, as stipulated in the Bill of
Whether we are a government of laws or a Rights, as every other citizen. Their choice of
government of men? Was the act of the profession should not be a cause for
mayor in deporting these women valid? discrimination. It may make some, like
 Page 54 of 60

Lukban, quite uncomfortable but it does not this other municipality, then the more the
authorize anyone to compel said prostitutes writ of habeas corpus should be enforced.
to isolate themselves from the rest of the
human race. These women have been Even if the party to whom the writ is
deprived of their liberty by being exiled to addressed has illegally parted with the
Davao without even being given the custody of a person before the application
opportunity to collect their belongings or, for the writ is no reason why the writ should
worse,without even consenting to being not issue. If the mayor and the chief of
transported to Mindanao. For this, Lukban police, acting under no authority of law,
etal must be severely punished. could deport these women from the city of
Manila to Davao, the same officials must
Court reasoned further that if the chief necessarily have the same means to return
executive of any municipality in the them from Davao to Manila.
Philippines could forcibly and illegally take a
private citizen and place him beyond the The Supreme Court said that the women
boundaries of the municipality, and then, were not chattels but Filipino citizens who
when called upon to defend his official had the fundamental right not to be forced to
action, could calmly fold his hands and claim change their place of residence.
that the person was under no restraint and Roan v. Gonzales,
that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over
 Page 55 of 60

145 SCRA 687 (1986) affidavits taken by Pat. Josue V. Lining, a

police investigator. As the application was
FACTS: The challenged search warrant was not yet subscribed and sworn to, he
issued by the respondent judge on May 10, proceeded to examine Captain Quillosa on
1984. The petitioner's house was searched the contents thereof to ascertain, among
two days later but none of the articles listed others, if he knew and understood the same.
in the warrant was discovered. However, the Afterwards, he subscribed and swore to the
officers conducting the search found in the same before him.
premises one Colt Magnum revolver and
eighteen live bullets which they confiscated. ISSUE: Whether the Respondent Judge failed
They are now the bases of the charge to comply with the proper procedure in
against the petitioner. issuing the Search Warrant.

Respondent Judge said that when PC Capt. HELD: Yes, mere affidavits of the
Mauro P. Quinosa personally filed his complainant and his witnesses are thus not
application for a search warrant on May 10, sufficient. The examining Judge has to take
1984, he appeared before him in the depositions in writing of the complainant and
company of his two (2) witnesses, Esmael the witnesses he may produce and attach
Morada and Jesus Tohilida, both of whom them to the record. Such written deposition
likewise presented to him their respective is necessary in order that the Judge may be
 Page 56 of 60

able to properly determine the existence or In other words, the applicant was asking for
non-existence of the probable cause, to hold the issuance of the search warrant on the
liable for perjury the person giving it if it will basis of mere hearsay and not of information
be found later that his declarations are false. personally known to him, as required by
settled jurisprudence.
We, therefore, hold that the search warrant is
tainted with illegality by the failure of the
Judge to conform with the essential JOVITO R. SALONGA, petitioner,
requisites of taking the depositions in writing vs.
CAPTAIN ROLANDO HERMOSO, TRAVEL
and attaching them to the record, rendering
PROCESSING CENTER, and GENERAL FABIAN
the search warrant invalid. (See Rule 126, VER, respondents.
Sec 4) G.R. No. L-53622 April 25, 1980
The respondent judge also declared that he
"saw no need to have applicant Quillosa's
deposition taken considering that he was This is not the first time petitioner Jovito R.
applying for a search warrant on the basis of Salonga came to this Tribunal by way of a
the information provided by the witnesses mandamus proceeding to compel the
whose depositions had already been taken issuance to him of a certificate of eligibility
by the undersigned. to travel. In the first case, Salonga v.
 Page 57 of 60

Madella, 1 the case became moot and of the highlights of the keynote address of
academic as the Office of the Solicitor President Marcos in the Manila World Law
General, in its answer to the petition, stated Conference in celebration of the World Peace
that the travel eligibility certificate was not Through Law Day on August 21, 1977 was
denied and, as a matter of fact, had been the lifting of ‘the ban on international travel.’
granted. Nonetheless, a brief separate There should be fidelity to such a
opinion was filed, concurring in the pronouncement. It is the experience of the
resolution, and worded thus: “Clearly this undersigned in his lectures abroad the last
petition had assumed a moot and academic few years, in the United States as well as in
character. Its dismissal is thus indicated. May Malaysia, Singapore and Australia, that
I just add these few words as my response to respect accorded constitutional rights under
the plea of petitioner in his Manifestation and the present emergency regime had elicited
Reply dated October 28, 1978. This is how I the commendation of members of the bench,
would view the matter not only where the bar, and the academe in foreign lands. It
petitioner is concerned but in all other similar is likewise worthy of notice that in his
cases. Respondent Travel Processing Center keynote address to the International Law
should discharge its injunction conformably Association, President Marcos made
to the mandate of the Universal Declaration reference to martial law being instituted in
of Human Rights on the right to travel. One accordance with law and that the
 Page 58 of 60

Constitution had been applied in appropriate The present petition is likewise impressed
cases. As an agency of the executive branch, with a moot and academic aspect. In the
therefore, the Travel Processing Center motion to dismiss of the Solicitor General
should ever be on its guard, lest the dated April 21, 1980, it was stated that the
impression be created that such declarations certificate of eligibility to travel had been
amount, to paraphrase Justice Jackson, to no granted petitioner. A xeroxed copy was
more than munificent bequests in a pauper’s enclosed. A resolution for dismissal is,
will. Petitioner, to my mind, is justified, the therefore, in order.
more so in the light of the Answer of Acting
Solicitor General Vicente Mendoza, to an From the docket of this Court, it appears that
affirmative response to his prayer in his other petitions of this character had been
Manifestation and Reply ‘that under the filed in the past, namely, Santos v. The
circumstances mentioned in the Petition, Special Committee on Travel Abroad, 3
Petitioner is entitled to travel abroad, and Pimentel v. Travel Processing Center, 4 and
that it is in recognition of this right that Gonzales v. Special Committee on Travel. 5 In
Respondents have issued his Certificate of the aforesaid cases, as in this and the earlier
Eligibility to Travel, as mentioned in the Salonga petition, there was no occasion to
Answer. 2 pass on the merits of the controversy as the
certificates of eligibility to travel were
granted. The necessity for any ruling was
 Page 59 of 60

thus obviated. Nonetheless, in view of the Burdick 7 and Willis, 8 both of whom were
likelihood that in the future this Court may equally convinced that there be no erosion to
be faced again with a situation like the human rights even in times of martial law,
present which takes up its time and energy likewise received from President Marcos the
needlessly, it is desirable that respondent accolade of his approval. It would appear,
Travel Processing Center should exercise the therefore, that in case of doubt of the Officer-
utmost care to avoid the impression that in-Charge of the Travel Processing Center,
certain citizens desirous of exercising their the view of General Fabian Ver should
constitutional right to travel could be immediately be sought. It goes without
subjected to inconvenience or annoyance. In saying that the petition for such certificate of
the address of President and Prime Minister eligibility to travel be filed at the earliest
Ferdinand E. Marcos before the American opportunity to facilitate the granting thereof
Newspaper Publishers Association last and preclude any disclaimer as to the person
Tuesday April 22, 1980, emphasized anew desiring to travel being in any way
the respect accorded constitutional rights responsible for any delay.
The freedom to travel is certainly one of the
most cherished. He cited with approval the WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for
ringing affirmation of Willoughby, who, as he being moot and academic.
noted was “partial to the claims of liberty.” 6
Page 60 of 60