You are on page 1of 13

MEASDIGESTS!! 1.CITYOFRENTONv.PLAYTIMETHEATRES(1982) Facts: Inearly1982,PlaytimeTheatrespurchased2existingtheatersinRenton, Washington,withtheintentionofexhibitingfeaturelengthadultfilms. Ataboutthesametime,itfiledsuitintheFederalDistrictCourt,seeking injunctivereliefandadeclaratoryjudgmentthatthe1stand14th AmendmentswereviolatedbyRentonscityordinance,whichwas enactedonthebasisofthePlanningandDevelopmentCommittees recommendation. EnactedonApril1981bytheCityCouncil,OrdinanceNo.3526prohibited anyadultmotionpicturetheaterfromlocatingwithin1,000feetofany residentialzone,familydwelling,church,orpark,andwithin1mileof anyschool.

chool. The2theaterswerelocatedwithintheareaprescribedbytheOrdinance (within1mileofanyschool) Issue: W/Ntheordinanceviolatedthe1stand14thamendment Held: NO!Itisavalidgovernmentalresponsetotheseriousproblemscreatedbyadult theaters. Ratio: Ordinancedoesnotbanadulttheatersaltogether.Itiscontentneutral time,place,andmannerregulation,whichisacceptableaslongasitservesa substantialgovernmentalinterestanddonotlimitalternativeavenues. Atfirstglance,theRentonordinancedoesnotappeartofitneatlyintoeither contentbasedorcontentneutralcategory.Nevertheless,RentonCity Councilspredominateconcernswerenotofthecontentoftheadultfilms themselves,butwithitssecondaryeffectonthesurroundingcommunity. TheRentonordinanceisdesignedtoserveasubstantialgovernmental interestwhileallowingforreasonablealternativeavenuesofcommunication. Theordinanceregulatesadulttheatersbyeffectivelyconcentratingthem. Althoughtherespondentsarguethattherearenocommerciallyviable adulttheatersiteswithinlimitedareaoflandopenforsuchtheatersbythe ordinance,itdoesnotgiverisetoaviolationofthe1stAmendment,which doesnotcompelthegovernmenttoensurethatadulttheaters,oranykindof speechrelatedbusinesses,willbeabletoobtainsitesatbargainprices.The

ordinancealsoleavessome520acres(morethan5%)oftheentirelandarea ofRentonforuse. Theordinanceisnotunderinclusiveforfailingtoregulateotherkindsof adultbusinesses,sincetherewasnoevidencethat,atthetimetheordinance wasenacted,anyotheradultbusinesseswaslocatedin,orwas contemplatingmovinginto.

2.FERNANDOv.CA(2003) Petitioners:GaudencioFernandoandRudyEstorninos Facts: Actingonreportsofsaleanddistributionofpornographicmaterials, officersofthePNPCIDGNCRconductedpolicesurveillanceonastore bythenameofGaudencioE.FernandoMusicFair. AsearchwarrantwasissuedbyJudgePerfectoLaguioonMay5,1999 againstGaudencioE.FernandoandaWarrenTingchuy.Thewarrant orderedthesearchoftheMusicFairat564QuezonBlvd.cornerZigay Street,Quiapo,Manila,andtheseizureofcopiesofNewRave,IOU PenthouseandHustlerInternationalMagazineswithnudeobscene picturesandcopiesofVHStapescontainingpornshows. Onthesameday,thepoliceservedthewarrantonRudyEstorninos, who,accordingtotheprosecution,introducedhimselfasthestore attendantofMusicFair.Thepolicesearchedandconfiscated25VHS tapesand10magazines. TheywerechargedforaviolationofArticle201oftheRPC. RTCacquittedTingchuyforlackofevidencebutconvictedFernando andEstorninos.CAaffirmedthedecision. Hencethepetitionforcertiorari. Fernandocontendsthatprosecutionfailedtoprovethatatthetimeof thesearch,theyweresellingpornomaterials.Andthatsincehewas notchargedastheownerofanestablishmentsellingobscene materials,theprosecutionmustprovethathewaspresentduringthe raidandthathewasselling.Healsosaidthatpresumptionof continuingownershipshownbyanexpiredmayorspermithasno sufficientbasissincetheprosecutionfailedtoprovehisownershipof theestablishment.Estarninosinsiststhathewasnotanattendant,nor didheintroducehimselfso. Issue: W/NtheRTCerredinconvictingthepetitioners HELD:

