Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EN BANC
SYLLABUS
DECISION
LABRADOR, J : p
This Court has before it the delicate task of passing upon the
validity and constitutionality of a legislative enactment, fundamental and
far-reaching in significance The enactment poses questions of due
process, police power and equal protection of the laws. It also poses an
important issue of fact, that is whether the conditions which the
disputed law purports to remedy really or actually exist. Admittedly
springing from a deep, militant, and positive nationalistic impulse, the
law purports to protect citizen and country from the alien retailer.
Through it, and within the field of economy it regulates, Congress
attempts to translate national aspirations for economic independence
and national security, rooted in the drive and urge for national survival
and welfare, into a concrete and tangible measures designed to free the
national retailer from the competing dominance of the alien, so that the
country and the nation may be free from a supposed economic
dependence and bondage. Do the facts and circumstances justify the
enactment?
II. Pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 1180
Republic Act No. 1180 is entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail
Business." In effect it nationalizes the retail trade business. The main
provisions of the Act are: (1) a prohibition against persons, not citizens of
the Philippines, and against associations, partnerships, or corporations
the capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines,
from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade; (2) an exception
from the above prohibition in favor of aliens actually engaged in said
business on May 15, 1954, who are allowed to continue to engage
therein, unless their licenses are forfeited in accordance with the law,
until their death or voluntary retirement in case of natural persons, and
for ten years after the approval of the Act or until the expiration of term
in case of juridical persons; (3) an exception therefrom in favor of
citizens and juridical entities of the United States; (4) a provision for the
forfeiture of licenses (to engage in the retail business) for violation of
the laws on nationalization, economic control weights and measures and
labor and other laws relating to trade, commerce and industry; (5) a
prohibition against the establishment or opening by aliens actually
engaged in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail
business, (6) a provision requiring aliens actually engaged in the retail
business to present for registration with the proper authorities a verified
statement concerning their businesses, giving, among other matters, the
nature of the business, their assets and liabilities and their offices and
principal offices of juridical entities; and (7) a provision allowing the
heirs of aliens now engaged in the retail business who die, to continue
such business for a period of six months for purposes of liquidation.
III. Grounds upon which petition is based — Answer thereto
Petitioner, for and in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien
residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the
provisions of Republic Act No. 1180, brought this action to obtain a
judicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional, and to enjoin the
Secretary of Finance and all other persons acting under him, particularly
city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. Petitioner
attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending that: (1) it denies to
alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives them of
their liberty and property without due process of law; (2) the subject of
the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the title thereof; (3) the Act
violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the
Philippines; (4) the provisions of the Act against the transmission by
aliens of their retail business thru hereditary succession, and those
requiring 100% Filipino capitalization for a corporation or entity to entitle
it to engage in the retail business, violate the spirit of Sections 1 and 5,
Article XIII and Section 8 of Article XIV of the Constitution.
In answer, the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila
contend that: (1) the Act was passed in the valid exercise of the police
power of the State, which exercise is authorized in the Constitution in
the interest of national economic survival; (2) the Act has only one
subject embraced in the title; (3) no treaty or international obligations
are infringed; (4) as regards hereditary succession, only the form is
affected but the value of the property is not impaired, and the institution
of inheritance is only of statutory origin.
IV. Preliminary consideration of legal principles involved
a. The police power. —
There is no question that the Act was approved in the exercise of
the police power, but petitioner claims that its exercise in this instance
is attended by a violation of the constitutional requirements of due
process and equal protection of the laws. But before proceeding to the
consideration and resolution of the ultimate issue involved, it would be
well to bear in mind certain basic and fundamental, albeit preliminary,
considerations in the determination of the ever recurrent conflict
between police power and the guarantees of due process and equal
protection of the laws. What is the scope of police power and how are
the due process and equal protection clauses related to it? What is the
province and power of the legislature, and what is the function and duty
of the courts? These consideration must be clearly and correctly
understood that their application to the facts of the case may be brought
forth with clarity and the issue accordingly resolved.
It has been said that police power is so far-reaching in scope, that it
has become almost impossible to limit its sweep. As it derives its
existence from the very existence of the State itself, it does not need to
be expressed or defined in its scope; it is said to be co- extensive with
self-protection and survival, and as such it is the most positive and
active of all governmental processes, the most essential, insistent and
illimitable. Especially is it so under a modern democratic framework
where the demands of society and of nations have multiplied to almost
unimaginable proportions; the field and scope of police power has
become almost boundless, just as the fields of public interest and public
welfare have become almost all- embracing and have transcended
human foresight. Otherwise stated, as we cannot foresee the needs and
demands of public interest and welfare in this constantly changing and
progressive world, so we cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope
of police power by which and through which the State seeks to attain or
achieve public interest or welfare. So it is that Constitutions do not
define the scope or extent of the police power of the State; what they do
is to set forth the limitations thereof. The most important of these are
the due process clause and the equal protection clause.
b. Limitations on police power. —
The basic limitations of due process and equal protection are found
in the following provisions of our Constitution:
"SECTION 1.(1) No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws." (Article III, Phil. Constitution)
These constitutional guarantees which embody the essence of individual
liberty and freedom in democracies, are not limited to citizens alone but
are admittedly universal in their application, without regard to any
differences of race, of color, or of nationality. (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 30, L.
ed. 220, 226.)
c. The equal protection clause. —
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and
individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the
oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit legislation, which
is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory within
which it is to operate. It does not demand absolute equality among
residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under
like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by
legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified
class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable
grounds exists for making a distinction between those who fall within
such class and those who do not. (2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations,
824-825.)
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J :p
On 7 July 1989, Philphos Movement for Progress, Inc. (PMPI for brevity),
filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a petition for
certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner,
alleging that as a supervisory union duly registered with the Department of
Labor and Employment it was seeking to represent the supervisory
employees of Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation.LibLex
The petition for certification election filed by PMPI was not opposed by
PHILPHOS. In fact, on 11 August 1989, PHILPHOS submitted a position
paper with the Mediator-Arbiter stating that its management welcomed the
creation of a supervisory employees' union provided the necessary
requisites of law were properly observed, but exempting from the union
its superintendents who were managerial and not supervisory
employees as they managed a division, subdivision or section, and were
vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management
policies. PHILPHOS also asserted that its professional or technical
employees were not within the definition of supervisory employees under
the Labor Code as they were immediately under the direction and
supervision of its superintendents and supervisors. Moreover, the
professional and technical employees did not have a staff of workers under
them. Consequently, petitioner prayed for the exclusion of
its superintendents and professional/technical employees from the PMPI
supervisory union.
On 13 October 1989, Mediator-Arbiter Rodolfo S. Milado issued an order
directing the holding of a certification election among the supervisory
employees of petitioner, excluding therefrom the superintendents and
the professional and technical employees. He also directed the parties to
attend the pre-election conference on 19 April 1990 for the determination of
the mechanics of the election process and the qualifications and eligibility
of those allowed to vote.
On 15 November 1989, PMPI filed an amended petition with the Mediator-
Arbiter wherein it sought to represent not only the supervisory employees of
petitioner but also its professional/technical and confidential employees.
The amended petition was filed in view of the amendment to the PMPI
Construction which included in its membership
the professional/technical and confidential employees.
On 14 December 1989, the parties therein agreed to submit their respective
position papers and to consider the amended petition submitted for
decision on the basis thereof and related documents.
On 28 March 1990, Mediator-Arbiter Milado issued an order granting the
petition and directing the holding of a certification election among the
"supervisory, professional (engineers, analysts, mechanics, accountants,
nurses, midwives, etc.), technical, and confidential employees" 1 to
comprise the proposed bargaining unit.
On 16 April 1990, PHILPHOS appealed the order of 28 March 1990 to the
Secretary of Labor and Employment who on 7 August 1990 rendered a
decision through Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma dismissing the
appeal. PHILPHOS moved for reconsideration but the same was denied;
hence, the instant petition alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of
public respondents in rendering the assailed rulings. Cdpr
DECISION
CRUZ, J :
p
The closed mind has no place in the open society. It is part of the
sporting idea of fair play to hear "the other side" before an opinion is
formed or a decision is made by those who sit in judgment. Obviously,
one side is only one-half of the question; the other half must also be
considered if an impartial verdict is to be reached based on an informed
appreciation of the issues in contention. It is indispensable that the two
sides complement each other, as unto the bow the arrow, in leading to
the correct ruling after examination of the problem not from one or the
other perspective only but in its totality. A judgment based on less that
this full appraisal, on the pretext that a hearing is unnecessary or
useless, is tainted with the vice of bias or intolerance or ignorance, or
worst of all, in repressive regimes, the insolence of power.
The minimum requirements of due process are notice and
hearing 13 which, generally speaking, may not be dispensed with
because they are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness.
It is a gratifying commentary on our judicial system that the
jurisprudence of this country is rich with applications of this guaranty as
proof of our fealty to the rule of law and the ancient rudiments of fair
play. We have consistently declared that every person, faced by the
awesome power of the State, is entitled to "the law of the land," which
Daniel Webster described almost two hundred years ago in the famous
Dartmouth College Case, 14 as "the law which hears before it condemns,
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial." It
has to be so if the rights of every person are to be secured beyond the
reach of officials who, out of mistaken zeal or plain arrogance, would
degrade the due process clause into a worn and empty catchword.
This is not to say that notice and hearing are imperative in every
case for, to be sure, there are a number of admitted exceptions. The
conclusive presumption, for example, bars the admission of contrary
evidence as long as such presumption is based on human experience or
there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact
ultimately presumed therefrom. 15There are instances when the need for
expeditious action will justify omission of these requisites, as in the
summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on the loose,
which may be killed on sight because of the immediate danger it poses
to the safety and lives of the people. Pornographic materials,
contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are inherently pernicious and
may be summarily destroyed. The passport of a person sought for a
criminal offense may be cancelled without hearing, to compel his return
to the country he has fled. 16 Filthy restaurants may be summarily
padlocked in the interest of the public health and bawdy houses to
protect the public morals. 17 In such instances, previous judicial hearing
may be omitted without violation of due process in view of the nature of
the property involved or the urgency of the need to protect the general
welfare from a clear and present danger. cdll
In the light of the tests mentioned above, we hold with the Toribio
Case that the carabao, as the poor man's tractor, so to speak, has a
direct relevance to the public welfare and so is a lawful subject
of Executive Order No. 626. The method chosen in the basic measure is
also reasonably necessary for the purpose sought to be achieved and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals, again following the above-cited
doctrine. There is no doubt that by banning the slaughter of these
animals except where they are at least seven years old if male and
eleven years old if female upon issuance of the necessary permit, the
executive order will be conserving those still fit for farm work or
breeding and preventing their improvident depletion. llcd
But while conceding that the amendatory measure has the same
lawful subject as the original executive order, we cannot say with equal
certainty that it complies with the second requirement, viz., that there
be a lawful method. We note that to strengthen the original
measure, Executive Order No. 626-A imposes an absolute ban not on
the slaughter of the carabaos but on their movement, providing that "no
carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose (sic) and
no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another." The
object of the prohibition escapes us. The reasonable connection between
the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the
questioned measure is missing.
