A. THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL POWERS 1. Beltran v. Secretary of Health, 426 SCRA 168(2005) 2. Carlos Superdrug Corp.

v. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), 526 SCRA 130 3. Mirasol v. Department of Public Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318 (2006) 4. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co. Inc., 530 SCRA 341 (2007) 5. Painters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphili Corporation, 548 SCRA 485 (2008) 6. Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. 569 SCRA 467 (2008) 7. Atienza, Jr. v. Commission on Election, 612 SCRA 761 (2010) B. DUE PROCESS 1. Republic v. Cagandahan 565 SCRA 72 (2008) 2. BPI v. BPI Employee Union- Davao Chapter- Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, 627 SCRA 590 (2010) 3. Anonymous v. Radam, 541 SCRA 12 (2007) 4. Dumangcas, Jr. v. Marcelo, 483 SCRA 301 (2006) 5. Tan v. Pacuribot, 540 SCRA 246 (2007) 6. Macias v. Macias, 601 SCRA 203 (2009) 7. Romagos v. Metro Cebu Water District, 533 SCRA 50 (2007) 8. Office of the Ombudsman v. Sison 612 SCRA 702 (2010) 9. DLSU, Inc. v. CA, 541 SCRA 22 (2007) 10. White Light Corporation v. City of Manila 576 SCRA 416 (2009) 11. Dycaico v. SSS 476 SCRA 538, (2005) 12. Betoy v. Board of Directors National Power Corporations, G.R. No. 156556-57, 4 October 2011 13. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti- Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146 (2010)

component (CRC) on the domestic sale of all grades of fertilizers in the Philippines. Pursuant to the aformentioned LOI, Fertiphil paid P10 for every bag of fertilizer it sold in the domestic market to the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA), which remitted the amount collected to the Far East Bank and Trust Company, the depository bank of PPI. After the 1986 EDSA revolution, FPA voluntarily stopped the imposition of the P10 levy, for which Fertiphil demanded PPI a refund of the amounts it paid under LOI No. 1465. But then, PPI refused to give in to the demand. With that, Fertiphil filed a complaint for collection and damages against FPA and PPI with the RTC in Makati. It questioned the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 for being unjust and unreasonable, and favoring one privately owned corporation, which is the PPI. RTC's decision on November 20, 1991 favored Fertiphil and ordered the latter to pay a certain sum of the previously collected amount with an interest, and some other fees. ISSUE Is the P10 assessment on fertilizer sale a valid exercise of taxation? HELD No. An inherent limitation on the power of taxation is public purpose. Taxes are exacted on for a public purpose and cannot be used for purely private purposes or for exclusive benefit of private persons. The LOI expressly provided that the levy be imposed to benefit PPI, a private company. Thus, this already exceeded the limitation which taxes are supposed to be limited to, inherently and naturally. Even if the levy was acted for the enforcement of police powers, it is still unconstitutional because it did not promote public interest. Being void, Fertiphil is not required to pay the levy. All levies paid should be refunded in accordance with the general civil code principle against unjust enrichment: "Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern." The petition was denied.

Planters Products v. Fertiphil Corp. March 14, 2008 FACTS Philippine Planters Products (PPI) and Fertiphil Corp. are private corporations incorporated under Philippine laws, which are both engaged in the importation and distribution of fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural chemicals. On June 3, 1985, Pres. Ferdinand Marcos issued LOI No. 1465 which provided, among others, for the imposition of a capital recovery Yrasuegui v. PAL G.R. no. 168081. Oct. 17, 2008 Facts: Petitioner Yrasuegui, an international flight steward of Philippine Airlines Inc. (PAL) was dismissed because of his failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company.

In consequence thereof, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL before theLabor Arbiter (LA). Te Labor Arbiter ruled that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. It also issued a writof execution directing the reinstatement of the petitioner without loss of seniority and other benefits, andalso the payment of backwages. Respondent PAL appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the LAsdecision. Respondent PAL appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA reversed the NLRC case. Issue: Was the dismissal of the petitioner valid? Held: Yes. The Court upheld the legality of the petitioners dismissal. Separation pay, however, should beawarded in favor of the employee as an act of social justice or based on equity. This is so because hisdismissal is not serious misconduct. Neither is it reflective of his moral character. The obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his work as flight attendant, becomes ananalogous cause under Article 282 (e) of the Labor ode. His obesity may not be unintended, but isnonetheless voluntary. Voluntariness basically means that the just cause is solely attributable to theemployee without any external force influencing or controlling his actions. This element runs through alljust causes under Art. 282, whether they be in nature of a wrongful action or omission. Gross and habitualneglect, a recognized just cause, is considered voluntary although it lacks the element of intent found inArt. 282 (a), (c), and (d). Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, ornational origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualificationfor performing the job.The qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).[55]Inthe United States, there are a few federal and many state job discrimination laws that contain an exceptionallowing an employer to engage in an otherwise unlawful form of prohibited discrimination when theaction is based on a BFOQ necessary to the normal operation of a business or enterprise. Argument that BFQQ is a statutory defense must fail. Petitioner contends that BFOQ is a statutory defense. It does not exist if there is no statute providing for it.]Further, there is no existing BFOQ statute that could justify his dismissal. First, the Constitution, the Labor Code, and RA No. 7277 or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons contain provisions similar to BFOQ. Second, in British Columbia Public Service Employee Commission (BSPSERC) v. The British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union (BCGSEU), the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the so-called Meiorin Test in determining whether an employment policy is justified.Under this test,(1) the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to theperformance of the job; (2) the employer must establish that the standard

is reasonably necessary to theaccomplishment of that work-related purpose; and (3) the employer must establish that the standard isreasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work-related purpose.Similarly, in Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, this Court held that in order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove that (1) the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2)that there is factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification wouldbe unable to properly perform the duties of the job. In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used because it is parallel toBFOQ.BFOQ is valid provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory jobperformance. The weight standards of PAL are reasonable. A common carrier, from the nature of its business and forreasons of public policy, is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers ittransports. Petitioner is entitled to separation pay, even if terminated for just cause. Exceptionally, separation pay isgranted to a legally dismissed employee as an act of social justice, or based on equity. Provided thedismissal: (1)Was not for serious misconduct; (2)Does not conduct on the moral character of the employee Thus, he was granted separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) months pay for every year of service. REPUBLIC vs. CAGANDAHAN GR No. 166676, September 12, 2008 FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer B. Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender from female to male. It appearing that Jennifer Cagandahan is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a rare medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male and female characteristics. Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary male characteristics. To further her petition, Cagandahan presented in court the medical certificate evidencing that she is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, who, in addition, explained that Cagandahan genetically is female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally, thus has organs of both male and female. The lower court decided in her favor but the Office of the Solicitor General