No!RTCdecisionaffirmed. Ratio: Attheoutset,thetrialcourtgavepetitionerstheopportunityto adduceandpresenttheirevidence.Instead,theywaivedtheirrightto presentevidenceandoptedtosubmitthecasefordecision. Withregardtothepetitionerscontention,theSolicitorGeneral countersthatownersofestablishmentssellingobscenepublications areexpresslyheldliableunderArticle201,andhisownershipwas sufficientlyproven.Astheowner,Fernandowasnaturallyasellerof prohibitedmaterialsandliable.BarangayChairpersonSocorroLipana identifiedEstorninosasstoreattendant,thushewaslikewiseliable. ARETHECONFISCATEDMATERIALSOBSCENE? ObscenityisanunprotectedspeechwhichtheStatehastherightto regulate.OnesuchregulationisArticle201oftheRPC.Itmustbe proventhata)thematerials,publication,pictureorliteratureare obscene;andb)theoffendersold,exhibited,publishedorgaveaway suchmaterials.Theconfiscatedmaterialsmustbeprovenasobscene. TheCourtcitedjurisprudenceindefiningobscenityandteststo determineobscenity: a)Peoplev.Kottinger obscenityissomethingwhichisoffensivetochastity,decenvy ordelicacy. TEST:whetherthetendencyofthematterchargedas obscene,istodepraveorcorruptthosewhosemindsareopen tosuchimmoralinfluencesandintowhosehandsapublication orotherarticlechargedasbeingobscenemayfall ANOTHERTEST:thatwhichshockstheordinaryandcommon senseofmenasanindecency b)Peoplev.GoPin ifsuchpictures,sculptures,paintingsareshowninart exhibitsandgalleriesforcauseofart,forpeopleinterestedin art,thentherewouldbenooffensecommitted.However,if picturesareshownforcommercialpurposes(causeofart beingofsecondaryorminorimportance),thereisoffense. c)Peoplev.PadanyAlova reaffirmedGoPinstandardsbutwithowntestofredeeming featureanactualexhibitionofasexualact,canhaveno redeemingfeature.Init,thereisnoroomforart. d)GonzalesvKalawKatigbakPREVIOUSCASE

appliedstandardsofthe3abovementionedcases,but departedfromtheirrulingsinthattheCourtmeasures obscenityintermsofthedominantthemeofthematerial takenasawholeratherthanisolatedpassages. e)Pitav.CAPREVIOUSCASE f)MILLERv.CALIFORNIAIAMANIMPORTANTCASE! thisisthelatestwordonthedefinitionofobscenity establishedguidelines Theconfiscatedmaterialsareobscene:picturesofmenandwomenin thenudedoingthesexualact(9magazines)areoffensivetomorals andareshownnotforthesakeofartbutratherforcommercial purposes,thatisgainandprofit. Thepicturesexhibitedindecentandimmoralacts. TheVHStapesalsoexhibitednudemenandwomenhavingsex.The tapeKahitsaPangarapLangstarringMyraManibogshowshernude bodydancing. Thepersonswhoviewedthesepictureswereusuallynotartists interestedinartbutpersonswhoaredesirousofsatisfyingtheir morbidcuriosityandlust.

DIDTHEPETITIONERSPARTICIPATEINTHEDISTRIBUTIONAND EXHIBITIONOFOBSCENEMATERIALS? Merepossession,withoutintentiontosell,exhibit,orgiveaway,isnot punishableunderArticle201 Inthiscase,thesubjectpremisesofthewarrantwasGaudencioE. FernandoMusicFair,namedafterthepetitioner.Themayorspermit andbailbondshowshisnameandthathelivesinthesameplace. Whilethepermitisexpired,itdoesnotnegatethefactthatFernando ownedandoperatedtheestablishment. Estorninosislikewiseliableasstoreattendant.PoliceInspector Tababan,wholedthesearch,identifiedhim.Tababanhadnomotive fortestifyingfalselyandthepresumptionofregularityinthe performanceofdutyisupheld.