We do not see how the prohibition of the interprovincial transport of
carabaos can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter, considering that
they can be killed anywhere, with no less difficulty in one province than
in another. Obviously, retaining the carabaos in one province will not
prevent their slaughter there, any more than moving them to another
province will make it easier to kill them there. As for the carabeef, the
prohibition is made to apply to it as otherwise, so says executive order, it
could be easily circumvented by simply killing the animal. Perhaps so.
However, if the movement of the live animals for the purpose of
preventing their slaughter cannot be prohibited, it should follow that
there is no reason either to prohibit their transfer as, not to be flippant,
dead meat.
Even if a reasonable relation between the means and the end were
to be assumed, we would still have to reckon with the sanction that the
measure applies for violation of the prohibition. The penalty is outright
confiscation of the carabao or carabeef being transported, to be meted
out by the executive authorities, usually the police only. In the Toribio
Case, the statute was sustained because the penalty prescribed was
fine and imprisonment, to be imposed by the court after trial and
conviction of the accused. Under the challenged measure, significantly,
no such trial is prescribed, and the property being transported is
immediately impounded by the police and declared, by the measure
itself, as forfeited to the government.
In the instant case, the carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated by
the police station commander, were returned to the petitioner only after
he had filed a complaint for recovery and given a supersedeas bond of
P12,000.00, which was ordered confiscated upon his failure to produce
the carabaos when ordered by the trial court. The executive order
defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately
imposed punishment, which was carried out forthright. The measure
struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner without giving him a
chance to be heard, thus denying him the centuries-old guaranty of
elementary fair play.
It has already been remarked that there are occasions when notice
and hearing may be validly dispensed with notwithstanding the usual
requirement for these minimum guarantees of due process. It is also
conceded that summary action may be validly taken in administrative
proceedings as procedural due process is not necessarily judicial
only. 20 In the exceptional cases accepted, however, there is a
justification for the omission of the right to a previous hearing, to wit,
the immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and the urgency of
the need to correct it.
cdphil
In the case before us, there was no such pressure of time or action
calling for the petitioner's peremptory treatment. The properties involved
were not even inimical per se as to require their instant destruction.
There certainly was no reason why the offense prohibited by the
executive order should not have been proved first in a court of justice,
with the accused being accorded all the rights safeguarded to him under
the Constitution. Considering that, as we held in Pesigan v.
Angeles, 21 Executive Order No. 626-A is penal in nature, the violation
thereof should have been pronounced not by the police only but by a
court of justice, which alone would have had the authority to impose the
prescribed penalty, and only after trial and conviction of the accused.
We also mark, on top of all this, the questionable manner of the
disposition of the confiscated property as prescribed in the questioned
executive order. It is there authorized that the seized property shall "be
distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the
Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit, in the
case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the
Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos."
(Emphasis supplied.) The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous
and dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden with perilous
opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption. One searches
in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines, or better
still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make
their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless.
Who shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by what
criteria shall they be chosen? Only the officers named can supply the
answer, they and they alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and
in their own exclusive discretion. Definitely, there is here a "roving
commission," a wide and sweeping authority that is not "canalized
within banks that keep it from overflowing," in short, a clearly profligate
and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers.
To sum up then, we find that the challenged measure is an invalid
exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve
the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and,
worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner
of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense
and is immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the
administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the
supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and
militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally,
also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned
therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the
properties arbitrarily taken. For these reasons, we hereby
declare Executive Order No. 626-A unconstitutional.
We agree with the respondent court, however, that the police
station commander who confiscated the petitioner's carabaos is not
liable in damages for enforcing the executive order in accordance with
its mandate. The law was at that time presumptively valid, and it was his
obligation, as a member of the police, to enforce it. It would have been
impertinent of him, being a mere subordinate of the President, to declare
the executive order unconstitutional and, on his own responsibility alone,
refuse to execute it. Even the trial court, in fact, and the Court of
Appeals itself did not feel they had the competence, for all their superior
authority, to question the order we now annul.
The Court notes that if the petitioner had not seen fit to assert and
protect his rights as he saw them, this case would never have reached
us and the taking of his property under the challenged measure would
have become a fait accompli despite its invalidity. We commend him for
his spirit. Without the present challenge, the matter would have ended in
that pump boat in Masbate and another violation of the Constitution, for
all its obviousness, would have been perpetrated, allowed without
protest, and soon forgotten in the limbo of relinquished rights.
LLpr
SYNOPSIS
SYLLABUS
VITUG, J :
p
Pending before this Court are two separate petitions, one filed by
petitioner Bayani M. Alonte, docketed G.R. No. 131652, and the other by
petitioner Buenaventura Concepcion, docketed G.R. No. 131728, that
assail the decision of respondent Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., of the
Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), Branch 53, of Manila finding both petitioners
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. The two petitions
were consolidated. llcd
The case was docketed Criminal Case No. 9619-B and assigned by
raffle to Branch 25 of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna, presided over by Judge
Pablo B. Francisco.
On 13 December 1996, Juvie-lyn Punongbayan, through her counsel
Attorney Remedios C. Balbin, and Assistant Chief State Prosecutor
("ACSP") Leonardo Guiyab, Jr., filed with the Office of the Court
Administrator a Petition for a Change of Venue (docketed Administrative
Matter No. 97-1-12-RTC) to have the case transferred and tried by any of
the Regional Trial Courts in Metro Manila.
During the pendency of the petition for change of venue, or on 25
June 1997, Juvie-lyn Punongbayan, assisted by her parents and counsel,
executed an affidavit of desistance, quoted herein in full, as follows:
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE
"I, JUVIE-LYN YAMBAO PUNONGBAYAN, 17 years of age, a resident of
No. 5 Uranus Street, Congressional Avenue Subdivision, Quezon City,
duly assisted by private legal counsel and my parents, after having
duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and say:
"1. That I am the Complainant in the rape case filed against Mayor
Bayani 'Arthur' Alonte of Biñan, Laguna, with the RTC-Branch 25 of
Biñan, Laguna;
"2. That the case has been pending for some time, on preliminary
issues, specifically, (a) change of venue, filed with the Supreme
Court; (b) propriety of the appeal to the Court of Appeals, and after its
denial by said court, brought to the Office of the President, on the
veracity of the findings of the Five-Man Investigating Panel of the
State Prosecutor's Office, and the Secretary of Justice, and (c) a
hold-departure order filed with the Biñan Court;
"3. That the legal process moves ever so slowly, and meanwhile, I
have already lost two (2) semesters of my college residence. And
when the actual trial is held after all the preliminary issues are
finally resolved, I anticipate a still indefinite suspension of my
schooling to attend the hearings;
"4. That during the entire period since I filed the case, my family has
lived a most abnormal life: my father and mother had to give up their
jobs; my younger brother, who is in fourth grade, had to stop his
schooling, like myself;
"5. That I do not blame anyone for the long, judicial process, I simply
wish to stop and live elsewhere with my family, where we can start
life anew, and live normally once again;
"6. That I pray that I be allowed to withdraw my complaint for rape
and the other charge for child abuse wherein the Five-Man
Investigating Panel of the Office of the State Prosecutor found a
prima facie case although the information has not been filed, and
that I will not at any time revive this, and related cases or file new
cases, whether criminal, civil, and or administrative, here or
anywhere in the Philippines;
"7. That I likewise realize that the execution of this Affidavit will put
to doubt my credibility as a witness-complainant;
"8. That this is my final decision reached without fear or favor,
premised on a corresponding commitment that there will be no
reprisals in whatever form, against members of the police force or
any other official of officer, my relatives and friends who extended
assistance to me in whatever way, in my search for justice.
"WHEREOF, I affix my signature this 25 day of June, 1997, in Quezon
City.
"(Sgd) JUVIE-LYN Y. PUNONGBAYAN
Complainant
"Assisted by:
(Sgd) ATTY. REMEDIOS C. BALBIN
Private Prosecutor
"In the presence of:
(Sgd) PABLO PUNONGBAYAN
Father
(Sgd) JULIE Y. PUNONGBAYAN
Mother
"SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 25 day of June, 1997, in
Quezon City.
"(Sgd) Illegible
Administering Officer" 2
On 28 June 1997, Atty. Ramon C. Casino, on behalf of petitioners,
moved to have the petition for change of venue dismissed on the ground
that it had become moot in view of complainant's affidavit of desistance.
On 22 August 1997, ACSP Guiyab filed his comment on the motion to
dismiss. Guiyab asserted that he was not aware of the desistance of
private complainant and opined that the desistance, in any case, would
not produce any legal effect since it was the public prosecutor who had
direction and control of the prosecution of the criminal action. He prayed
for the denial of the motion to dismiss.
On 02 September 1997, this Court issued a Resolution
(Administrative Matter No. 97-1-12-RTC), granting the petition for change
of venue. The Court said:
"These affidavits give specific names, dates, and methods being used
to abort, by coercion or corruption, the prosecution of Criminal Case
No. 9619-B. It is thus incorrect for oppositors Alonte and Concepcion
to contend that the fear of the petitioner, her private counsel and her
witnesses are too generalized if not fabricated. Indeed, the
probability that in desisting from pursuing her complaint for rape,
petitioner, a minor, may have succumbed to some illicit influence and
undue pressure. To prevent possible miscarriage of justice is a good
excuse to grant the petition to transfer the venue of Criminal Case
No. 9619-B from Biñan, Laguna to the City of Manila.
"IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Petition for Change of Venue from Biñan,
Laguna to the City of Manila is granted. The Executive Judge of RTC
Manila is ordered to raffle Crim. Case No. 9619-B to any of its
branches. The judge to whom Crim. Case No. 9619-B shall be raffled
shall resolve the petitioner's Motion to Resume Proceedings filed in
Br. XXV of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna and determine the voluntariness
and validity of petitioner's desistance in light of the opposition of the
public prosecutor, Asst. Chief State Prosecutor Leonardo Guiyab. The
branch clerk of court of Br. XXV of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna is
ordered to personally deliver to the Executive Judge of Manila the
complete records of Crim. Case No. 9619-B upon receipt of this
Resolution." 3
The petitions deserve some merit; the Court will disregard, in view
of the case milieu, the prematurity of petitioners' invocation, i e., even
before the trial court could resolve Alonte's motion for reconsideration.
The Court must admit that it is puzzled by the somewhat strange
way the case has proceeded below. Per Judge Savellano, after the
waiver by the parties of the pre-trial stage, the trial of the case did
proceed on the merits but that —
"The two (2) accused did not present any countervailing evidence
during the trial. They did not take the witness stand to refute or deny
under oath the truth of the contents of the private complainant's
aforementioned affidavit which she expressly affirmed and confirmed
in Court, but, instead, thru their respective lawyers, they rested and
submitted the case for decision merely on the basis of the private
complainant's so called 'desistance' which, to them, was sufficient
enough for their purposes. They left everything to the so-called
'desistance' of the private complainant." 10
In Tabao vs. Espina, 14 the Court has underscored the need to adhere
strictly to the above rules. It reminds that —
". . . each step in the trial process serves a specific purpose. In the
trial of criminal cases, the constitutional presumption of innocence in
favor of an accused requires that an accused be given sufficient
opportunity to present his defense. So, with the prosecution as to its
evidence.