appealed before the Supreme Court invoking that the same was a violation of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said petition did not implead the local civil registrar. ISSUE: The issue in this case is the validity of the change of sex or gender and name of respondent as ruled by the lower court. RULING: The contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that the petition is fatally defective because it failed to implead the local civil registrar as well as all persons who have or claim any interest therein is not without merit. However, it must be stressed that private respondent furnished the local civil registrar a copy of the petition, the order to publish on December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in the course of the proceedings. In which case, the Supreme Court ruled that there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the determination of a persons sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue which in this case should be dealt with utmost care in view of the delicate facts present in this case. In deciding the case, the Supreme Court brings forth the need to elaborate the term intersexuality which is the condition or let us say a disorder that respondent is undergoing. INTERSEXUALITY applies to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female. It is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. It is said that an organism with intersex may have biological characteristics of both male and female sexes. In view of the foregoing, the highest tribunal of the land consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification. That is, Philippine courts must render judgment based on law and the evidence presented. In the instant case, there is no denying that evidence points that respondent is male. In determining respondent to be a female, there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. The Supreme Court held that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed. The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a female. Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit the mold of a female, as society commonly currently knows this

gender of the human species. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence of evidence that respondent is an incompetent and in the absence of evidence to show that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the Supreme Court affirmed as valid and justified the respondents position and his personal judgment of being a male. ANONYMOUS, complainant, vs. MA. VICTORIA P. RADAM, Utility Worker, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Alaminos City, respondent. RESOLUTION CORONA, J.: In an anonymous letter-complaint dated September 30, 2005, respondent Ma. Victoria Radam, utility worker in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos City in Pangasinan, was charged with immorality. The unnamed complainant alleged that respondent was unmarried but got pregnant and gave birth sometime in 2 October 2005. The complainant claimed that respondents behavior tainted the image of the judiciary. In connection with the complaint, Judge Elpidio N. Abella conducted a discreet investigation to verify the allegations against respondent. In his report dated March 8, 2006, Judge Abella made the following findings: On March 1, 2006, respondent submitted a letter addressed to the Honorable Court Administrator, thru the undersigned, duly subscribed and sworn to before the Clerk of Court VI of the Court, alleging among others, the following: 1) She admitted that she is single/unmarried, and indeed she was pregnant and actually gave birth to a baby boy named Christian Jeon Radam on 03
4 3 1

November 2005 at the Western Pangasinan District Hospital, Alaminos City; 2) The reason why she did not yet marry the father of her child Christian Jeon was that she and the childs father have pending application*s+ *to migrate to Canada] as in fact they have [a] mutual plan to remain unmarried [and] 3) Nevertheless, she expressed her remorse and promised not to commit the same mistake and indiscretion in the future. Further investigation reveal[ed] the following: 1) That respondent was appointed as Utility Worker on September 4, 2000; 2) The father of Christian Jeon Radam is unknown, as shown by the childs 5 Certificate of Live Birth, hereto attached; 3) It was verbally admitted by the respondent that she had given birth to two (2) other children before Christian Jeon, but they were conceived and born while respondent was working abroad and before she was employed in the [Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of] Alaminos 6 City. In this connection, Judge Abella made the following recommendation: Since respondent admitted that she is single and that she got pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy without being married to the father of the child, albeit she advanced the reason for her remaining unmarried, it being that she and her boyfriend had a mutual plan to migrate to Canada, this Investigating Judge considers that such conduct of the respondent fell short of the strict standards of Court personnel and contrary to the Code of Judicial Ethics and the Civil Service Rules. A place in the judiciary demands upright men and women who must carry on with dignity, hence respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct which cannot be countenanced by the Court. Certainly, the image of the Judiciary has been affected by such conduct of the respondent.

Premises considered, it is hereby respectfully recommended that respondent MA. VICTORIA RADAM be accordingly found GUILTY of IMMORAL CONDUCT or ACT UNBECOMING A COURT EMPLOYEE. A suspension of one (1) month or a fine of Php5,000.00 is respectfully recommended, with warning that a repetition of the 7 same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. After reviewing the findings and recommendation of Judge Abella, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that, in accordance with Villanueva v. 8 Milan, respondent be absolved of the charge of immorality because her alleged misconduct (that is, giving birth out of wedlock) did not affect the character and nature of her position as 9 a utility worker. It observed: [T]here is no indication that the relationship of respondent to her alleged boyfriend has caused prejudice to any person or has adversely affected the performance of her function as utility worker to the detriment of the public service. However, it proposed that she be held liable for conduct unbecoming a court employee and imposed a fine ofP5,000 for stating in the birth certificate of her child Christian Jeon that the 10 father was "unknown" to her. The OCA correctly exonerated respondent from the charge of immorality. However, its recommendation to hold her liable for a charge of which she was not previously informed was wrong. For purposes of determining administrative responsibility, giving birth out of wedlock is not per se immoral under civil service laws. For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute 11 a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. In Estrada v. Escritor, we emphasized that in determining whether the acts complained of constitute "disgraceful and immoral behavior" under civil service laws, the distinction between public and secular morality on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other 13 should be kept in mind. The distinction between public and secular morality as expressed albeit not exclusively in the law, on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, is important because the jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular 14 morality. Thus, government action, including its proscription of immorality as expressed in 15 criminal law like adultery or concubinage, must have a secular purpose.
12