3.CANTWELLv.CONNECTICUT(1940) Petitioners:NewtonCantwell,andsonsJesseandRussellCantwell Case:Certiorari Facts: THECASE:NewtonCantwellandsonsJesseandRussell,membersof JehovahsWitnesses,werearrestedinNewHaven,Connecticut,and eachwaschargedinfivecounts.The2countschargedarenowon appealtotheSupremeCourt,asfollows: a)3rdcountviolationofSection294ofGeneralStatutesof Connecticut,whichstates(inbrief): Nopersonshallsolicitmoney,services,subscriptions oranyvaluablethingforanyallegedreligiouscausefrom otherthanamemberoftheorganizationsforwhosebenefit suchpersonissolicitingunlesssuchcauseshallhavebeen approvedbythesecretaryofthepublicwelfarecouncilupon applicationforpermit. b)5thcountincitingtobreachofpeacechargedtoJesse Cantwell TheCantwellsweregoingsinglyfromhousetohouseonCassius StreetinNewHaven(where90%areRomanCatholics).Theywere eachcarryingabagwithbooks,pamphlets,aportablephonograph andasetofrecords,whichintroducedandgiveadescriptionofoneof thebooks.Eachwouldaskapersonforpermissiontoplaytherecord, oneofwhichisEnemies,thatincludesanattackonCatholicreligion. Ifthepersonrefused,theappellantwouldsolicitforcontributions towardsthepublicationofthepamphlets. Meanwhile,JesseCantwell,playedarecordthatembodiesageneral attackonallorganizedreligioussystemsasinstrumentsofSatan.The hearerswerehighlyoffended.OnefeltlikehittingCantwell,andthe otherwastemptedtothrowhimoffthestreet,butinsteadtold Cantwelltogetoffthestreetbeforesomethinghappenedtohim.That wastheendofthematter,asCantwellpickeduphisbooksandwalked away. Appellantsclaimthattheiractivitieswerenotwithinthestatute,but consistedonlyofdistribution.TheStateSCsaidthattheirsolicitation camewithinthepurviewofthestatute,andthat,contrarytothe Cantwellscontentionthatthestatutewasinviolationofthe14th Amendment,whatmadetheactwithinthesweepofthestatutewas thesolicitationandnottheirotheractivities.TheStateSCsaidthatit isconstitutionalasitistoprotectthepublicagainstfraud.

ISSUE: 1.W/NSection294violatesthe1stand14thAmendment 2.W/NJesseCantwellisguiltyofthe5thcountincitingabreachofpeace HELD: 1.YES! 2.NO! ThejudgementbyStateSCaffirmingtheconvictionson3rdand5thcountsare REVERSED. Ratio: 1stissue Thestatutedeprivesappellantsoftheirliberty.The1stAmendmentand14th Amendmentsinhibitionhasadoubleaspect:itpreventscompulsionbylaw ofacceptanceofanypracticeofworship,andatthesametime,safeguards thefreeexerciseofthechosenformofreligion.Thus,theAmendment embracestwoconcepts: a)Freedomtobelieveabsoluteandcannotberestricted b)Freedomtoactsubjecttoregulationfortheprotectionofsociety. TheStatemaynotwhollyrestrictpreachingordisseminating religiousviews.Itmay,however,regulatethetimes,places,andthe mannerofsolicitinguponitsstreets. Statutesaysthatthesecretaryofthewelfarecouncilwillissueapermitupon determinationthatthecauseisreligious.Itisnotaministerialdutybutone thatrequiresdiscretion.Thedecisioninvolvesanappraisaloffacts,exercise ofjudgment,andtheformationofanopinion.Heisauthorizedtowithhold approvalifhedeterminesthatthecauseisnotreligious.Suchcensorshipof religion,toconditionthesolicitationuponalicense,whichrestsinthe exerciseofadeterminationbystateauthorityastowhatisareligiouscause, constitutespriorrestraint. 2ndissue Theoffenseknownasbreachofthepeaceincludesavarietyofconduct destroyingpublicorderandtranquility.Itincludesnotonlyviolentacts,but actsandwordslikelytoproduceviolenceinothers.Whenclearandpresent