"Hence, any deviation from the regular course of trial should always
take into consideration the rights of all the parties to the case,
whether in the prosecution or defense. In the exercise of their
discretion, judges are sworn not only to uphold the law but also to do
what is fair and just. The judicial gavel should not be wielded by one
who has an unsound and distorted sense of justice and fairness.15
It should be pointed out, however, that the existence of the waiver must
be positively demonstrated. The standard of waiver requires that it "not
only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with
sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely
consequences." 16 Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be so
construed as a waiver of right, and the courts must indulge every
reasonable presumption against waiver. 17 The Solicitor General has aptly
discerned a few of the deviations from what otherwise should have been
the regular course of trial: (1) Petitioners have not been directed to
present evidence to prove their defenses nor have dates therefor been
scheduled for the purpose; 18 (2) the parties have not been given the
opportunity to present rebutting evidence nor have dates been set by
respondent Judge for the purpose; 19 and (3) petitioners have not
admitted the act charged in the Information so as to justify any
modification in the order of trial. 20 There can be no short-cut to the legal
process, and there can be no excuse for not affording an accused his full
day in court. Due process, rightly occupying the first and foremost place
of honor in our Bill of Rights, is an enshrined and invaluable right that
cannot be denied even to the most undeserving.
This case, in fine, must be remanded for further proceedings. And,
since the case would have to be sent back to the court a quo,
this ponencia has carefully avoided making any statement or reference
that might be misconstrued as prejudgment or as pre-empting the trial
court in the proper disposition of the case. The Court likewise deems it
appropriate that all related proceedings therein, including the petition
for bail, should be subject to the proper disposition of the trial court. LLpr
It may not be amiss to state that courts have the inherent power to
compel the attendance of any person to testify in a case pending before
it, and a party is not precluded from invoking that authority. 25
Secondly, an affidavit of desistance by itself, even when construed
as a pardon in the so-called "private crimes," is not a ground for the
dismissal of the criminal case once the action has been instituted. The
affidavit, nevertheless, may, as so earlier intimated, possibly constitute
evidence whose weight or probative value, like any other piece of
evidence, would be up to the court for proper evaluation. The decision
in Junio went on to hold —
"While '[t]he offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed
by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor
in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above
named persons, as the case may be,' [Third par. of Art. 344,
The Revised Penal Code,] the pardon to justify the dismissal of the
complaint should have been made prior to the institution of the
criminal action. [People vs. Entes, 103 SCRA 162, cited by People vs.
Soliao, 194 SCRA 250, which in turn is cited in People vs. Villorente,
210 SCRA 647.] Here, the motion to dismiss to which the affidavit of
desistance is attached was filed after the institution of the criminal
case. And, affiant did not appear to be serious in 'signifying (her)
intention to refrain from testifying' since she still completed her
testimony notwithstanding her earlier affidavit of desistance. More,
the affidavit is suspect considering that while it was dated 'April
1992,' it was only submitted sometime in August 1992, four (4)
months after the Information was filed before the court a quo on 6
April 1992, perhaps dated as such to coincide with the actual filing of
the case." 26
The decisions speak well for themselves, and the Court need not
say more than what it has heretofore already held.
Relative to the prayer for the disqualification of Judge Savellano
from further hearing the case, the Court is convinced that Judge
Savellano should, given the circumstances, be best excused from the
case. Possible animosity between the personalities here involved may
not all be that unlikely. The pronouncement of this Court in the old case
of Luque vs. Kayanan 31 could again be said: All suitors are entitled to
nothing short of the cold neutrality of an independent, wholly-free
disinterested and unbiased tribunal. Second only to the duty of rendering
a just decision is the duty of doing it in a manner that will not arouse any
suspicion as to the fairness and integrity of the Judge. 32 It is not enough
that a court is impartial, it must also be perceived as impartial.
The Court cannot end this ponencia without a simple reminder on
the use of proper language before the courts. While the lawyer in
promoting the cause of his client or defending his rights might do so with
fervor, simple courtesy demands that it be done within the bounds of
propriety and decency. The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascriptions hardly can be justified nor can have a place in the dignity of
judicial forum. Civility among members of the legal profession is a
treasured tradition that must at no time be lost to it.
Finally, it may be opportune to say, once again, that prosecutors are
expected not merely to discharge their duties with the highest degree of
excellence, professionalism and skill but also to act each time with
utmost devotion and dedication to duty. 33 The Court is hopeful that the
zeal which has been exhibited many times in the past, although
regrettably a disappointment on few occasions, will not be wanting in
the proceedings yet to follow.
WHEREFORE, conformably with all the foregoing, the Court hereby
RULES that —
(a) The submission of the "Affidavit of Desistance," executed by
Juvie-Lyn Y. Punongbayan on 25 June 1997, having been
filed AFTER the institution of Criminal Case No. 97-159935,
DOES NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL of said criminal
case;
(b) For FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS, the assailed judgment, dated
12 December 1997, convicting petitioners is declared NULL
AND VOID and thereby SET ASIDE; accordingly, the case is
REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings; and
(c) Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., presiding Judge of Branch
53 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, is ENJOINED from
further hearing Criminal Case No. 97-159935; instead, the
case shall immediately be scheduled for raffle among the
other branches of that court for proper disposition .
No special pronouncement on costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Kapunan, Martinez, Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ ., concur.
Narvasa, C .J ., took no part: related to one of counsel.
(Alonte v. Savellano, Jr., G.R. Nos. 131652 & 131728, [March 9, 1998], 350
|||
PHIL 700-770)
EN BANC
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J :p
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Romero, Quiason, Puno, Kapunan and Mendoza,
JJ., concur.
Feliciano, Padilla and Bidin, JJ., are on leave.
(Aniag, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 104961, [October 7, 1994],
|||
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J : p
This treats of the Petition for Review on Certiorari with a prayer for
the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction filed by petitioners Spouses Carlos S. Romualdez and Erlinda
R. Romualdez seeking to annul and set aside the Resolutions, dated 11
June 2004 1 and 27 January 2005 2 of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) in E.O. Case No. 2000-36. In the Resolution of 11 June 2004,
the COMELEC En Banc directed the Law Department to file the
appropriate Information with the proper court against petitioners Carlos
S. Romualdez and Erlinda Romualdez for violation of Section 10 (g) and
(j) 3 in relation to Section 45 (j) 4 of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise
known as The Voter's Registration Act of 1996. 5 Petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration thereon was denied.
The factual antecedents leading to the instant Petition are
presented hereunder:
On 12 July 2000, private respondent Dennis Garay, along with
Angelino Apostol 6 filed a Complaint-Affidavit 7 with the COMELEC thru
the Office of the Election Officer in Burauen, Leyte, charging petitioners
with violation of Section 261 (y) (2) 8 and Section 261 (y) (5) 9 of the
Omnibus Election Code, similarly referred to as Batas Pambansa Blg.
881; and Section 12 10 of Republic Act No. 8189.
Private respondent deposed, inter alia, that: petitioners are of legal
ages and residents of 113 Mariposa Loop, Mariposa Street, Bagong
Lipunan ng Crame, Quezon City; on 9 May 2000 and 11 May 2000,
petitioners Carlos S. Romualdez and Erlinda R. Romualdez, applied for
registration as new voters with the Office of the Election Officer of
Burauen, Leyte, as evidenced by Voter Registration Record Nos.
42454095 and 07902952, respectively; in their sworn applications,
petitioners made false and untruthful representations in violation of
Section 10 11 of Republic Act No. 8189, by indicating therein that they are
residents of 935 San Jose Street, Burauen, Leyte, when in truth and in
fact, they were and still are residents of 113 Mariposa Loop, Mariposa
Street, Bagong Lipunan ng Crame, Quezon City, and registered voters of
Barangay Bagong Lipunan ng Crame, District IV, Quezon City, Precinct
No. 4419-A, as evidenced by Voter Registration Record Nos. 26195824
and 26195823; and that petitioners, knowing fully well said truth,
intentionally and willfully, did not fill the blank spaces in said
applications corresponding to the length of time which they have resided
in Burauen, Leyte. In fine, private respondent charged petitioners, to wit:
Respondent-spouses, Carlos Sison Romualdez and Erlinda
Reyes Romualdez committed and consummated election offenses in
violation of our election laws, specifically, Sec. 261, paragraph (y),
subparagraph (2), for knowingly making any false or untruthful
statements relative to any data or information required in the
application for registration, and of Sec. 261, paragraph (y),
subparagraph (5), committed by any person who, being a registered
voter, registers anew without filing an application for cancellation of
his previous registration, both of the Omnibus Election Code (BP
Blg. 881), and of Sec. 12, RA 8189 (Voter Registration Act) for failure
to apply for transfer of registration records due to change of
residence to another city or municipality."12
The Complaint-Affidavit contained a prayer that a preliminary
investigation be conducted by the COMELEC, and if the evidence so
warrants, the corresponding Information against petitioners be filed
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the prosecution of the same.
Petitioners filed a Joint Counter-Affidavit with Motion to
Dismiss 13 dated 2 April 2001. They contended therein that they did not
make any false or untruthful statements in their application for
registration. They avowed that they intended to reside in Burauen, Leyte,
since the year 1989. On 9 May 2000, they took actual residence in
Burauen, Leyte, by leasing for five (5) years, the house of Juanito and Fe
Renomeron at No. 935, San Jose Street in Burauen, Leyte. On even date,
the Barangay District III Council of Burauen passed a Resolution of
Welcome, expressing therein its gratitude and appreciation to petitioner
Carlos S. Romualdez for choosing the Barangay as his official
residence. 14
On 28 November 2003, Atty. Maria Norina S. Tangaro-Casingal,
COMELEC Investigating Officer, issued a Resolution, recommending to
the COMELEC Law Department (Investigation and Prosecution Division),
the filing of the appropriate Information against petitioners, disposing,
thus:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Law Department (Investigation
and Prosecution Division), RECOMMENDS to file the necessary
information against Carlos Sison Romualdez before the proper
Regional Trial Court for violation of Section 10 (g) and (j) in relation
to Section 45 (j) of Republic Act 8189 and to authorize the Director
IV of the Law Department to designate a Comelec Prosecutor to
handle the prosecution of the case with the duty to submit periodic
report after every hearing of the case. 15
On 11 June 2004, the COMELEC En Banc found no reason to depart
from the recommendatory Resolution of 28 November 2003, and
ordered, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Law Department is
hereby directed to file the appropriate information with the proper
court against respondents CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA
ROMUALDEZ for violation of Section 10 (g) and (j) in relation to
Section 45 (j) of the Republic Act No. 8189. 16
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereon.