For a particular conduct to constitute "disgraceful and immoral" behavior under civil service laws, it must be regulated on account of the concerns of public and secular morality. It cannot be judged based on personal bias, specifically those colored by particular mores. Nor should it be grounded on "cultural" values not convincingly demonstrated to have been 16 recognized in the realm of public policy expressed in the Constitution and the laws. At the same time, the constitutionally guaranteed rights (such as the right to privacy) should be observed to the extent that they protect behavior that may be frowned upon by the 17 majority. Under these tests, two things may be concluded from the fact that an unmarried woman gives birth out of wedlock: (1) if the father of the child is himself unmarried, the woman is not ordinarily 18 administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct. It may be a not-soideal situation and may cause complications for both mother and child but it does not give cause for administrative sanction. There is no law which penalizes an unmarried mother under those circumstances by reason of her sexual conduct or proscribes the consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons. Neither does the situation contravene any fundamental state policy as expressed in the Constitution, a document that accommodates various belief systems irrespective of 19 dogmatic origins. (2) if the father of the child born out of wedlock is himself married to a woman other than the mother, then there is a cause for administrative sanction against 20 either the father or the mother. In such a case, the "disgraceful and immoral 21 conduct" consists of having extramarital relations with a married person. The 22 sanctity of marriage is constitutionally recognized and likewise affirmed by our 23 statutes as a special contract of permanent union. Accordingly, judicial employees have been sanctioned for their dalliances with married persons or for their own betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. In this case, it was not disputed that, like respondent, the father of her child was unmarried. Therefore, respondent cannot be held liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct simply because she gave birth to the child Christian Jeon out of wedlock. Respondent was indicted only for alleged immorality for giving birth out of wedlock. It was the only charge of which she was informed. Judge Abellas investigation focused solely on

that matter. Thus, the recommendation of the OCA that she be held administratively liable in connection with an entry in the birth certificate of Christian Jeon came like a thief in the night. It was unwarranted. Respondent was neither confronted with it nor given the chance to explain it. To hold her liable for a totally different charge of which she was totally unaware will violate her right to due process. The essence of due process in an administrative proceeding is the opportunity to explain 24 ones side, whether written or verbal. This presupposes that one has been previously apprised of the accusation against him or her. Here, respondent was deprived of both with regard to her alleged unbecoming conduct in relation to a certain statement in the birth certificate of her child. An employee must be informed of the charges proferred against him, and the normal way by which the employee is so informed is by furnishing him with a copy of the charges against him. This is a basic procedural requirement that cannot [be] dispense[d] with and still remain consistent with the constitutional provision on due process. The second minimum requirement is that the employee charged with some misfeasance or malfeasance must have a reasonable opportunity to present his side of the matter, that is to say, his defenses against the charges 25 levelled against him and to present evidence in support of his defense(s). Ones employment is not merely a specie of property rights. It is also the means by which he 26 and those who depend on him live. It is therefore protected by the guarantee of security of tenure. And in the civil service, this means that no government employee may be removed, 27 suspended or disciplined unless for cause provided by law and after due process. Unless the constitutional guarantee of due process is a mere platitude, it is the Courts duty to insist on its observance in all cases involving a deprivation, denigration or dilution of ones right to life, liberty and property. WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent Ma. Victoria P. Radam is hereby DISMISSED. She is, however, strongly advised to be more circumspect in her personal and official actuations in the future. SO ORDERED. JUDGE MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS, petitioner, vs. MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS, respondent.

DECISION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: Due process is the very essence of justice itself. Where the rule of law is the bedrock of our free society, justice is its very lifeblood. Denial of due process is thus no less than a denial [1] of justice. Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil [2] Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision dated July 13, 2001 and the [3] Resolution dated August 30, 2001, both rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64733, Margie Corpus Macias vs. Hon. Wilfredo G. Ochotorena and Hon. Judge Mariano Joaquin S. Macias. The factual antecedents as borne by the records are: On February 6, 2001, Judge Mariano Joaquin S. Macias (herein petitioner) filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Margie Corpus Macias (herein respondent), docketed as Civil Case No. S-695. The sheriff exerted earnest efforts to personally serve copies of the summons and complaint upon the respondent, but to no avail. Hence, the trial court, upon petitioners motion, issued an Order dated March 7, 2001 directing that summons be effected by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Zamboanga del Norte and the twin cities of Dapitan and Dipolog and thereafter requiring the respondent to file her answer within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. Subsequently, the summons and complaint were published in the March 11 to 17, 2001 issues of the Dipolog-based newspaper Tingog Peninsula. Instead of filing an answer, respondent, through counsel, on April 10, 2001, filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the following grounds: (1) the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the trial court has no jurisdiction because it is not among those designated to act as a family court under Resolution A.M. No. 99-11-07-SC; and (3) the parties failed to resort to barangay conciliation prior to the filing of the petition. On April 19, 2001, the trial court issued an Order denying respondents motion to dismiss. Incidentally, in the same Order, the trial court granted respondents request (via long distance telephone call) to set the hearing on April 30, 2001.

The hearing set on April 30, 2001 was cancelled for failure of respondent and counsel as well as the expert witness to appear. On the same day, the trial court issued an Order setting the hearing anew on May 2 and 3, 2001. Respondent received a copy of this Order only on May 8, 2001. Thus, when the case was called for hearing as scheduled, respondent and counsel, not being duly notified, did not appear. Surprisingly, the trial court allowed the petitioner to present his evidence ex parte. After the petitioner rested his case, the trial court issued an Order dated May 3, 2001 (1) directing the public prosecutor to submit a Certification containing his assent or opposition to the petition; (2) directing the petitioner and the public prosecutor to submit their respective memoranda within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days; and (3) declaring the case submitted for decision. On May 5, 2001, respondent still unaware that the case had been submitted for decision, filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated April 19, 2001 denying her motion to dismiss. The trial court merely noted the motion for reconsideration in his Order dated May 16, 2001. Consequently, on May 18, 2001, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction challenging the trial courts Order dated April 19, 2001 which denied her motion to dismiss; and Order dated April 30, 2001 cancelling the April 30, 2001 hearing and resetting it on May 2 and 3, 2001. Acting thereon, the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated May 23, 2001, enjoined the trial court from conducting further proceedings in Civil Case No. S-695. Meanwhile, on May 15, 2001 or barely twelve (12) days from submission of the case for decision, the trial court rendered its Decision declaring the nullity of the marriage between the parties on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of herein respondent. Thereupon, she filed a motion for reconsideration. This motion has not been acted upon. Meantime, on July 13, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision granting respondents petition for certiorari, thus: The issue that now comes to fore is whether or not the Petitioner was deprived, by the Respondent Court, of her right to due process enshrined in Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, via its Orders, Annexes L and O of the Petition, and its Decision.