TheStateSCalsoheldthatthechargeagainstJesseCantwellwasnot assaultorbreachofpeaceorthreats,butinvokingorincitingothersto breachofpeace. Hence,thepetition.

dangerofdisorderorimmediatethreattopublicsafetyappears,thepowerof theStatetopreventisobvious. Consideringthis,thecourtnotedthatJesseCantwellwasonapublicstreet, wherehehadarighttobeandwherehehadarightpeacefullytoimparthis viewstoothers.Thereisnoshowingthathisbehaviorwasnoisy, overbearingoroffensive.Hehadinvadednorightorpublicinterest. Cantwellsconduct,didnotamounttobreachofpeace.Therewasnoassault orthreateningofbodilyharm,nointentionaldiscourtesy,andnopersonal abuse. Thecontentsoftherecord,althoughnotunnaturallyarousedanimosity, raisednoclearandpresentdangertopublicpeaceandorder,absentofa statutenarrowlydrawntodefineandpunishspecificconduct,torenderhim liabletoconvictionofthecommonlawoffenseinquestion.

4.EBRALINAGv.DIVISIONSUPERINTENDENT(1993) Facts: Thecaseconsistsof2civilactions:Ebralinagv.Division SuperintendentofSchoolsofCebuandMayAmolov.Division SuperintendentofSchoolsofCebu.Thepetitionerswereelementary andhighschoolstudents.Allminors,theywereassistedbytheir parentswhobelongtothereligiousgroupJehovahsWitnesses. Petitionersinbothcaseswereexpelledfromtheirclassesbypublic schoolauthoritiesforrefusingtosalutetheflag,singthenational anthemandrecitethepatrioticpledgeasrequiredbylaw. Jehovahswitnessesadmittedlyteachtheirchildrennottodothese thingsfortheybelievethatthoseareactsofworshiporreligious devotionwhichtheycannotgivetoanyoneoranythingexceptGod. TheimplementingorderofDECS,inpursuanttoRA1265,statesthat failureofstudentstoobeytheflagsaluteregulationlosesthebenefits ofpubliceducation.Nothavingcompliedwiththeregulationforfeits theirrightstoattendpublicschools. Issue: W/Nthestudentsmaybeexpelledfromschoolforrefusing,onaccountoftheir religiontotakepartintheflagceremonywhichincludesthesingingofthenational anthem,salutingtheflag,andrecitingthepatrioticpledge Held: NO! Theexpulsionordersannulledandsetaside.TROmadepermanent. Ratio:

Thesameissuewasraisedin1959inGeronav.SecretaryofEducation.The Courtupheldtheexpulsionofstudentssayingthattheflagisnotanimage butasymbolofthePhilippines,itsnationalsovereigntythatitandthe Constitutionguaranteeandprotect.Underasystemofcompleteseparation ofchurchandstate,theflagisutterlydevoidofanyreligioussignificance.The orderisincompliancewithRA1265,whichrequirestheobservanceofthe flagsalute.Thisiswhatthepetitionershaveraised;theconstitutionalityof RA1265andtheimplementingordersofDECS. Butthecourtsaysthatthe30yearoldrulingoftheGeronacaseneedstobe reexamined.ThesolejustificationforpriorrestraintaccordingtoJustice Teehankeeistheexistenceofagraveandpresentdangerinthattheflag ceremonywouldbeathingifthepastconductedwithveryfewparticipants andthetimewillcomewhenwewouldhavecitizensuntaughtand ininculcatedinandunimbuedwithreverencefortheflag,patriotismall becauseasmallportionoftheschoolpopulationimposeditswillandwas grantedanexemption. TheCourtisnotpersuadedthatbyexemptingJ.W.fromsalutingtheflag, singingthenationalanthemandrecitingthepledge,thisgroupthat admittedlycomprisesasmallpopulationwillshaketheglobeandwill producecitizenspreviouslymentioned.Whatpetitionersseekisexemption onlyfromtheflagceremony,notfromexclusionofstudyingtheConstitution, formofgovernment,history,cultureandvirtues. ExpulsionalsowillviolatetheirrightasPhilippinecitizenstoreceivefree education. Theexemptionmaybeaccorded,howeverbizarrethosebeliefsmayseem toothers.Whiletheydonottakepartinthecompulsoryflagceremony,they donotengageinexternalactsorbehaviorthatwouldoffendtheir countrymenwhobelieveinexpressingtheirpatriotismthroughtheflag ceremony.Theyquietlystandatattentionandshowrespect.