Acting on the Motion, the COMELEC found no cogent reason to
disturb the assailed En Banc Resolution of 11 June 2004, 17rationalizing,
thus:
However, perusal of the records reveal (sic) that the arguments and
issues raised in the Motion for Reconsideration are merely a rehash
of the arguments advanced by the Respondents in [their]
Memorandum received by the Law Department on 17 April 2001, the
same [w]as already considered by the Investigating Officer and was
discussed in her recommendation which eventually was made as the
basis for the En Banc's resolution.
As aptly observed by the Investigating Officer, the filing of
request for the cancellation and transfer of Voting Registration
Record does not automatically cancel the registration records. The
fact remains that at the time of application for registration as new
voter of the herein Respondents on May 9 and 11, 2001 in the Office
of Election Officer of Burauen, Leyte their registration in Barangay
4419-A, Barangay Bagong Lipunan ng Crame Quezon City was still
valid and subsisting. 18
On 12 January 2006, Alioden D. Dalaig, Director IV, Law Department
of the COMELEC filed with the RTC, Burauen, Leyte, separate
Informations against petitioner Carlos S. Romualdez 19 for violation of
Section 10 (g), in relation to Section 45 (j) of Republic Act No. 8189, and
against petitioner Erlinda R. Romualdez 20 for violation of Section 10 (g),
in relation to Section 45 (j) of Republic Act No. 8189, subsequently
docketed as Crim. Case No. BN-06-03-4185 and Crim. Case No. BN-06-03-
4183, respectively. Moreover, separate Informations for violation of
Section 10 (j), in relation to Section 45 (j) of Republic Act No. 8189 were
filed against petitioners.21
Hence, petitioners come to us via the instant Petition, submitting
the following arguments:
I
RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF ITS
JURISDICTION; and
II
COMELEC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
PREMISED ITS RESOLUTION ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS
AND FAILED TO CONSIDER CERTAIN RELEVANT FACTS THAT WOULD
JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. 22
On 4 May 2006, petitioners filed a Motion Reiterating Prayer for
Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and to Cite for Indirect
Contempt, 23 alleging that two separate Informations, both dated 12
January 2006, were filed with the RTC by the COMELEC against
petitioner Carlos S. Romualdez for violation of Section 10 (j), in relation
to Section 45 (j) of Republic Act No. 8189, in Criminal Case No. BN-06-03-
9184; and for violation of Section 10 (g), in relation to Section 45 (j)
of Republic Act No. 8189, in Criminal Case No. BN-06-03-9185. Similarly,
the Motion alleged that the COMELEC filed with the RTC, two separate
Informations, both dated 12 January 2006, against petitioner Erlinda R.
Romualdez, charging her with the same offenses as those charged
against petitioner Carlos S. Romualdez, and thereafter, docketed as
Criminal Case No. BN-06-03-9182, and No. BN-06-03-9183.
On 20 June 2006, this Court issued a Resolution 24 denying for lack
of merit petitioners' Motion Reiterating Prayer for Issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and to Cite for Indirect Contempt.
We shall now resolve, in seriatim, the arguments raised by
petitioners.
Petitioners contend that the election offenses for which they are
charged by private respondent are entirely different from those which
they stand to be accused of before the RTC by the COMELEC. According
to petitioners, private respondent's complaint charged them for allegedly
violating, to wit: 1) Section 261 (y) (2) and Section 261 (y) (5) of the
Omnibus Election Code, and 2) Section 12 of the Voter's Registration Act;
however, the COMELEC En Banc directed in the assailed Resolutions,
that they be charged for violations of Section 10 (g) and (j), in relation to
Section 45 (j) of the Voter's Registration Act. Essentially, petitioners are
of the view that they were not accorded due process of law. Specifically,
their right to refute or submit documentary evidence against the new
charges which COMELEC ordered to be filed against them. Moreover,
petitioners insist that Section 45 (j) of the Voter's Registration Act is
vague as it does not refer to a definite provision of the law, the violation
of which would constitute an election offense; hence, it runs contrary to
Section 14 (1) 25 and Section 14 (2), 26 Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
We are not persuaded.
First. The Complaint-Affidavit filed by private respondent with the
COMELEC is couched in a language which embraces the allegations
necessary to support the charge for violation of Section 10 (g) and (j), in
relation to Section 45 (j) of Republic Act No. 8189.
A reading of the relevant laws is in order, thus:
Section 10 (g) and Section 10 (j) of Republic Act No. 8189, provide as
follows:
SEC. 10. Registration of Voters. — A qualified voter shall be registered
in the permanent list of voters in a precinct of the city or municipality
wherein he resides to be able to vote in any election. To register as a
voter, he shall personally accomplish an application form for
registration as prescribed by the Commission in three (3) copies
before the Election Officer on any date during office hours after
having acquired the qualifications of a voter.
The application shall contain the following data:
xxx xxx xxx
(g) Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the place of
registration;
xxx xxx xxx
(j) A statement that the application is not a registered voter of any
precinct;
The application for registration shall contain three (3) specimen
signatures of the applicant, clear and legible rolled prints of his left
and right thumbprints, with four identification size copies of his
latest photograph, attached thereto, to be taken at the expense of
the Commission.
Before the applicant accomplishes his application for registration,
the Election Officer shall inform him of the qualifications and
disqualifications prescribed by law for a voter, and thereafter, see to
it that the accomplished application contains all the data therein
required and that the applicant's specimen signatures, fingerprints,
and photographs are properly affixed in all copies of the voter's
application.
Moreover, Section 45 (j) of the same Act, recites, thus:
SEC. 45. Election Offense. — The following shall be considered
election offenses under this Act:
xxx xxx xxx
(j) Violation of any of the provisions of this Act.
Significantly, the allegations in the Complaint-Affidavit which was
filed with the Law Department of the COMELEC, support the charge
directed by the COMELEC En Banc to be filed against petitioners with the
RTC. Even a mere perusal of the Complaint-Affidavit would readily show
that Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8189 was specifically mentioned
therein. On the matter of the acts covered by Section 10 (g) and (j), the
Complaint-Affidavit, spells out the following allegations, to wit:
5. Respondent-spouses made false and untruthful representations in
their applications (Annexes "B" and "C") in violation of the
requirements of Section 10, RA 8189 (The Voter's Registration
Act):
5.1 Respondent-spouses, in their sworn applications (Annexes
"B" and "C", claimed to be residents of 935 San Jose
[S]treet, Burauen, Leyte, when in truth and in fact, they
were and still are residents of 113 Mariposa Loop,
Mariposa [S]treet, Bagong Lipunan ng Crame, Quezon City
and registered voters of Barangay Bagong Lipunan ng
Crame, District IV, Quezon City, Precinct No. 4419-A, a
copy of the Certification issued by Hon. Emmanuel V.
Gozon, Punong Barangay, Bagong Lipunan ng Crame,
Quezon City is hereto attached and made an integral part
hereof, as Annex "D";
5.2 Respondent-spouses knowing fully well said truth,
intentionally and willfully, did not fill the blank spaces in
their applications (Annexes "B" and "C") corresponding to
the length of time they have resided in Burauen, Leyte;
6. Respondent-spouses, in (sic) all intents and purposes, were and
still are residents and registered voters of Quezon City, as
evidenced by Voter Registration Record Nos. 26195824 and
26195823, respectively; photocopies of which are hereto
attached as Annexes "E" and "F"[.] Likewise, attached is a
"Certification" (Annex "G") of Ms. Evelyn B. Bautista, Officer-in-
Charge of the Office of the Election Officer, Fourth District,
Quezon City, dated May 31, 2000, together with a certified copy
of the computer print-out of the list of voters of Precinct No.
4419-A (Annex "G-1") containing the names of voters Carlos
Romualdez and Erlinda Reyes Romualdez. The Certification
reads as follows:
"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that as per office record MR.
CARLOS ROMUALDEZ and MS. ERLINDA REYES
ROMUALDEZ are registered voters of Barangay Bagong
Lipunan ng Crame, District IV, Quezon City, Precinct
Number 4419A with voters affidavit serial nos. 26195824
and 26195823, respectively.
This certification is issued for whatever legal
purpose it may serve."
7. Respondent-spouses, registered as new voters of the Municipality
of Burauen, Leyte, [in spite of] the fact that they were and still
are, registered voters of Quezon City as early as June 22, 1997;
7.1 That, Double Registration is an election offense.
A person qualified as a voter is only allowed to register once.
If a person registers anew as a voter in spite of a subsisting
registration, the new application for registration will be
disapproved. The registrant is also liable not only for an
election offense of double registration, but also for
another election offense of knowingly making any false or
untruthful statement relative to any data or information
required in the application for registration.
In fact, when a person applies for registration as a voter, he or
she fills up a Voter Registration Record form in his or her
own handwriting, which contains a Certification which
reads:
"I do solemnly swear that the above statements regarding my
person are true and correct; that I possess all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications of a voter;
that the thumbprints, specimen signatures and
photographs appearing herein are mine; and that I am not
registered as a voter in any other precinct." 27
Petitioners cannot be said to have been denied due process on the
claim that the election offenses charged against them by private
respondent are entirely different from those for which they stand to be
accused of before the RTC, as charged by the COMELEC. In the first
place, there appears to be no incongruity between the charges as
contained in the Complaint-Affidavit and the Informations filed before
the RTC, notwithstanding the denomination by private respondent of the
alleged violations to be covered by Section 261 (y) (2) and Section 261
(y) (5) of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 12 of Republic Act No.
8189. Evidently, the Informations directed to be filed by the COMELEC
against petitioners, and which were, in fact, filed with the RTC, were
based on the same set of facts as originally alleged in the private
respondent's Complaint-Affidavit.
Petitioners buttress their claim of lack of due process by relying on
the case of Lacson v. Executive Secretary . 28 Citing Lacson,petitioners
argue that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined by the
actual recital of facts in the Complaint or Information; and that the
object of such written accusations was to furnish the accused with such
a description of the charge against him, as will enable him to make his
defense. Let it be said that, in Lacson, this court resolved the issue of
whether under the allegations in the subject Informations therein, it is
the Sandiganbayan or the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over
the multiple murder case against therein petitioner and intervenors.
In Lacson, we underscored the elementary rule that the jurisdiction of a
court is determined by the allegations in the Complaint or Information,
and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial. 29 Indeed,
in Lacson, we articulated that the real nature of the criminal charge is
determined not from the caption or preamble of the Information nor from
the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated,
they being conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the
Complaint or Information. 30
Petitioners' reliance on Lacson, however, does not support their
claim of lack of due process because, as we have said, the charges
contained in private respondent's Complaint-Affidavit and the charges as
directed by the COMELEC to be filed are based on the same set of facts.