xxx

xxx

xxx

In the present recourse, the hearings of the complaint of the Private Respondent, on its merits, before the issues were joined was a farce, a blatant transgression by the Respondents of the fundamental right of the Petitioner to due process. Taking stock of the antecedental milieu in the present recourse, We are convinced, beyond cavil, that either the Respondent Court was ignorant of the basic rudiments of Civil Procedure or if he was aware of said Rules as he should, he simply ignored the same, ran roughshod over the rights of the Petitioner, railroaded the hearing of the case and rendered judgment even before the Petitioner had the opportunity to defend herself and adduce her evidence. xxx xxx xxx

(Annex L of the Petition) denying her Motion to Dismiss, the Respondent Court proceeded with the hearing of the case on its merits and received the evidence of the Private Respondent on May 2 and 3, 2001. As it was, Petitioner, through counsel, received only on May 3, 2001 the Order of the Respondent Court (Annex L of the Petition) denying her Motion to Dismiss and, on May 5, 2001, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Respondent Court, dated April 19, 2001. What is so trite is that the Respondent Court violated its own Order dated February 27, 2001, declaring that the hearing of the case on its merits will ensue only after the Petitioner shall have filed her Answer to the complaint. Equally worrisome is the fact that the Petitioner reminded the Respondent Court, in her Manifestation and Motion, dated April 18, 2001, that the case was not ripe for hearing on its merits and prayed that the hearing of the case on its merits be suspended until after final resolution by the Respondent Court of her Motion to Dismiss: xxx xxx xxx

There is no evidence on record when the Petitioner was served with the complaint and summons by registered mail. However, the Petitioner learned of the complaint and summons about the first week of April, 2001 on the basis of the March 11-17, 2001 issue of the Tingog Peninsula. Even if the thirty-day period fixed by the Respondent Court was reckoned from the March 11-17, 2001 issue of the Tingog Peninsula, the Petitioner had until April 16, 2001 within which to file a Motion to Dismiss under Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure or file an Answer to the complaint. However, she opted to file, on April 10, 2001, a Motion to Dismiss, instead of filing an Answer to the complaint. The filing of said motion suspended the period for her to file her Answer to the complaint. Until said motion is resolved by the Respondent Court with finality, it behooved the Respondent Court to suspend the hearings of the case on the merits. The Respondent Court, on April 19, 2001, issued its Order denying the Motion to Dismiss of the Petitioner. Under Section 6, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Petitioner had the balance of the period provided for in Rule 11 of the said Rules but in no case less than five (5) days computed from service on her of the aforesaid Order of the Respondent Court within which to file her Answer to the complaint: xxx xxx xxx

Even if the Petitioner failed to file her Answer to the complaint, after the period therefor had lapsed, the Respondent Court was not authorized to conduct a hearing of the case on its merits. This is so because Section 3 (e), Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure specifically provides that: (c) Where no defaults allowed. If the defending party in an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated. (idem, supra.) The Report of the Public Prosecutor is a condition sine qua non to further proceedings of the case on its merits. The Respondent Court ignored the aforequoted Rule. It bears stressing that the Petitioner had already filed her Motion to Dismiss and, hence, can be notified by the Public Prosecutor of his investigation. xxx xxx xxx

The Petitioner may file a Motion for Reconsideration of said Order conformably with Section 5, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court. Until then, a hearing of the case on its merits is impermissible and a travesty. However, even before the Petitioner could be served with a copy of the order of the Respondent Court

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. The hearings of the case on the merits on May 2 and 3, 2001, including the Decision of the Respondent Court, are NULLIFIED. The Respondent Court is hereby ordered to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration of the Petitioner dated May 5, 2001, after the Private Respondent shall have filed his Comment or Opposition to said motion and, thereafter, to proceed with the case as provided for by the Rules of Court. SO ORDERED. From the said Decision, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner vehemently asserts that the Court of Appeals seriously erred in holding that the trial court deprived respondent of her right to due process; and in nullifying, not only the May 2 and 3, 2001 hearings, but also the trial courts Decision dated May 15, 2001. We agree with the Court of Appeals. This Court will not countenance a denial of ones fundamental right to due process, [4] which is a cornerstone of our legal system. In the case at bar, the trial court did not observe the rudimentary principle of due process enshrined in our Constitution. Neither did it comply with pertinent procedural rules. More to the point, the trial court, without even waiting for respondents motion for reconsideration of the April 19, 2001 Order denying her motion to dismiss, hurriedly set the case for hearing. Also, without allowing the respondent to file her answer to the petition and knowing there was no joinder of issues as yet, the trial court hastily authorized petitioner to present his evidence ex-parte. Pursuant to Section 3 (e), Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, where the defending party fails to file his or her answer to the petition, the trial court should order the prosecutor to intervene for the State by conducting an investigation to determine whether or not there was collusion between the parties. Here, the trial court disregarded such procedure. Obviously, the summary proceeding is a patent nullity. And assuming arguendo that there was an answer filed by the respondent, still, the hearing of the case on May 2 and 3, 2001 is a procedural flaw. As stated at the outset, respondent received the notice of hearing only on May 8, 2001. So how could she be present in court on May 2 and 3?

We are convinced that respondents fundamental right to due process was blatantly transgressed by the trial court. And resultantly, the proceedings conducted, including the trial courts Decision, are void for lack of due process. We have consistently held that a denial of due process suffices to cast on the official [5] act taken by whatever branch of the government the impress of nullity. In Uy vs. Court of Appeals, we ruled that (a) decision is void for lack of due process if, as a result, a party (as in this case) is deprived of the opportunity of being heard. A void decision may be assailed or impugned at any time either directly or collaterally, by means of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in any action or proceeding where it is [6] invoked. Indeed, in depriving respondent her constitutional and procedural right to due process, the trial court gravely abused its discretion. It is, therefore, imperative that the instant case for declaration of nullity of marriage be litigated anew in accordance with the Rules. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated July 13, 2001 and Resolution dated August 30, 2001 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila G.R. No. 122846. January 20, 2009 Facts:On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into law and ordinance entitled An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-time Admission,Short-time Admission Rates, and Wash-up Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila. On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9 and prayed that the Ordinance be declared invalid and unconstitutional. On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation,Titanium Corporation and Sta. Mesa Tourist Development Corporation filed a motion to intervene, which was granted by the RTC. MTDC moved to withdraw as plaintiff which was also granted by the RTC.