PARTTWO:THEMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATION!! statedbelowaretherespondentscontentionsandthecourtsanswer HELD:MOTIONDENIED. Respondent:ItsaviolationoftheEstablishmentClause!Thereisspecial treatmentinfavorofJehovahsWitnesses! Court:JehovahsWitnessesrefusaltoperformanactonthebasisoftheir religiousconvictions,whichtheyconsiderproscribedbytheBible,should notbetakentoindicatedisrespectforthesymbolsofourcountryor evidencethattheylackpatriotism.Theymanifesttheirallegiancebytheir simpleobediencetolaws.Whiletheyrefusetosalute,theyarewillingto standquietlyandpeacefullyinattention.Nodoubt,theStatepossessesthe responsibilitytoinculcatepatriotismandnationalism,howeverthis responsibilityisnotfreefromabalancingprocesswhenitintrudes

fundamentalrightsprotectedbytheFreeExerciseClauseandrightto education.Thefreedomofreligionshouldbeseenastherule,notthe exception.Toviewitthiswaywoulddenigratethestatusofpreferred freedomtothelevelofanabstractprincipledevoidofanysubstanceand meaning.Astothecontentionoftheexemptionbenefittingaprivilegedfew, thecourtsaysthatwhattheconstitutionalgivesisreligiousequality,notcivil immunity.Freeexerciseisfreedomfromconformitytoreligiousdogma,not becauseofreligiousdogma. Respondent:TheCourtshouldadoptaneutralstancebyrevertingbackto theGeronaruling(flagasbeingdevoidofanyreligioussignificance)!The issuehereisnotcurtailmentofreligiousbeliefbutaregulationofits exercise! Court:Wherethegovernmentinterestisunrelatedtothesuppressionofan idea,areligiousdoctrineorpracticeoranexpression,theregulationmaybe sustained.Inthiscase,thegovernmenthasnotshowntherefusaltodoacts ofconformitywouldposeaclearandpresentdangerofadangersoserious andimminentthatwouldpromptStateintervention.Themessageconveyed bytheirrefusaltoparticipateintheflagceremonyisreligious,sharedbythe entireJ.W.community.Thesubsequentexpulsionofmembersofthesecton thebasisoftheregulationsassailedintheoriginalpetitionswastherefore clearlydirectedagainstreligiouspractice.Thisorderendangersthefree exerciseofreligiousbelief.Furthermore,theviewthattheflagisnota religiousbutaneutralsymbolexpressesaviewintendedtostiflethe expressionofthebeliefthatanactofsalutingtheflagmightsometimesbeso offensiveastobeworththeirgivingupanotherconstitutionalright (education).Refusaltoparticipatehardlyconstitutesaformofreligionso offensiveastopromptintervention. Respondent:TheStateregulationisconstitutionalandalegalobligationto inculcateintheyouthpatriotismandnationalism!UsetheOBrientest. Court:Youmissedthepoint.Westatedthatthegovernmentinterestshould beunrelatedtothesuppressionoffreeexpression.Wehavealreadystated thattheinterestinregulationwasclearlyrelatedtothesuppressionofan expressiondirectlyconnectedwiththefreedomofreligion.OBrienis inappropriatesinceitonlyappliesiftheStatesregulationisnotrelatedto communicativeconduct.Duh.