In fact, the nature of the criminal charges in private respondent's
Complaint-Affidavit and that of the charges contained in the Informations
filed with the RTC, pursuant to the COMELEC Resolution En Banc are the
same, such that, petitioners cannot claim that they were not able to
refute or submit documentary evidence against the charges that the
COMELEC filed with the RTC. Petitioners were afforded due process
because they were granted the opportunity to refute the allegations in
private respondent's Complaint-Affidavit. On 2 April 2001, in opposition
to the Complaint-Affidavit, petitioners filed a Joint Counter-Affidavit with
Motion to Dismiss with the Law Department of the COMELEC. They
similarly filed a Memorandum before the said body. Finding that due
process was not dispensed with under the circumstances in the case at
bar, we agree with the stance of the Office of the Solicitor General that
petitioners were reasonably apprised of the nature and description of the
charges against them. It likewise bears stressing that preliminary
investigations were conducted whereby petitioners were informed of the
complaint and of the evidence submitted against them. They were given
the opportunity to adduce controverting evidence for their defense. In all
these stages, petitioners actively participated.
The instant case calls to our minds Orquinaza v. People, 31 wherein
the concerned police officer therein designated the offense charged as
sexual harassment; but, the prosecutor found that there was no
transgression of the anti-sexual harassment law, and instead, filed an
Information charging therein petitioner with acts of lasciviousness. On a
claim that there was deprivation of due process, therein petitioner
argued that the Information for acts of lasciviousness was void as the
preliminary investigation conducted was for sexual harassment. The
court held that the designation by the police officer of the offense is not
conclusive as it is within the competence of the prosecutor to assess
the evidence submitted and determine therefrom the appropriate offense
to be charged.
Accordingly, the court pronounced that the complaint contained all
the allegations to support the charge of acts of lasciviousness under the
Revised Penal Code; hence, the conduct of another preliminary
investigation for the offense of acts of lasciviousness would be a futile
exercise because the complainant would only be presenting the same
facts and evidence which have already been studied by the
prosecutor. 32 The court frowns upon such superfluity which only serves
to delay the prosecution and disposition of the criminal complaint. 33
Second. Petitioners would have this court declare Section 45 (j)
of Republic Act No. 8189 vague, on the ground that it contravenes the fair
notice requirement of the 1987 Constitution, in particular, Section 14 (1)
and Section 14 (2), Article III of thereof. Petitioners submit that Section
45 (j) of Republic Act No. 8189 makes no reference to a definite provision
of the law, the violation of which would constitute an election offense.
We are not convinced.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application. 34 However, this Court has imposed certain
limitations by which a criminal statute, as in the challenged law at bar,
may be scrutinized. This Court has declared that facial invalidation 35 or
an "on-its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes is not appropriate. 36 We
have so enunciated in no uncertain terms in Romualdez v.
Sandiganbayan, 37 thus:
In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness
are analytical tools developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in
free speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First
Amendment cases. They cannot be made to do service when what is
involved is a criminal statute. With respect to such statute, the
established rule is that 'one to whom application of a statute is
constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground
that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or
other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional.'
As has been pointed out, 'vagueness challenges in the First
Amendment context, like overbreadth challenges typically produce
facial invalidation, while statutes found vague as a matter of due
process typically are invalidated [only] 'as applied' to a particular
defendant.'" (underscoring supplied)
"To this date, the Court has not declared any penal law
unconstitutional on the ground of ambiguity." While mentioned in
passing in some cases, the void-for-vagueness concept has yet to
find direct application in our jurisdiction. In Yu Cong Eng v.
Trinidad, the Bookkeeping Act was found unconstitutional because it
violated the equal protection clause, not because it was
vague. Adiong v. Comelec decreed as void a mere Comelec
Resolution, not a statute. Finally, Santiago v. Comelec held that a
portion of RA 6735 was unconstitutional because of undue delegation
of legislative powers, not because of vagueness.
Indeed, an "on-its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes would result
in a mass acquittal of parties whose cases may not have even
reached the courts. Such invalidation would constitute a departure
from the usual requirement of "actual case and controversy" and
permit decisions to be made in a sterile abstract context having no
factual concreteness. In Younger v. Harris, this evil was aptly pointed
out by the U.S. Supreme Court in these words:
"[T]he task of analyzing a proposed statute, pinpointing its
deficiencies, and requiring correction of these deficiencies before
the statute is put into effect, is rarely if ever an appropriate task for
the judiciary. The combination of the relative remoteness of the
controversy, the impact on the legislative process of the relief
sought, and above all the speculative and amorphous nature of the
required line-by-line analysis of detailed statutes, . . . ordinarily
results in a kind of case that is wholly unsatisfactory for deciding
constitutional questions, whichever way they might be decided."
For this reason, generally disfavored is an on-its-face invalidation of
statutes, described as a "manifestly strong medicine" to be employed
"sparingly and only as a last resort." In determining the
constitutionality of a statute, therefore, its provisions that have
allegedly been violated must be examined in the light of the conduct
with which the defendant has been charged. (Emphasis supplied.)
At the outset, we declare that under these terms, the opinions of
the dissent which seek to bring to the fore the purported ambiguities of a
long list of provisions in Republic Act No. 8189 can be deemed as a facial
challenge. An appropriate "as applied" challenge in the instant Petition
should be limited only to Section 45 (j) in relation to Sections 10 (g) and
(j) of Republic Act No. 8189 — the provisions upon which petitioners are
charged. An expanded examination of the law covering provisions which
are alien to petitioners' case would be antagonistic to the rudiment that
for judicial review to be exercised, there must be an existing case or
controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, and not
conjectural or anticipatory.
We further quote the relevant ruling in David v. Arroyo on the
proscription anent a facial challenge: 38
Moreover, the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testing the
validity of a law that "reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining
comprehensive control over harmful, constitutionally unprotected
conduct." Undoubtedly, lawless violence, insurrection and rebellion
are considered "harmful" and "constitutionally unprotected conduct."
In Broadrick v. Oklahoma, it was held:
It remains a matter of no little difficulty to determine when a law may
properly be held void on its face and when such summary action is
inappropriate. But the plain import of our cases is, at the very least,
that facial overbreadth adjudication is an exception to our traditional
rules of practice and that its function, a limited one at the outset,
attenuates as the otherwise unprotected behavior that it forbids the
State to sanction moves from pure speech toward conduct and that
conduct even if expressive falls within the scope of otherwise valid
criminal laws that reflect legitimate state interests in maintaining
comprehensive controls over harmful, constitutionally unprotected
conduct.
Thus, claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involving
statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only "spoken words"
and again, that "overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been
curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are
sought to be applied to protected conduct." Here, the incontrovertible
fact remains that PP 1017 pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not free
speech, which is manifestly subject to state regulation.
Second, facial invalidation of laws is considered as "manifestly
strong medicine", to be used "sparingly and only as a last resort",
and is "generally disfavored"; The reason for this is obvious.
Embedded in the traditional rules governing constitutional
adjudication is the principle that a person to whom a law may be
applied will not be heard to challenge a law on the ground that it may
conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, i.e., in other
situations not before the Court. A writer and scholar in Constitutional
Law explains further:
The most distinctive feature of the overbreadth technique is that it
marks an exception to some of the usual rules of constitutional
litigation. Ordinarily, a particular litigant claims that a statute is
unconstitutional as applied to him or her; if the litigant prevails, the
courts carve away the unconstitutional aspects of the law by
invalidating its improper applications on a case to case basis.
Moreover, challengers to a law are not permitted to raise the rights of
third parties and can only assert their own interests. In overbreadth
analysis, those rules give way; challenges are permitted to raise the
rights of third parties; and the court invalidates the entire statute "on
its face", not merely "as applied for" so that the overbroad law
becomes unenforceable until a properly authorized court construes it
more narrowly. The factor that motivates courts to depart from the
normal adjudicatory rules is the concern with the "chilling"; deterrent
effect of the overbroad statute on third parties not courageous
enough to bring suit. The Court assumes that an overbroad laws "very
existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or expression." An overbreadth
ruling is designed to remove that deterrent effect on the speech of
those third parties.
In other words, a facial challenge using the overbreadth doctrine will
require the Court to examine PP 1017 and pinpoint its flaws and
defects, not on the basis of its actual operation to petitioners, but on
the assumption or prediction that its very existence may
cause others not before the Court to refrain from constitutionally
protected speech or expression.
xxx xxx xxx
And third, a facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth is the most
difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must
establish that there can be no instance when the assailed law may
be valid. Here, petitioners did not even attempt to show whether this
situation exists.
Petitioners likewise seek a facial review of PP 1017 on the ground of
vagueness. This, too, is unwarranted.
Related to the "overbreadth" doctrine is the "void for vagueness
doctrine" which holds that "a law is facially invalid if men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application." It is subject to the same principles governing
overbreadth doctrine. For one, it is also an analytical tool for testing
"on their faces" statutes in free speech cases. And like overbreadth,
it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it
is vague in all its possible applications.
Be that as it may, the test in determining whether a criminal statute
is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently
definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by
common understanding and practice. 39 This Court has similarly stressed
that the vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of
certainty for the statute to be upheld — not absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude. 40
As structured, Section 45 41 of Republic Act No. 8189 makes a
recital of election offenses under the same Act. Section 45 (j) is, without
doubt, crystal in its specification that a violation of any of the provisions
of Republic Act No. 8189 is an election offense. The language of Section
45 (j) is precise. The challenged provision renders itself to no other
interpretation. A reading of the challenged provision involves no
guesswork. We do not see herein an uncertainty that makes the same
vague.
Notably, herein petitioners do not cite a word in the challenged
provision, the import or meaning of which they do not understand. This is
in stark contrast to the case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 42 where
therein petitioner sought for statutory definition of particular words in
the challenged statute. Even then, the Court in Estrada rejected the
argument.
This Court reasoned:
The rationalization seems to us to be pure sophistry. A statute is not
rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used
therein, or because of the employment of terms without defining
them; much less do we have to define every word we use. Besides,
there is no positive constitutional or statutory command requiring
the legislature to define each and every word in an
enactment. Congress is not restricted in the form of expression of its
will, and its inability to so define the words employed in a statute will
not necessarily result in the vagueness or ambiguity of the law so
long as the legislative will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from
the whole act, which is distinctly expressed in the Plunder Law."
Moreover, it is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that
words of a statute will be interpreted in their natural, plain and
ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it is evident that the
legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those
words. The intention of the lawmakers who are, ordinarily, untrained
philologists and lexicographers to use statutory phraseology in such
a manner is always presumed.
Perforce, this Court has underlined that an act will not be held
invalid merely because it might have been more explicit in its wordings
or detailed in its provisions, especially where, because of the nature of
the act, it would be impossible to provide all the details in advance as in
all other statutes. 43
The evident intent of the legislature in including in the catena of
election offenses the violation of any of the provisions ofRepublic Act No.
8189, is to subsume as punishable, not only the commission of
proscribed acts, but also the omission of acts enjoined to be observed.