On January 14, 1993, the RTC issued a TRO directing the City to cease and desist from enforcing the Ordinance. On October 20, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and void. The City then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court referred the same to the Court of Appeals. The City asserted that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to Local government code and the Revised Manila charter. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance. Issue: Whether the Ordinance is constitutional. Held: No, it is not constitutional. The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and the like. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends does not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. However well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their patrons. The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well as restricts the rights of their patrons without sufficient justification. Elena Dycaico vs. SSS (due process and equal protection clause) Facts: Elena Dycaico seeks to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals that affirmed the decision of Social Security Commission denying her claim for survivors pension which accrues from the death of her husband, Bonifacio Dycaico. Bonifacio Dycaico became a member of SSS and designated Elena Dycaico and their eight children as beneficiaries therein. At that time, Bonifacio and Elena lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Nine years after, Bonifacio was considered retired and began receiving his monthly pension from the SSS. He continued to receive the monthly pension until he passed away. A few months prior to his death, however, Bonifacio married the petitioner Shortly after Bonifacios death, the petitioner filed with the SSS an application for survivors pension. Her application, however, was denied on the ground that they were not living

under the benefit of marriage when Bonifacio became a member of SSS. The basis was Section 12-B(d) of Republic Act (Rep. Act) No. 8282 which reads: Sec. 12-B. Retirement Benefits. (d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary beneficiaries as of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the monthly pension. An appeal was made to the Court of Appeals but it was, likewise, denied. The same Court ruled that that since the petitioner was merely the common-law wife of Bonifacio at the time of his retirement, his designation of the petitioner as one of his beneficiaries is void. The petitioner claims that there is no merit to the decision of Court of Appeals as the SSS law does is silent denying the beneficiarys claim for survivor pension. Issue: Whether or not there is a violation to equal protection clause of the Constitution. Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the positive. There is a violation of due process and equal protection. The Court holds that the proviso as of the date of his retirement in Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282, which qualifies the term primary beneficiaries, is unconstitutional for it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. If the said provision will be sustained, there will be an outright confiscation of benefits due to the surviving spouse without giving her opportunity to be heard. There is, therefore, a violation of due process. There is also a violation of equal protection of the Constitution. A statute, to be valid and reasonable, must satisfy the following requirements: must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class.

Classifying dependent spouses and determining their entitlement to survivors pension based on whether the marriage was contracted before or after the retirement of the other spouse bears no relation to the achievement of the policy objective of the law Indeed, the SC does not find substantial distinction between spouses whose assignment as a beneficiary was made after the marriage and spouses whose assignment as a beneficiary was made before the marriage. The statute violates equal protection clause when it grants surviving pensions only to the spouses belonging to the former case and not to than the latter.

Jesus, Rita Baua and Rey Claro Casambre filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as G.R. No. 178581. On August 6, 2007, Karapatan and its alliance member organizations Hustisya, Desaparecidos, Samahan ng mga Ex-Detainees Laban sa Detensyon at para sa Amnestiya (SELDA), Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace (EMJP), and Promotion of Church [5] Peoples Response (PCPR), which were represented by their respective officers who are also bringing action on their own behalf, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as G.R. No. 178890. On August 29, 2007, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Counsels for the [6] Defense of Liberty (CODAL), Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal, Sergio Osmea III, and Wigberto E. Taada filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as G.R. No. 179157. Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-Southern Tagalog (BAYAN-ST), other regional chapters [7] [8] and organizations mostly based in the Southern Tagalog Region, and individuals followed suit by filing on September 19, 2007 a petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as G.R. No. 179461 that replicates the allegations raised in the BAYAN petition in G.R. No. 178581. Impleaded as respondents in the various petitions are the Anti-Terrorism [9] Council composed of, at the time of the filing of the petitions, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita as Chairperson, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales as Vice Chairperson, and Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo, Acting Defense Secretary and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno, and Finance Secretary Margarito Teves as members. All the petitions, except that of the IBP, also impleaded Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon and Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Gen. Oscar Calderon. The Karapatan, BAYAN and BAYAN-ST petitions likewise impleaded President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the support agencies for the Anti-Terrorism Council like the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, National Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Immigration, Office of Civil Defense, Intelligence Service of the AFP, Anti-Money Laundering Center, Philippine Center on Transnational Crime, and the PNP intelligence and investigative elements. The petitions fail.

Before the Court are six petitions challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9372 (RA 9372), An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from Terrorism, otherwise [1] known as the Human Security Act of 2007, signed into law on March 6, 2007. Following the effectivity of RA 9372 on July 15, 2007, petitioner Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., a non-government organization, and Atty. Soliman Santos, Jr., a concerned citizen, taxpayer and lawyer, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on July 16, 2007 docketed as G.R. No. 178552. On even date, petitioners Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), National Federation of Labor Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno (NAFLUKMU), and Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR), represented by their [3] respective officers who are also bringing the action in their capacity as citizens, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as G.R. No. 178554. The following day, July 17, 2007, organizations Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), General Alliance Binding Women for Reforms, Integrity, Equality, Leadership and Action (GABRIELA), Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties (MCCCL), Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE), Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY), Solidarity of Cavite Workers (SCW), League of Filipino Students (LFS), Anakbayan, Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya (PAMALAKAYA), Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT), Migrante, Health Alliance for Democracy (HEAD), and Agham, represented [4] by their respective officers, and joined by concerned citizens and taxpayers Teofisto Guingona, Jr., Dr. Bienvenido Lumbera, Renato Constantino, Jr., Sister Mary John Manansan, OSB, Dean Consuelo Paz, Atty. Josefina Lichauco, Retired Col. Gerry Cunanan, Carlitos Siguion-Reyna, Dr. Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo, Renato Reyes, Danilo Ramos, Emerenciana de
[2]

Petitioners resort to certiorari is improper

upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional [11] questions. Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. The Executive Secretary on locus standi, thus:
[12]

summarized the rule

Preliminarily, certiorari does not lie against respondents who do not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is clear: Section 1. Petition for certiorari.When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the question on standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. [A] party who assails the constitutionality of a statute must have a direct and personal interest. It must show not only that the law or any governmental act is invalid, but also that it sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that it suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must show that it has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which it is lawfully entitled or that it is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of. For a concerned party to be allowed to raise a constitutional question, it must show that (1) it has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government, (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action, and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. (emphasis and underscoring supplied.) Petitioner-organizations assert locus standi on the basis of being suspected communist fronts by the government, especially the military; whereas individual petitioners invariably invoke the transcendental importance doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers. While Chavez v. PCGG holds that transcendental public importance dispenses with the requirement that petitioner has experienced or is in actual danger of suffering direct and
[13]