5.YAPv.CA(2001) Petitioner:FranciscoYapJr.akaEdwinYap Facts:

Issues: 1.W/Nthebailwasexcessive 2.W/NtheCAundulyrestrictedpetitionersconstitutionallibertyofabodeand travelinimposingtheotherconditions Held: 1.YES!BaildecreasedtoP200,000.00 2.NO! Ratio: Issue1: AlthoughtherewasnoGADALEJandthattheincreaseinamountis meritorious(ensureagainstriskofflight,declaredguiltyalready),thesetting ofthe5.5Misunreasonable,excessive,hasnolegalandfactualbasis,and constitutesaneffectivedenialofpetitionersrighttobail. Issue2: Yapquestionsheretheconditionimposedthathesecureacertificationfrom theMayorofhisresidencyandthathewillremainaresidentandpriornotice incaseoftransfer.

YapwasconvictedofestafabytheRTCandwassentenced.Hefiledan appealandmovedforprovisionalliberty,butwasdenied.So,the recordsweretransmittedtotheCourtofAppeals. YapthenfiledwiththeCAaMotiontoFixBailforProvisionalLiberty ofAccusedPendingAppeal.Askedtocomment,theSolicitorGeneral saidthatthepetitionermaybeallowedtopostbailintheamountof 5.5MandberequiredtosecureacertificationfromtheMayorthathe isaresidentoftheareaandwillremaintobesountilfinaljudgment. Incasehetransfers,itmustbewithpriornoticetothecourtand privatecomplainant. Yapfiledareply,contendingthebailwasviolativeofhisrightto excessivebail. HEREITIS!TheassailedresolutionoftheCAupheldthe recommendationoftheSolicitorGeneral.Theresolutiongrantedthe motiontofixbailofYapintheamountof5.5Mandtheresidence certificatefromtheMayor.TheresolutionalsodirectedtheCIDto issueaholddepartureorderagainstYap,hispassporttobe surrenderedtotheDivisionClerkofCourt,andthatanyviolationshall causeforfeitureofbailbond,dismissalofappealandimmediate arrest. HENCEthispetition.

6.VALMONTEv.BELMONTE(v.DELMONTEnye!!!!) Petitioner:RicardoValmontelawyer,mediaandcitizen Respondent:FelicianoBelmonteJr.GSISGeneralManager Case:PetitionformandamusandpreliminaryinjunctiondirectingGSIStofurnish petitionerswiththefollowingmentionedbelow: Facts: ValmontewroteBelmontealetteronJune4,1986(mybirthdayyay!) requestingthathebefurnishedwiththelistofnamesofthe oppositionmembersoftheBatasangPambansawhowereableto secureacleanloanofP2MeachonguarantyofImeldaMarcos.Healso askedtobefurnishedcertifiedtruecopiesofdocumentsevidencing theirloan.Andiftheycannotsecurethesaiddocuments,couldthey haveaccesstothem?Hepremisedhisrequestontheprovisionofthe FreedomConstitutionontherightofpeopletoinformationonmatters ofpublicconcern. TheDeputyGeneralCounselofGSISrepliedonJune17.Intheletter, MeynardoTirostatedthatValmontesrequestwasreferredtohimby Belmontewiththethoughtthatitcontainedseriouslegalimplications. HisopinionwasthatconfidentialrelationshipexistsbetweenGSISand allthosewhoborrowfromit,andthatValmontesrequestisa violationofthatconfidentiality.Hence,theycannotrespondpositively tohisrequest. OnJune20,apparentlynothavingyetreceivedthereplyofGSIS, ValmontewrotetoGSISsayingthatforfailuretoreceiveareply,they arenowconsideringthemselvesfreetodowhateverisnecessaryto pursuetheirdesiredobjectiveinpursuanceofpublicinterest. June26Valmonte,withotherpetitioners,filedsuit July19,1986theDailyExpresscarriedanewsitemreportingthat 137formermembersofthedefunctinterimandregularBP,including 10oppositionmembers,weregrantedhousingloansbytheGSIS Commentswerefiled;objectionswereobjectedblahblahblah Issue:

Theconditionisconsistentwiththenatureandfunctionofabailbond,which istoensurethatpetitionerwillmakehimselfavailableatalltimeswhenever theCourtrequiredhispresence.Besides,theconditionshowsthatYapisnot preventedfromchangingabode;heismerelyrequiredtoinformthecourtin casehedoes. Also:itwasshownthattheprobabilityofflightincasereleasedonbailwas establishedbecauseYaphadinfactleftthecountryseveraltimesduring courseofproceedings.Itwasalsoshownthatpetitioneruseddifferentnames inhisbusinesstransactionandhadseveralabodesindifferentpartsofthe country.HE.CANNOT.BE.TRUSTED.

W/NthemandamushastocompelGSIStoperformtheactssoughttobedone thiswilltackletheissueonwhetherornotthepetitionersareentitledaccesstothe documents Held: YES!PetitiongrantedandGSISisorderedtoallowpetitionersaccesstodocuments andrecords Ratio: Thepertinentprovisionunderthe1987ConstitutionisArticle3Section7, whichstates: Therightofthepeopletoinformationonmattersofpublicconcern shallberecognized.Accesstoofficialrecords,andtodocuments,and paperspertainingtoofficialacts,transactions,ordecisions,aswellas togovernmentresearchdatausedasbasisforpolicydevelopment, shallbeaffordedtothecitizen,subjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybe providedbylaw. Petitionersaremediapractitioners.Therefore,theyhaveboththerightand obligationtochecktheaccuracyofinformationtheydisseminate.The freedomofthepressandofspeechisnotonlycritical,butavitalexerciseof theirprofessions. Therighttoinformationgoeshandinhandwiththeconstitutionalpoliciesof fullpublicdisclosureandhonestyinpublicservice.Yet,therightto informationisnotabsolute.Thepeoplesrightislimitedtomattersofpublic concernandisfurthersubjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybeprovidedby law.Similarly,theStatespolicyoffulldisclosureislimitedtotransactions involvingpublicinterestandissubjecttoreasonableconditionsprescribed bylaw Beforemandamus:2requisites:informationshouldbeofpublicinterest andnotexemptedbylawfromtheconstitutionalguaranty Publicinterestandpublicconcernnorigidtesttobeapplied.Butit embracessubjectswhichthepublicmaywanttoknow,eitherbecauseit affectstheirlives,orsimplybecausemattersnaturallyarousetheinterestof anordinarycitizen.Itsacasetocasebasis. Inthiscase,theinformationsoughtisthememberswhowereabletosecure cleanloansthroughImeldaMarcosintercession. GSISisatrusteeofcontributionsfromthegovernmentanditsemployeesand administratorofinsuranceprogramsforthelatter.So,itsfundsassume publiccharacter.Moreover,supposedborrowersweremembersofBPwho themselvesappropriatedfundsandwerethereforeexpectedtobethefirstto seethatGSISperformsitstaskswithfidelity.Thepublicnatureofthe loanablefundsandpublicofficeheldbytheallegedborrowersmakethe informationsoughtclearlyamatterofpublicconcern.1strequisiteokay! 2ndrequisite:Respondentclaimsthataconfidentialrelationshipexists betweentheGSISandborrowers.Yethefailedtociteanylawgrantingthe

privilegeofconfidentiality.Hecontendsthatinviewoftherighttoprivacy, thedocumentsareoutsidetheambitoftherighttoinfo.However,thecourt saidthattherightofprivacybelongstoanindividualinhisprivatecapacity, nottothepublicandgovernmentagenciesliketheGSIS.NeithercanGSIS invoketherighttoprivacyofitsborrowers.Thisrightispersonalinnature andmayonlybeinvokedonlybythepersonwhoseprivacyisclaimedtobe violated(eventhen,privacycannotbeinvoked,sinceborrowerswerepublic officers).

You might also like