On this score, the declared policy of Republic Act No. 8189 is
illuminating. The law articulates the policy of the State to systematize
the present method of registration in order to establish a clean,
complete, permanent and updated list of voters. A reading of Section 45
(j) conjointly with the provisions upon which petitioners are
charged, i.e., Sections 10 (g) and (j) would reveal that the matters that
are required to be set forth under the aforesaid sections are crucial to
the achievement of a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of
voters. The factual information required by the law is sought not for mere
embellishment.
There is a definitive governmental purpose when the law requires
that such facts should be set forth in the application. The periods of
residence in the Philippines and in the place of registration delve into
the matter of residency, a requisite which a voter must satisfy to be
deemed a qualified voter and registered in the permanent list of voters in
a precinct of the city or municipality wherein he resides. Of even
rationality exists in the case of the requirement in Section 10 (j),
mandating that the applicant should state that he/she is not a registered
voter of any precinct. Multiple voting by so-called flying voters are
glaring anomalies which this country strives to defeat. The requirement
that such facts as required by Section 10 (g) and Section 10 (j) be stated
in the voter's application form for registration is directly relevant to the
right of suffrage, which the State has the right to regulate.
It is the opportune time to allude to the case of People v.
Gatchalian 44 where the therein assailed law contains a similar provision
as herein assailed before us. Republic Act No. 602 also penalizes any
person who willfully violates any of the provisions of the Act. The Court
dismissed the challenged, and declared the provision constitutional. The
Court in Gatchalian read the challenged provision, "any of the provisions
of this [A]ct" conjointly with Section 3 thereof which was the pertinent
portion of the law upon which therein accused was
prosecuted. Gatchalian considered the terms as all-embracing; hence,
the same must include what is enjoined in Section 3 thereof which
embodies the very fundamental purpose for which the law has been
adopted. This Court ruled that the law by legislative fiat intends to
punish not only those expressly declared unlawful but even those not so
declared but are clearly enjoined to be observed to carry out the
fundamental purpose of the law. 45 Gatchalian remains good law, and
stands unchallenged.
It also does not escape the mind of this Court that the phraseology
in Section 45 (j) is employed by Congress in a number of our
laws. 46 These provisions have not been declared unconstitutional.
Moreover, every statute has in its favor the presumption of
validity. 47 To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful,
speculative or argumentative. 48 We hold that petitioners failed to
overcome the heavy presumption in favor of the law. Its constitutionality
must be upheld in the absence of substantial grounds for overthrowing
the same.
A salient point. Courts will refrain from touching upon the issue of
constitutionality unless it is truly unavoidable and is the very lis mota. In
the case at bar, the lis mota is the alleged grave abuse of discretion of
the COMELEC in finding probable cause for the filing of criminal charges
against petitioners.
Third. Petitioners maintain that the COMELEC En Banc, premised its
finding on a misapprehension of facts, and committed grave abuse of
discretion in directing the filing of Informations against them with the
RTC.
We are once again unimpressed.
The constitutional grant of prosecutorial power in the COMELEC
finds statutory expression under Section 265 49 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code. 50 The task of the
COMELEC whenever any election offense charge is filed before it is to
conduct the preliminary investigation of the case, and make a
determination of probable cause. Under Section 8 (b), Rule 34 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the investigating officer makes a
determination of whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that a
crime has been committed. 51 In Baytan v. COMELEC, 52 this Court,
sufficiently elucidated on the matter of probable cause in the
prosecution of election offenses, viz.:
It is also well-settled that the finding of probable cause in the
prosecution of election offenses rests in the COMELEC's sound
discretion. The COMELEC exercises the constitutional authority to
investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases for violation of
election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election
frauds, offense and malpractices. Generally, the Court will not
interfere with such finding of the COMELEC absent a clear showing
of grave abuse of discretion. This principle emanates from the
COMELEC's exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of
all election offenses punishable under the election laws and to
prosecute the same, except as may otherwise be provided by law. 53
It is succinct that courts will not substitute the finding of probable
cause by the COMELEC in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. The
abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or
hostility. 54
According to the COMELEC En Banc, the investigating officer, in the
case at bar, held that there was sufficient cause for the filing of criminal
charges against petitioners, and found no reason to depart therefrom.
Without question, on May 9 and 11 of 2001, petitioners applied for
registration as new voters with the Office of the Election Officer of
Burauen, Leyte, notwithstanding the existence of petitioners'
registration records as registered voters of Precinct No. 4419-A of
Barangay Bagong Lipunan ng Crame, District IV, Quezon City. The
directive by the COMELEC which affirmed the Resolution 55 of 28
November 2000 of Investigating Officer Atty. Tangaro-Casingal does not
appear to be wanting in factual basis, such that a reasonably prudent
man would conclude that there exists probable cause to hold petitioners
for trial. Thus, in the aforesaid Resolution, the Investigating Officer,
found:
A violation therefore of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8189 is an
election offense.
In the instant case, when respondents Carlos Romualdez and Erlinda
Romualdez filed their respective applications for registration as new
voters with the Office of the Election Officer of Burauen, Leyte on
May 9 and 11, 2001, respectively, they stated under oath that they are
not registered voters in other precinct (VRR Nos. 42454095 and
07902941). However, contrary to their statements, records show they
are still registered voters of Precinct No. 4419-A, barangay Bagong
Lipunan ng Crame, District IV, Quezon City, as per VRR Nos. 26195825
and 26195823. In other words, respondents' registration records in
Quezon City is (sic) still in existence.
While it may be true that respondents had written the City Election
Officer of District IV, Quezon City for cancellation of their voter's
registration record as voter's (sic) therein, they cannot presume that
the same will be favorably acted upon. Besides, RA 8189 provides for
the procedure in cases of transfer of residence to another
city/municipality which must be complied with, to wit:
"Section 12. Change of Residence to Another City or Municipality. —
Any registered voter who has transferred residence to another city or
municipality may apply with the Election Officer of his new residence
for the transfer of his registration records.
The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to the
requirements of notice and hearing and the approval of the Election
Registration Board, in accordance with this Act. Upon approval, of the
application for transfer, and after notice of such approval to the
Election Officer of their former residence of the voter, said Election
Officer shall transmit by registered mail the voter's registration
record to the Election Officer of the voter's new residence."
They cannot claim ignorance of the abovestated provision on the
procedure for transfer of registration records by reason of transferred
new residence to another municipality. Based on the affidavit
executed by one Eufemia S. Cotoner, she alleged that the refusal of
the Assistant Election Officer Ms. Estrella Perez to accept the letter
of respondents was due to improper procedure because respondents
should have filed the required request for transfer with the Election
Officer of Burauen, Leyte. Despite this knowledge, however, they
proceeded to register as new voters of Burauen, Leyte,
notwithstanding the existence of their previous registrations in
Quezon City.
In their subsequent affidavit of Transfer of Voters Registration under
Section 12 of Republic Act 8189, respondents admitted thatthey
erroneously filed an application as a new voter (sic) with the office of
the Election Officer of Burauen, Leyte, by reason of an honest
mistake, which they now desire to correct. (underscoring ours).
Respondents lose sight of the fact that a statutory offense, such as
violation of election law, is mala prohibita. Proof of criminal intent is
not necessary. Good faith, ignorance or lack of malice is beside the
point. Commission of the act is sufficient. It is the act itself that is
punished.
xxx xxx xxx
In view of the foregoing, the Law Department respectfully
submits that there is probable cause to hold respondents Carlos
Romualdez and Erlinda Romualdez for trial in violation of Section
10(g) and (j) in relation to Section 45(j) of Republic Act No. 8189.
There is no doubt that they applied for registration as new voters of
Burauen, Leyte consciously, freely and voluntarily. 56
We take occasion to reiterate that the Constitution grants to the
COMELEC the power to prosecute cases or violations of election laws.
Article IX (C), Section 2 (6) of the 1987 Constitution, provides:
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in
court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and where
appropriate, prosecute cases or violations of election laws, including
acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and
malpractices.
This power to prosecute necessarily involves the power to
determine who shall be prosecuted, and the corollary right to decide
whom not to prosecute. 57 Evidently, must this power to prosecute also
include the right to determine under which laws prosecution will be
pursued. The courts cannot dictate the prosecution nor usurp its
discretionary powers. As a rule, courts cannot interfere with the
prosecutor's discretion and control of the criminal prosecution. 58 Its
rationale cannot be doubted. For the business of a court of justice is to
be an impartial tribunal, and not to get involved with the success or
failure of the prosecution to prosecute. 59 Every now and then, the
prosecution may err in the selection of its strategies, but such errors are
not for neutral courts to rectify, any more than courts should correct the
blunders of the defense. 60
Fourth. In People v. Delgado, 61 this Court said that when the
COMELEC, through its duly authorized law officer, conducts the
preliminary investigation of an election offense and upon a prima
facie finding of a probable cause, files the Information in the proper
court, said court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case.
Consequently, all the subsequent disposition of said case must be
subject to the approval of the court. The records show that Informations
charging petitioners with violation of Section 10 (g) and (j), in relation to
Section 45 (j) of Republic Act No. 8189 had been filed with the RTC. The
case must, thus, be allowed to take its due course.
It may be recalled that petitioners prayed for the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before this
Court to restrain the COMELEC from executing its Resolutions of 11 June
2004 and 27 January 2005. In a Resolution dated 20 June 2006, this
Court En Banc denied for lack of merit petitioners' Motion Reiterating
Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and to Cite for
Indirect Contempt. Logically, the normal course of trial is expected to
have continued in the proceedings a quo.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions,
dated 11 June 2004 and 27 January 2005 of the COMELEC En Banc are
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., joins the dissent of J. Tinga.
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Azcuna, Velasco, Jr., Reyes,
Leonardo-de Castro and Brion, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales and Nachura, JJ., join Justices
Tinga and Carpio in their dissenting opinions.
Corona, J., is on leave, (I certify that J. Corona voted in favor of the
majority opinion - RSP).
Carpio, J., see dissenting opinion.
Tinga, J., please see dissenting opinion.
Separate Opinions
TINGA, J., dissenting opinion:
SYLLABUS
DECISION
REGALADO, J : p
This case is posed as one of first impression in the sense that it involves
the public utility services of the petitioner Philippine Communications
Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT, for short) which is the only one
rendering such services in the Philippines. cdrep
The petition before us seeks to annul and set aside an Order 1 issued by
respondent Commissioner Jose Luis Alcuaz of the National
Telecommunications Commission (hereafter, NTC), dated September 2,
1988, which directs the provisional reduction of the rates which may be
charged by petitioner for certain specified lines of its services by fifteen
percent (15%) with the reservation to make further reductions later, for
being violative of the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of
legislative power and a denial of procedural, as well as substantive, due
process of law. llcd
Since 1968, the petitioner has been leasing its satellite circuits to:
1. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company;
2. Philippine Global Communications, Inc.;
3. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc.;
4. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. ITT; and
5. Capitol Wireless, Inc.
or their predecessors-in-interest. The satellite services thus provided by
petitioner enable said international carriers to serve the public with
indispensable communication services, such as overseas telephone,
telex, facsimile, telegrams, high speed data, live television in full color,
and television standard conversion from European to American or vice
versa.
Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5514, petitioner was exempt from the
jurisdiction of the then Public Service Commission, now respondent NTC.
However, pursuant to Executive Order No. 196 issued on June 17, 1987,
petitioner was placed under the jurisdiction, control and regulation of
respondent NTC, including all its facilities and services and the fixing of
rates. Implementing said Executive Order No. 196, respondents required
petitioner to apply for the requisite certificate of public convenience and
necessity covering its facilities and the services it renders, as well as the
corresponding authority to charge rates therefor. prcd
Respondents admit that the application of a policy like the fixing of rates
as exercised by administrative bodies is quasi-judicial rather than quasi-
legislative: that where the function of the administrative agency is
legislative, notice and hearing are not required, but where an order applies
to a named person, as in the instant case, the function involved is
adjudicatory. 8 Nonetheless, they insist that under the facts obtaining the
order in question need not be preceded by a hearing, not because it was
issued pursuant to respondent NTC's legislative function but because the
assailed order is merely interlocutory, it being an incident in the ongoing
proceedings on petitioner's application for a certificate of public
convenience; and that petitioner is not the only primary source of data or
information since respondent is currently engaged in a continuing review of
the rates charged.
We find merit in petitioner's contention.
In Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission , 9 we made a
categorical classification as to when the rate-fixing power of
administrative bodies is quasi-judicial and when it is legislative, thus:
"Moreover, although the rule-making power end even the power to fix
rates — when such rules and/or rates are meant to apply to all
enterprises of a given kind throughout the Philippines — may partake
of a legislative character, such is not the nature of the order
complained of. Indeed, the same applies exclusively to petitioner
herein. What is more, it is predicated upon the finding of fact — based
upon a report submitted by the General Auditing Office — that
petitioner is making a profit of more than 12% of its invested capital,
which is denied by petitioner. Obviously, the latter is entitled to
cross-examine the maker of said report, and to introduce evidence to
disprove the contents thereof and/or explain or complement the
same, as well as to refute the conclusion drawn therefrom by the
respondent. In other words, in making said finding of fact, respondent
performed a function partaking of a quasi-judicial character, the valid
exercise of which demands previous notice and hearing."
This rule was further explained in the subsequent case of The Central Bank
of the Philippines vs. Cloribel, et al. 10 to wit:
"It is also clear from the authorities that where the function of the
administrative body is legislative, notice of hearing is not required by
due process of law (See Oppenheimer, Administrative Law, 2 Md. L.R.
185, 204, supra, where it is said: 'If the nature of the administrative
agency is essentially legislative, the requirements of notice and
hearing are not necessary. The validity of a rule of future action
which affects a group, if vested rights of liberty or property are not
involved, is not determined according to the same rules which apply
in the case of the direct application of a policy to a specific
individual') . . . It is said in 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and
Procedure, sec. 130, pages 452 and 453: 'Aside from statute, the
necessity of notice and hearing in an administrative proceeding
depends on the character of the proceeding and the circumstances
involved. In so far as generalization is possible in view of the great
variety of administrative proceedings, it may be stated as a general
rule that notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of
administrative action where the administrative body acts in the
exercise of executive, administrative, or legislative functions; but
where a public administrative body acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial
matter, and its acts are particular and immediate rather than general
and prospective, the person whose rights or property may be affected
by the action is entitled to notice and hearing." 11
There is no reason to assume that the aforesaid provision does not apply to
respondent NTC, there being no limiting, excepting, or saving provisions to
the contrary in Executive Orders Nos. 546 and 196.
It is thus clear that with regard to rate-fixing, respondent has no authority
to make such order without first giving petitioner a hearing, whether the
order be temporary or permanent, and it is immaterial whether the same is
made upon a complaint, a summary investigation, or upon the commission's
own motion as in the present case. That such a hearing is required is
evident in respondents' order of September 16, 1987 in NTC Case No. 8794
which granted PHILCOMSAT a provisional authority "to continue operating
its existing facilities, to render the services it presently offers, and to
charge the rates as reduced by them" under the condition that "(s)ubject to
hearing and the final consideration of the merit of this application, the
Commission may modify, revise or amend the rates . . .." 12
While it may be true that for purposes of rate-fixing respondents may have
other sources of information or data, still, since a hearing is essential,
respondent NTC should act solely on the basis of the evidence before it and
not on knowledge or information otherwise acquired by it but which is not
offered in evidence or, even if so adduced, petitioner was given no
opportunity to controvert.
Again, the order requires the new reduced rates to be made effective on a
specified date. It becomes a final legislative act as to the period during
which it has to remain in force pending the final determination of the
case. 13 An order of respondent NTC prescribing reduced rates, even for a
temporary period, could be unjust, unreasonable or even confiscatory,
especially if the rates are unreasonably low, since the utility permanently
loses its just revenue during the prescribed period. In fact, such order is in
effect final insofar as the revenue during the period covered by the order is
concerned. Upon a showing, therefore, that the order requiring a reduced
rate is confiscatory, and will unduly deprive petitioner of a reasonable
return upon its property, a declaration of its nullity becomes inductible,
which brings us to the issue on substantive due process.
III. Petitioner contends that the rate reduction is confiscatory in that its
implementation would virtually result in a cessation of its operations and
eventual closure of business. On the other hand, respondents assert that
since petitioner is operating its communications satellite facilities through
a legislative franchise, as such grantee it has no vested right therein. What
it has is merely a privilege or license which may be revoked at will by the
State at any time without necessarily violating any vested property right of
herein petitioner. While petitioner concedes this thesis of respondent, it
counters that the withdrawal of such privilege should nevertheless be
neither whimsical nor arbitrary, but it must be fair and reasonable.
There is no question that petitioner is a mere grantee of a legislative
franchise which is subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by Congress
when the common good so requires. 14 Apparently, therefore, such grant
cannot be unilaterally revoked absent a showing that the termination of the
operation of said utility is required by the common good.
The rule is that the power of the State to regulate the conduct and
business of public utilities is limited by the consideration that it is not the
owner of the property of the utility, or clothed with the general power of
management incident to ownership, since the private right of ownership to
such property remains and is not to be destroyed by the regulatory power.
The power to regulate is not the power to destroy useful and harmless
enterprises, but is the power to protect, foster, promote, preserve, and
control with due regard for the interest, first and foremost, of the public,
then of the utility and of its patrons. Any regulation, therefore, which
operates as an effective confiscation of private property or constitutes an
arbitrary or unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because it
is repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process and equal
protection of the laws. 15
Hence, the inherent power and authority of the State, or its authorized
agent, to regulate the rates charged by public utilities should be subject
always to the requirement that the rates so fixed shall be reasonable and
just. A commission has no power to fix rates which are unreasonable or to
regulate them arbitrarily. This basic requirement of reasonableness
comprehends such rates which must not be so low as to be confiscatory, or
too high as to be oppressive. 16
What is a just and reasonable rate is not a question of formula but of sound
business judgment based upon the evidence; 17 it is a question of fact
calling for the exercise of discretion, good sense, and a fair, enlightened
and independent judgment 18 In determining whether a rate is confiscatory,
it is essential also to consider the given situation, requirements and
opportunities of the utility. A method often employed in determining
reasonableness is the fair return upon the value of the property to the
public utility. Competition is also a very important factor in determining the
reasonableness of rates since a carrier is allowed to make such rates as
are necessary to meet competition. 19
A cursory perusal of the assailed order reveals that the rate reduction is
solely and primarily based on the initial evaluation made on the financial
statements of petitioner, contrary to respondent NTC's allegation that it
has several other sources of information without, however, divulging such
sources. Furthermore, it did not as much as make an attempt to elaborate
on how it arrived at the prescribed rates. It just perfunctorily declared that
based on the financial statements, there is merit for a rate reduction
without any elucidation on what implications and conclusions were
necessarily inferred by it from said statements. Nor did it deign to explain
how the data reflected in the financial statements influenced its decision
to impose a rate reduction.
On the other hand, petitioner may likely suffer a severe drawback, with the
consequent detriment to the public service, should the order of respondent
NTC turn out to be unreasonable and improvident. The business in which
petitioner is engaged is unique in that its machinery and equipment have
always to be taken in relation to the equipment on the other end of the
transmission arrangement. Any lack, aging, acquisition, rehabilitation, or
refurbishment of machinery and equipment necessarily entails a major
adjustment or innovation on the business of petitioner. As pointed out by
petitioner, any change in the sending end abroad has to be matched with
the corresponding change in the receiving end in the Philippines.
conversely, any change in the receiving end abroad has to be matched with
the corresponding change in the sending end in the Philippines. An inability
on the part of petitioner to meet the variegations demanded by technology
could result in a deterioration or total failure of the service of satellite
communications. cdll
SYLLABUS
DECISION
LAUREL, J :p
(Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. 46496, [February 27,
|||
SYLLABUS
DECISION
ROMERO, J : p
On March 5, 1991, petitioner Bernas wrote Dean del Castillo that, "in cases
where the Disciplinary Board is not prepared to impose the penalty of
dismissal, I would prefer that the Board leave the decision on the penalty to
the Administration so that this case be decided not just on the Law School
level but also on the University level." 10
In a resolution dated March 9, 1991, the Board found respondent students
guilty of violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline
which prohibits participation in hazing activities. The Board found that
respondent students acted as master auxiliaries or "auxies" during the
initiation rites of Aquila Legis, and exercised the "auxies privilege," which
allows them to participate in the physical hazing. Although respondent
students claim that they were there to assist and attend to the needs of the
neophytes, actually they were assigned a definite supportive role to play in
the organized activity. Their guilt was heightened by the fact that they
made no effort to prevent the infliction of further physical punishment on
the neophytes under their care. The Board considered respondent students
part and parcel of the integral process of hazing. In conclusion, the Board
pronounced respondents guilty of hazing, either by active participation or
through acquiescence. However, in view of the lack of unanimity among the
members of the Board on the penalty of dismissal, the Board left the
imposition of the penalty to the University Administration. 11 Petitioner
Dean del Castillo waived her prerogative to review the decision of the
Board and left to the President of the University the decision of whether to
expel respondent students or not.
Consequently, in a resolution dated March 10, 1991, petitioner Fr. Joaquin G.
Bernas, as President of the Ateneo de Manila University, accepted the
factual findings of the Board, thus: "that as Master Auxiliaries they
exercised the 'auxie's privilege;' that even assuming that they did not lay
hands on the neophytes," respondent students are still guilty in accordance
with the principle that "where two or more persons act together in the
commission of a crime, whether they act through the physical volition of
one or of all, proceeding severally or collectively, each individual whose
will contributes to the wrongdoing is responsible for the whole." Fr. Bernas,
in describing the offense which led to the death of Leonardo Villa,
concluded that the "offense of the respondents can be characterized as
grave and serious, subversive of the goals of Christian education and
contrary to civilized behavior." Accordingly, he imposed the penalty of
dismissal on all respondent students. 12
We grant the petition and reverse the order of respondent judge ordering
readmission of respondent students. Respondent judge committed grave
abuse of discretion when he ruled that respondent students had been
denied due process in the investigation of the charges against them.
It is the threshold argument of respondent students that the decision of
petitioner Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S. J., then President of the Ateneo de Manila
University, to expel them was arrived at without affording them their right
to procedural due process. We are constrained to disagree as we find no
indication that such right has been violated. On the contrary, respondent
students' rights in a school disciplinary proceeding, as enunciated in the
cases of Guzman v. National University, 22 Alcuaz v PSBA, Q.C.
Branch 23 and Non v. Dames II 24 have been meticulously respected by
petitioners in the various investigative proceedings held before they were
expelled.
Corollary to their contention of denial of due process is their argument that
it is the Ang Tibay case 25 and not the Guzman case which is applicable in
the case at bar. Though both cases essentially deal with the requirements
of due process, the Guzman case is moreapropos to the instant case, since
the latter deals specifically with the minimum standards to be satisfied in
the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions, such as
petitioner university herein, thus:
"(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause
of any accusation against them; (2) that they shall have the right to
answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if
desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4)
they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear
and decide the case." 26
It cannot seriously be asserted that the above requirements were not met.
When, in view of the death of Leonardo Villa, petitioner Cynthia del Castillo,
as Dean of the Ateneo Law School, notified and required respondent
students on February 11, 1991 to submit within twenty-four hours their
written statement on the incident, 27 the records show that instead of filing
a reply, respondent students requested through their counsel, copies of the
charges. 28 While some of the students mentioned in the February 11, 1991
notice duly submitted written statements, the others failed to do so. Thus,
the latter were granted an extension of up to February 18, 1991 to file their
statements. 29
Indubitably, the nature and cause of the accusation were adequately
spelled out in petitioners' notices dated February 14 and 20, 1991. 30 It is to
be noted that the February 20, 1991 letter which quoted Rule No. 3 of its
Rules of Discipline as contained in the Ateneo Law School Catalogue was
addressed individually to respondent students. Petitioners' notices/letters
dated February 11, February 14 and 20 clearly show that respondent
students were given ample opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf
and to answer the charges leveled against them.
The requisite assistance of counsel was met when, from the very start of
the investigations before the Joint Administration-Faculty-Student
Committee, the law firm of Gonzales Batiller and Bilog and Associates put
in its appearance and filed pleadings in behalf of respondent students.
Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not
accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written statements which
became the basis of petitioners' February 14, 1991 order, they were denied
procedural due process. 31 Granting that they were denied such
opportunity, the same may not be said to detract from the observance of
due process, for disciplinary cases involving students need not necessarily
include the right to cross examination. An administrative proceeding
conducted to investigate students' participation in a hazing activity need
not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. A closer
examination of the March 2, 1991 hearing which characterized the rules on
the investigation as being summary in nature and that respondent students
have no right to examine affiants-neophytes, reveals that this is but a
reiteration of our previous ruling in Alcuaz. 32
Respondent students' contention that the investigating committee failed to
consider their evidence is far from the truth because the February 14, 1992
order clearly states that it was reached only after receiving the written
statements and hearing the testimonies of several witnesses. 33 Similarly,
the Disciplinary Board's resolution dated March 10, 1991 was preceded by a
hearing on March 2, 1991 wherein respondent students were summoned to
answer clarificatory questions. prcd
Socrates, the "first of the great moralists of Greece," proud to claim the
title "gadfly of the State," has deservedly earned for himself a respected
place in the annals of history as a martyr to the cause of free intellectual
inquiry. To Plato, this great teacher of his was the "best, the most sensible,
and the most just man of his age." In 399 B.C., he willingly quaffed the
goblet of hemlock as punishment for alleged "corruption" of the youth of
Athens. He describes in his own words how this charge of "corruption," the
forerunner of the concept of academic freedom, came about:
"Young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, come
about me of their own accord: they like to hear the pretenders
examined, and they often imitate me, and examine others
themselves; there are plenty of persons, as they soon discover, who
think that they know something, but really know little or nothing; and
then those who are examined by them, instead of being angry with
themselves are angry with me. This confounded Socrates, they say;
this villainous misleader of youth. And then if somebody asks them,
Why, what evil does he practice or teach? they do not know, and
cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they
repeat the ready-made charges which are used against all
philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the
earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the better
cause; for they do not like to confess that their pretense of
knowledge has been detected — which is the truth; and as they are
numerous and ambitious and energetic, and are all in battle array and
have persuasive tongues, they have filled your ears with their loud
and inveterate calumnies." 38
Quite applicable to this case is our pronouncement in Yap Chin Fah v. Court
of Appeals that: "The maintenance of a morally conducive and orderly
educational environment will be seriously imperilled if, under the
circumstances of this case, Grace Christian is forced to admit petitioner's
children and to reintegrate them to the student body." 46 Thus, the decision
of petitioner university to expel them is but congruent with the gravity of
their misdeeds. That there must be such a congruence between the offense
committed and the sanction imposed was stressed in Malabanan v.
Ramento. 47
Having carefully reviewed the records and the procedure followed by
petitioner university, we see no reason to reverse its decision founded on
the following undisputed facts: that on February 8, 9 and 10, 1991, the
Aquila Legis Fraternity conducted hazing activities; that respondent
students were present at the hazing as auxiliaries, and that as a result of
the hazing, Leonardo Villa died from serious physical injuries, while
Bienvenido Marquez was hospitalized. In light of the vicious acts of
respondent students upon those whom ironically they would claim as
"brothers" after the initiation rites, how can we countenance the imposition
of such nominal penalties as reprimand or even suspension? We, therefore,
affirm petitioners' imposition of the penalty of dismissal upon respondent
students. This finds authority and justification in Section 146 of the Manual
of Regulations for Private Schools. 48
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED; the order of respondent
Judge dated May 17, 1991 reinstating respondent students into petitioner
university is hereby REVERSED. The resolution of petitioner Joaquin Bernas
S. J., then President of Ateneo de Manila University dated March 10, 1991,
is REINSTATED and the decision of the Special Board DISMISSING
respondent students ADEL ABAS and ZOSIMO MENDOZA dated May 20,
1991 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Nocon,
Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ ., concur.
Griño Aquino, J ., is on leave.
Cruz, J ., concur in the result. I do not join in the statements in the
ponencia which seem to me to be a prejudgment of the criminal cases
against the private respondents for the death of Lenny Villa.
||| (Ateneo De Manila University v. Capulong, G.R. No. 99327, [May 27, 1993])
EN BANC
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J : p
The same is true with petitioners KMU, NAFLU and CTUHR in G.R.
No. 178554, who merely harp as well on their supposed "link" to the CPP
and NPA. They fail to particularize how the implementation of specific
provisions of RA 9372 would result in direct injury to their organization
and members.
While in our jurisdiction there is still no judicially declared terrorist
organization, the United States of America 17 (US) and the European
Union 18 (EU) have both classified the CPP, NPA and Abu Sayyaf Group as
foreign terrorist organizations. The Court takes note of the joint
statement of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Justice Secretary
Raul Gonzales that the Arroyo Administration would adopt the US and EU
classification of the CPP and NPA as terrorist organizations. 19 Such
statement notwithstanding, there is yet to be filed before the courts an
application to declare the CPP and NPA organizations as domestic
terrorist or outlawed organizations under RA 9372. Again, RA 9372 has
been in effect for three years now. From July 2007 up to the present,
petitioner-organizations have conducted their activities fully and freely
without any threat of, much less an actual, prosecution or proscription
under RA 9372.
Parenthetically, the Fourteenth Congress, in a resolution initiated by
Party-list Representatives Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casiño, Rafael
Mariano and Luzviminda Ilagan, 20 urged the government to resume
peace negotiations with the NDF by removing the impediments thereto,
one of which is the adoption of designation of the CPP and NPA by the
US and EU as foreign terrorist organizations. Considering the policy
statement of the Aquino Administration 21 of resuming peace talks with
the NDF, the government is not imminently disposed to ask for the
judicial proscription of the CPP-NPA consortium and its allied
organizations.
More important, there are other parties not before the Court
with direct and specific interests in the questions being raised. 22 Of
recent development is the filing of the first case for proscription under
Section 17 23 of RA 9372 by the Department of Justice before the Basilan
Regional Trial Court against the Abu Sayyaf Group. 24 Petitioner-
organizations do not in the least allege any link to the Abu Sayyaf Group.
Some petitioners attempt, in vain though, to show the imminence of
a prosecution under RA 9372 by alluding to past rebellion charges
against them.
In Ladlad v. Velasco, 25 the Court ordered the dismissal of rebellion
charges filed in 2006 against then Party-List Representatives Crispin
Beltran and Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis, Liza Maza of GABRIELA, and
Joel Virador, Teodoro Casiño and Saturnino Ocampo ofBayan Muna. Also
named in the dismissed rebellion charges were petitioners Rey Claro
Casambre, Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo, Renato Reyes, Rita Baua,
Emerencia de Jesus and Danilo Ramos; and accused of being front
organizations for the Communist movement were petitioner-
organizations KMU, BAYAN, GABRIELA, PAMALAKAYA, KMP, KADAMAY,
LFS and COURAGE. 26
The dismissed rebellion charges, however, do not save the day for
petitioners. For one, those charges were filed in 2006, prior to the
enactment of RA 9372, and dismissed by this Court. For another,
rebellion is defined and punished under the Revised Penal Code.
Prosecution for rebellion is not made more imminent by the enactment
of RA 9372, nor does the enactment thereof make it easier to charge a
person with rebellion, its elements not having been altered.
Conversely, previously filed but dismissed rebellion charges bear no
relation to prospective charges under RA 9372. It cannot be
overemphasized that three years after the enactment of RA 9372, none
of petitioners has been charged.
Petitioners IBP and CODAL in G.R. No. 179157 base their claim
of locus standi on their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. The IBP
zeroes in on Section 21 of RA 9372 directing it to render assistance to
those arrested or detained under the law.
The mere invocation of the duty to preserve the rule of law does
not, however, suffice to clothe the IBP or any of its members with
standing. 27 The IBP failed to sufficiently demonstrate how its mandate
under the assailed statute revolts against its constitutional rights and
duties. Moreover, both the IBP and CODAL have not pointed to even a
single arrest or detention effected under RA 9372.
Former Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo Madrigal, who claims to have
been the subject of "political surveillance," also lacks locus
standi. Prescinding from the veracity, let alone legal basis, of the claim
of "political surveillance," the Court finds that she has not shown even
the slightest threat of being charged under RA 9372. Similarly lacking
in locus standi are former Senator Wigberto Tañada and Senator Sergio
Osmeña III, who cite their being respectively a human rights advocate
and an oppositor to the passage of RA 9372. Outside these gratuitous
statements, no concrete injury to them has been pinpointed. DSHTaC
Council, G.R. No. 178552, 178554, 178581, 178890, 179157, 179461, [October
5, 2010], 646 PHIL 452-496)