Parenthetically, petitioners do not even allege with any modicum of particularity how respondents acted without or in excess of their respective jurisdictions, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The impropriety of certiorari as a remedy aside, the petitions fail just the same. In constitutional litigations, the power of judicial review is limited by four exacting requisites, viz: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest [10] opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case. In the present case, the dismal absence of the first two requisites, which are the most essential, renders the discussion of the last two superfluous. Petitioners lack locus standi Locus standi or legal standing requires a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues

personal injury, cases involving the constitutionality of penal legislation belong to an altogether different genus of constitutional litigation. Compelling State and societal interests in the proscription of harmful conduct, as will later be elucidated, necessitate a closer judicial scrutiny of locus standi. Petitioners have not presented any personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. None of them faces any charge under RA 9372. KARAPATAN, Hustisya, Desaparecidos, SELDA, EMJP and PCR, petitioners in G.R. No. 178890, allege that they have been subjected to close security surveillance by state security forces, their members followed by suspicious persons and vehicles with dark windshields, and their offices monitored by men with military build. They likewise claim [14] that they have been branded as enemies of the *S+tate. Even conceding such gratuitous allegations, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) correctly points out that petitioners have yet to show any connectionbetween the purported surveillance and the implementation of RA 9372. BAYAN, GABRIELA, KMP, MCCCL, COURAGE, KADAMAY, SCW, LFS, Anakbayan, PAMALAKAYA, ACT, Migrante, HEAD and Agham, petitioner-organizations in G.R. No. 178581, would like the Court to take judicial notice of respondents alleged action of tagging them as militant organizations fronting for the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the National Peoples Army (NPA). The tagging, according to petitioners, is tantamount to the effects of proscription without following the procedure under the [15] law. The petition of BAYAN-ST, et al. in G.R. No. 179461 pleads the same allegations. The Court cannot take judicial notice of the alleged tagging of petitioners. Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of

accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable. Things of common knowledge, of which courts take judicial matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially noticed, provided, they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person. As the common knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have been judicially noticed as being matters of common knowledge. But a court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the existence or nonexistence of a fact of which the court has no constructive [16] knowledge. (emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

No ground was properly established by petitioners for the taking of judicial notice. Petitioners apprehension is insufficient to substantiate their plea. That no specific charge or proscription under RA 9372 has been filed against them, three years after its effectivity, belies any claim of imminence of their perceived threat emanating from the socalled tagging. 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 [17] [18] United States of America (US) and the European Union (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 [19] and NPA as terrorist organizations. 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 Casio, Rafael Mariano and Luzviminda [20] Ilagan, 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 [21] Aquino Administration 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 [22] interests in the questions being raised. Of recent development is the filing of [23] the first case for proscription under Section 17 of RA 9372 by the Department of Justice [24] before the Basilan Regional Trial Court against the Abu SayyafGroup. Petitionerorganizations 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, 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 Casio and Saturnino Ocampo of Bayan 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 [26] COURAGE. 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.
[25]

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 [27] to clothe the IBP or any of its members with standing. 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 Taada and Senator Sergio Osmea 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. Petitioners Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network and Atty. Soliman Santos Jr. in G.R. No. 178552 also conveniently state that the issues they raise are of transcendental importance, which must be settled early and are of far-reaching implications, without mention of any specific provision of RA 9372 under which they have been charged, or may be charged. Mere invocation of human rights advocacy has nowhere been held sufficient to clothe litigants with locus standi. Petitioners must show an actual, or immediate danger of sustaining, direct injury as a result of the laws enforcement. To rule otherwise would be to corrupt the settled doctrine of locus standi, as every worthy cause is an interest shared by the general public. Neither can locus standi be conferred upon individual petitioners as taxpayers and citizens. A taxpayer suit is proper only when there is an exercise of the [28] spending or taxing power of Congress, whereas citizen standing must rest on direct and [29] personal interest in the proceeding.

RA 9372 is a penal statute and does not even provide for any appropriation from Congress for its implementation, while none of the individual petitioner-citizens has alleged any direct and personal interest in the implementation of the law. It bears to stress that generalized interests, albeit accompanied by the assertion of a public right, do not establish locus standi. Evidence of a direct and personal interest is key. Petitioners fail to present an actual case or controversy By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or controversy. Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part [30] of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (emphasis and underscoring supplied.) As early as Angara v. Electoral Commission, the Court ruled that the power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court [32] would amount to an advisory opinion. Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. COMELEC emphatic:
[33] [31]

the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. In other words, the pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof on the other hand; that is, it must concern a real and not merely a theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Thus, a petition to declare unconstitutional a law converting the Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City was held to be premature as it was tacked on uncertain, contingent [34] events. Similarly, a petition that fails to allege that an application for a license to operate a radio or television station has been denied or granted by the authorities does not present a justiciable controversy, and merely wheedles the Court to rule on a hypothetical [35] problem. The Court dismissed the petition in Philippine Press Institute v. Commission on [36] Elections for failure to cite any specific affirmative action of the Commission on Elections [37] to implement the assailed resolution. It refused, in Abbas v. Commission on Elections, to rule on the religious freedom claim of the therein petitioners based merely on a perceived potential conflict between the provisions of the Muslim Code and those of the national law, there being no actual controversy between real litigants. The list of cases denying claims resting on purely hypothetical or anticipatory grounds goes on ad infinitum. The Court is not unaware that a reasonable certainty of the occurrence of a perceived threat to any constitutional interest

cannot be more

[C]ourts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. The controversy must be justiciabledefinite and concrete, touching on

suffices to provide a basis for mounting a constitutional challenge. This, however, is qualified by the requirement that there must be sufficient facts to enable the Court to [38] intelligently adjudicate the issues. Very recently, the US Supreme Court, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law [39] Project, allowed the pre-enforcement review of a criminal statute, challenged on vagueness grounds, since plaintiffs faced a credible threat of prosecution and should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking [40] relief. The plaintiffs therein filed an action before a federal court to assail the [41] constitutionality of the material support statute, 18 U.S.C. 2339B (a) (1), proscribing the provision of material support to organizations declared by the Secretary of State as foreign terrorist organizations. They claimed that theyintended to provide support for the humanitarian and political activities of two such organizations. Prevailing American jurisprudence allows an adjudication on the merits when an anticipatory petition clearly shows that the challenged prohibition forbids the conduct or [42] activity that a petitioner seeks to do, as there would then be a justiciable controversy. Unlike the plaintiffs in Holder, however, herein petitioners have failed to show that the challenged provisions of RA 9372 forbid constitutionally protectedconduct or activity that they seek to do. No demonstrable threat has been established, much less a real and existing one. Petitioners obscure allegations of sporadic surveillance and supposedly being tagged as communist fronts in no way approximate a credible threat of prosecution. From these allegations, the Court is being lured to render an advisory [43] opinion, which is not its function. Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have become pleas for declaratory relief, over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. Then again, declaratory actions characterized by double contingency, where both the activity the petitioners intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it of a public official are merely theorized, lie [44] beyond judicial review for lack of ripeness. The possibility of abuse in the implementation of RA 9372 does not avail to take the present petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely imagined. Such possibility is not peculiar to RA 9372 since the exercise of any power granted by law may be [45] abused. Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before courts may step in

to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

A facial invalidation of a statute is allowed only in free speech cases, wherein certain rules of constitutional litigation are rightly excepted Petitioners assail for being intrinsically vague and impermissibly broad the definition of [46] the crime of terrorism under RA 9372 in that terms like widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace and coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand are nebulous, leaving law enforcement agencies with no standard to measure the prohibited acts. Respondents, through the OSG, counter that the doctrines of void-for-vagueness and overbreadth find no application in the present case since these doctrines apply only to free speech cases; and that RA 9372 regulates conduct, not speech. For a jurisprudentially guided understanding of these doctrines, it is imperative to outline the schools of thought on whether the void-for-vagueness and overbreadth doctrines are equally applicable grounds to assail a penal statute. Respondents interpret recent jurisprudence as slanting toward the idea of limiting the application of the two doctrines to free speech cases. They particularly citeRomualdez v. [47] [48] Hon. Sandiganbayan and Estrada v. Sandiganbayan. The Court clarifies. At issue in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan was whether the word intervene in Section [49] 5 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was intrinsically vague and impermissibly broad. The Court stated that the overbreadth and the vagueness doctrines have special application only to free-speech cases, and are not appropriate for testing the validity of [50] penal statutes. It added that, at any rate, the challenged provision, under which the [51] therein petitioner was charged, is not vague. While in the subsequent case of Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, the Court stated that a facial invalidation of criminal statutes is not appropriate, it nonetheless
[52]

proceeded to conduct a vagueness analysis, and concluded that the therein subject election [53] offense under the Voters Registration Act of 1996, with which the therein petitioners [54] were charged, is couched in precise language. The two Romualdez cases rely heavily on the Separate Opinion of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza in the Estrada case, where the Court found the Anti-Plunder Law (Republic Act No. 7080) clear and free from ambiguity respecting the definition of the crime of plunder. The position taken by Justice Mendoza in Estrada relates these two doctrines to the concept of a facial invalidation as opposed to an as-applied challenge. He basically postulated that allegations that a penal statute is vague and overbroad do not justify a facial review of its validity. The pertinent portion of the Concurring Opinion of Justice Mendoza, which was quoted at length in the main Estrada decision, reads: A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity." The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free speech cases. They are inapt for testing the validity of penal statutes. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, "we have not recognized an 'overbreadth' doctrine
[55]

outside the limited context of the First Amendment." In Broadrick v. Oklahoma, the Court ruled that "claims of facial overbreadth have been 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." For this reason, it has been held that "a facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." As for the vagueness doctrine, it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all its possible applications. "A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others." 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, whilestatutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated [only] 'as applied' to a particular defendant." Consequently, there is no basis for petitioner's claim that this Court review the Anti-Plunder Law on its face and in its entirety. Indeed, "on its face" invalidation of statutes results in striking them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected. It constitutes a departure from the case and controversy requirement of the Constitution and permits decisions to be made without concrete factual settings and in sterile abstract contexts. But, as the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out in Younger v. Harris

[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 these reasons, "on its face" invalidation of statutes has been described as "manifestly strong medicine," to be employed "sparingly and only as a last resort," and is generally disfavored. In determining the constitutionality of a statute, therefore, its provisions which are alleged to have been violated in a case must be examined in the light of the conduct [56] with which the defendant is charged. (Underscoring supplied.)

As distinguished from the vagueness doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine assumes that individuals will understand what a statute prohibits and will accordingly refrain from that [59] behavior, even though some of it is protected. A facial challenge is likewise different from an as-applied challenge. Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which considers only extant facts affecting real litigants, a facial invalidation is an examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the assumption or prediction that its very existence may cause others not before the court [60] to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or activities. Justice Mendoza accurately phrased the subtitle in his concurring opinion that the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines, as grounds for a facial challenge, are not applicable to penal laws. A litigant cannot thus successfully mount a facial challenge against a criminal statute on either vagueness or overbreadth grounds. The allowance of a facial challenge in free speech cases is justified by the aim to avert the chilling effect on protected speech, the exercise of which should not at all times be [62] abridged. As reflected earlier, this rationale is inapplicable to plain penal statutes that generally bear an in terrorem effect in deterring socially harmful conduct. In fact, the legislature may even forbid and penalize acts formerly considered innocent and lawful, so long as it refrains from diminishing or dissuading the exercise of constitutionally protected [63] rights. The Court reiterated that there are critical limitations by which a criminal statute may be challenged and underscored that an on-its-face invalidation of penal statutes x x x may [64] not be allowed. [T]he rule established in our jurisdiction is, only statutes on free speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be facially challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes be subjected to a facial challenge. The rationale is obvious. If a facial challenge to a penal statute is permitted, the prosecution of crimes may be hampered. No prosecution would be possible. A strong criticism against employing a facial challenge in the case of penal statutes, if the same is allowed, would effectively go against the grain of the doctrinal requirement of an existing
[61]

The confusion apparently stems from the interlocking relation of the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines as grounds for a facial or as-applied challenge against a penal statute (under a claim of violation of due process of law) or a speech regulation (under a claim of abridgement of the freedom of speech and cognate rights). To be sure, the doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine of overbreadth do not operate on the same plane. A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government [57] muscle. The overbreadth doctrine, meanwhile, decrees that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected [58] freedoms.

and concrete controversy before judicial power may be appropriately exercised. A facial challenge against a penal statute is, at best, amorphous and speculative. It would, essentially, force the court to consider third parties who are not before it. As I have said in my opposition to the allowance of a facial challenge to attack penal statutes, such a test will impair the States ability to deal with crime. If warranted, there would be nothing that can hinder an accused from defeating the States power to prosecute on a mere showing that, as applied to third parties, the penal statute is vague or overbroad, notwithstanding that the law is clear as [65] applied to him. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) It is settled, on the other hand, that the application of the overbreadth doctrine is limited to a facial kind of challenge and, owing to the given rationale of a facial challenge, applicable only to free speech cases. By its nature, the overbreadth doctrine has to necessarily apply a facial type of invalidation in order to plot areas of protected speech, inevitably almost alwaysunder situations not before the court, that are impermissibly swept by the substantially overbroad regulation. Otherwise stated, a statute cannot be properly analyzed for being substantially overbroad if the court confines itself only to facts as applied to the litigants. 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 [66] parties. (Emphasis in the original omitted; underscoring supplied.) In restricting the overbreadth doctrine to free speech claims, the Court, in at least two [67] cases, observed that the US Supreme Court has not recognized an overbreadth doctrine [68] outside the limited context of the First Amendment, and that claims of facial overbreadth have been entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate [69] [70] only spoken words. In Virginia v. Hicks, it was held that rarely, if ever, will an overbreadth challenge succeed against a law or regulation that is not specifically addressed to speech or speech-related conduct. Attacks on overly broad statutes are justified by the [71] transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression. Since a penal statute may only be assailed for being vague as applied to petitioners, a limited vagueness analysis of the definition of terrorism in RA 9372 is legally impermissible absent an actual or imminent charge against them While Estrada did not apply the overbreadth doctrine, it did not preclude the operation of the vagueness test on the Anti-Plunder Law as applied to the therein petitioner, finding, [72] however, that there was no basis to review the law on its face and in its entirety. It stressed that statutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated only [73] 'as applied' to a particular defendant. American jurisprudence instructs that vagueness challenges that do not involve the First Amendment must be examined in light of the specific facts of the case at hand and not with regard to the statute's facial validity. For more than 125 years, the US Supreme Court has evaluated defendants claims that criminal statutes are unconstitutionally vague, developing a doctrine hailed as among the [75] most important guarantees of liberty under law. In this jurisdiction, the void-for-vagueness doctrine asserted under the due process clause has been utilized in examining the constitutionality of criminal statutes. In at least [76] three cases, the Court brought the doctrine into play in analyzing an ordinance penalizing the non-payment of municipal tax on fishponds, the crime of illegal recruitment punishable under Article 132(b) of the Labor Code, and the vagrancy provision under Article 202 (2) of
[74]

the Revised Penal Code. Notably, the petitioners in these three cases, similar to those in the two Romualdez and Estrada cases, were actually charged with the therein assailed penal statute, unlike in the present case. There is no merit in the claim that RA 9372 regulates speech so as to permit a facial analysis of its validity

to take down a sign reading White Applicants Only hardly means that the law should be analyzed as one regulating speech rather than conduct. Utterances not elemental but inevitably incidental to the doing of the criminal conduct alter neither the intent of the law to punish socially harmful conduct nor the essence of the whole act as conduct and not speech. This holds true a fortiori in the present case where the expression figures only as an inevitable incident of making the element of coercion perceptible. [I]t is true that the agreements and course of conduct here were as in most instances brought about through speaking or writing. But it has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was, in part, initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed. Such an expansive interpretation of the constitutional guaranties of speech and press would make it practically impossible ever to enforce laws against agreements in restraint of trade as well as many other [79] agreements and conspiracies deemed injurious to society. (italics and underscoring supplied) Certain kinds of speech have been treated as unprotected conduct, because they [80] merely evidence a prohibited conduct. Since speech is not involved here, the Court cannot heed the call for a facial analysis. IN FINE, Estrada and the other cited authorities engaged in a vagueness analysis of the therein subject penal statute as applied to the therein petitioners inasmuch as they were actually charged with the pertinent crimes challenged on vagueness grounds. The Court in said cases, however, found no basis to review the assailed penal statute on its face and in its entirety. In Holder, on the other hand, the US Supreme Court allowed the pre-enforcement review of a criminal statute, challenged on vagueness grounds, since the therein plaintiffs faced a credible threat of prosecution and should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief. As earlier reflected, petitioners have established neither an actual charge nor a credible threat of prosecution under RA 9372. Even a limited vagueness analysis of the assailed definition of terrorism is thus legally impermissible. The Court reminds litigants

From the definition of the crime of terrorism in the earlier cited Section 3 of RA 9372, the following elements may be culled: (1) the offender commits an act punishable under any of the cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or under any of the enumerated special penal laws; (2) the commission of the predicate crime sows and creates a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace; and (3) the offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand. In insisting on a facial challenge on the invocation that the law penalizes speech, petitioners contend that the element of unlawful demand in the definition of [77] terrorism must necessarily be transmitted through some form of expression protected by the free speech clause. The argument does not persuade. What the law seeks to penalize is conduct, not speech. Before a charge for terrorism may be filed under RA 9372, there must first be a predicate crime actually committed to trigger the operation of the key qualifying phrases in the other elements of the crime, including the coercion of the government to accede to an unlawful demand. Given the presence of the first element, any attempt at singling out or highlighting the communicative component of the prohibition cannot recategorize the unprotected conduct into a protected speech. Petitioners notion on the transmission of message is entirely inaccurate, as it unduly focuses on just one particle of an element of the crime. Almost every commission of a crime entails some mincing of words on the part of the offender like in declaring to launch overt criminal acts against a victim, in haggling on the amount of ransom or conditions, or in [78] negotiating a deceitful transaction. An analogy in one U.S. case illustrated that the fact that the prohibition on discrimination in hiring on the basis of race will require an employer

that judicial power neither contemplates speculative counseling on a statutes future effect on hypothetical scenarios nor allows the courts to be used as an extension of a failed legislative lobbying in Congress. WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED.