G.R. No.

L-4254 September 26, 1951 passport, the availability of transportation, the diplomatic arrangements with the
governments concerned and the efforts displayed to send the deportee away;" but the Court
BORIS MEJOFF, petitioner, warned that "under established precedents, too long a detention may justify the issuance
vs. of a writ of habeas corpus."
THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent
***Over two years having elapsed since the decision aforesaid was promulgated,
This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff, the first having been denied in a decision the Government has not found way and means of removing the petitioner out of
of this Court of July 30, 1949. the country, and none are in sight, although it should be said in justice to the
deportation authorities, it was through no fault of theirs that no ship or country
would take the petitioner.
 The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this country
from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latter's regime in
these Islands. RULING:
 Upon liberation he was arrested as a Japanese spy, by U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps.
Later he was handed to theCommonwealth Government for disposition in accordance with  (RELATED TOPIC: DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION VS. TRANSFORMATION)
Commonwealth Act No. 682. By its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles
 Thereafter, the People's Court ordered his release. But the deportation Board taking his case of international law as part of the law of Nation." And in a resolution entitled "Universal
up, found that having no travel documents Mejoff was illegally in this country, and Declaration of Human Rights" and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations
consequently referred the matter to the immigration authorities. of which the Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on December 10, 1948, the right
 After the corresponding investigation, the Board of commissioners of Immigration on April 5, to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were
1948, declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally in 1944, without inspection proclaimed. It was there resolved that "All human beings are born free and equal in degree
and admission by the immigration officials at a designation port of entry and, therefore, it and rights" (Art. 1); that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this
ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
 The petitioner was then under custody, he having been arrested on March 18, 1948. political or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2):
that "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for
 In May 1948 he was transferred to the Cebu Provincial Jail together with three other
acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that
Russians to await the arrival of some Russian vessels.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (Art. 9)
 In July and August of that year two boats of Russian nationality called at the Cebu Port. But
their masters refused to take petitioner and his companions alleging lack of authority to do
so. o It was said or insinuated at the hearing of the petition at bar, but not alleged in the
 In October 1948 after repeated failures to ship this deportee abroad, the authorities return, that the petitioner was engaged in subversive activities, and fear was
removed him to Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa where he has been confined up to the present expressed that he might join or aid the disloyal elements if allowed to be at large.
time, inasmuch as the Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the best interests of the Bearing in mind the Government's allegation in its answer that "the herein
country to keep him under detention while arrangements for his departure are being made. petitioner was brought to the Philippines by the Japanese forces," and the fact that
Japan is no longer at war with the United States or the Philippines nor identified
with the countries allied against these nations, the possibility of the petitioner's
 The Court held the petitioner's detention temporary and said that "temporary detention is a
entertaining or committing hostile acts prejudicial to the interest and security of this
necessary step in the process of exclusion or expulsion of undesirable aliens and that
country seems remote. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that such a possibility
pending arrangements for his deportation, the Government has the right to hold the
exists, still the petitioner's unduly prolonged detention would be unwarranted by
undesirable alien under confinement for a reasonable lenght of time." It took note of the
law and the Constitution, if the only purpose of the detention be to eliminate a
fact, manifested by the Solicitor General's representative in the course of the of the oral
danger that is by no means actual, present, or uncontrolable. After all, the
argumment, that "this Government desires to expel the alien, and does not relish keeping
Government is not impotent to deal with or prevent any threat by such measure as
him at the people's expense . . . making efforts to carry out the decree of exclusion by the
that just outlined.
highest officer of the land." No period was fixed within which the immigration authorities
should carry out the contemplated deportation beyond the statement that "The meaning of
'reasonable time' depends upon the circumstances, specially the difficulties of obtaining a
  Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the RULING:
petitioner from custody upon these terms: The petitioner shall be placed under the
surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War Crimes Office prescribing rule and regulation
be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is governing the trial of accused war criminals, was issued by the President of the Philippines on the
ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be reasonable and the question of 29th days of July, 1947 This Court holds that this order is valid and constitutional. Article 2 of our
reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First Instance of Manila for Constitution provides in its section 3, that —
decision in case of abuse. He shall also put up a bond for the above purpose in the amount
of P5,000 with sufficient surety or sureties. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- accepted principles of international law as part of the of the nation.

G.R. No. L-2662 March 26, 1949  (RELATED TOPIC: DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION VS. TRANSFORMATION)
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the present day
SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner, including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of
vs. international jurisprudence established by the United Nation all those person military or
Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE, Colonel MARGARITO civilian who have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and of
TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA, Major FEDERICO ARANAS, the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violation of
MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT, respondents. the laws and customs of war, of humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor.
Consequently in the promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. 68 the President
 Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted and policies of
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period international law which are part of the our Constitution.
covering 1943 and 1944 who is now charged before a military Commission convened by the
Chief of Staff of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and o The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his
failed "to discharge his duties as such command, permitting them to commit brutal power as Commander in chief of all our armed forces. The President as
atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Commander in Chief is fully empowered to consummate this unfinished aspect of
Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war" — comes before this war namely the trial and punishment of war criminal through the issuance and
Court seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the enforcement of Executive Order No. 68.
Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from
participating in the prosecution of petitioner's case before the Military Commission and to  The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law with jurisdiction over
permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of petitioners. the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No. 68, and having
said petitioner in its custody, this Court will not interfere with the due process of such
Petitioner’s Principal Argument: Military commission. For all the foregoing the petition is denied with costs de oficio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provision of our
constitutional law but also our local laws to say nothing of the fact (that) the Philippines is not a Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, Major General Josephus Q. Ramas, Elizabeth
signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare Dimaano
and therefore petitioners is charged of 'crimes' not based on law, national and international." Hence G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003
petitioner argues — "That in view off the fact that this commission has been empanelled by virtue of
an unconstitutional law an illegal order this commission is without jurisdiction to try herein • Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolutions of
petitioner." the Sandiganbayan (First Division) dated 18 November 1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil Case
No. 0037.
• The first Resolution dismissed petitioners (Republic of the Philippines) Amended Complaint
and ordered the return of the confiscated items to respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, while the
 second Resolution denied petitioners (Republic of the Philippines) Motion for P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano
Reconsideration. on 3 March 1986.
• Petitioner prays for the grant of the reliefs sought in its Amended Complaint, or in the ▪ Elizabeth Dimaano is allegedly Major General Q. Josephus Ramas’ mistress.
alternative, for the remand of this case to the Sandiganbayan (First Division) for further She does not have any means to acquire the communications equipment
proceedings allowing petitioner to complete the presentation of its evidence. as well as the aforementioned money.
◦ The AFP Board finds a prima facie case against Major General Josephus Ramas for ill
Statement of Facts gotten wealth and unexplained wealth in the amount of P2,974,134.00 and $50,000
• Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) US Dollars.
◦ President Corazon C. Aquino, immediately upon assuming Malacañang, enacts ◦ Decision: It is recommended that Maj. Gen. Josephus Q. Ramas (ret.) be prosecuted
Executive Order 1 (EO No. 1) or the Presidential Commission on Good Governance and tried for violation of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as Anti-Graft and
(PCGG). It is mandated to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former President Corrupt Practices Act and RA 1379, as amended, otherwise known as The Act for
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property.
associates. ◦ On 1 August 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No.
◦ EO No. 1 vested the PCGG with the power: 1379 (RA No. 1379) against Ramas.
▪ (a) to conduct investigation as may be necessary in order to accomplish ◦ Amended Complaint: Amended Complaint further alleged that Ramas acquired
and carry out the purposes of this order and the power funds, assets and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as an army
▪ (h) to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry officer and his other income from legitimately acquired property by taking undue
out the purpose of this order. advantage of his public office and/or using his power, authority and influence as
◦ Accordingly, the PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, created an AFP such officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and as a subordinate and close
Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board) tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth associate of the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos.
and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired. ◦ The Amended Complaint also alleged that the AFP Board, after a previous inquiry,
• AFP Board found reasonable ground to believe that respondents have violated RA No. 1379.
◦ The AFP Board, in line with its mandate, investigates Major General Q. Josephus The Amended Complaint prayed for, among others, the forfeiture of respondents
Ramas. properties, funds and equipment in favor of the State.
◦ On July 1987, the AFP Board issues a resolution and findings on Ramas’ alleged ill • Ramas’ Answer:
gotten wealth. It submits the following findings: ◦ Ramas contends that his property consisted only of a residential house at La Vista
▪ Evidence in the record showed that respondent is the owner of a house Subdivision, Quezon City, valued at P700,000, which was not out of proportion to
and lot located at 15-Yakan St., La Vista, Quezon City. The aforementioned his salary and other legitimate income.
property in Quezon City may be estimated modestly at P700,000.00. ◦ He denies ownership of any mansion in Cebu City and the cash, communications
▪ He is also the owner of a house and lot located in Cebu City. The lot has an equipment and other items confiscated from the house of Dimaano.
area of 3,327 square meters. ◦ Dimaano filed her own Answer to the Amended Complaint. Admitting her
▪ Communication equipment and facilities are found in the premises of employment as a clerk-typist in the office of Ramas from January-November 1978
Elizabeth Dimaano, a Confidential Agent of the Military Security Unit, and only, Dimaano claimed ownership of the monies, communications equipment,
are confiscated by elements of the PC Command of Batangas. jewelry and land titles taken from her house by the Philippine Constabulary raiding
▪ These items could not have been in the possession of Elizabeth Dimaano if team.
not given for her use by respondent Commanding General of the Philippine • The Sandiganbayan
Army. ◦ On 13 April 1989, petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint in
▪ Aside from the military equipment/items and communications equipment, order to charge the delinquent properties with being subject to forfeiture as having
the raiding team was also able to confiscate money in the amount of been unlawfully acquired by defendant Dimaano alone x x x.
P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano ◦ Petitioner fails to present witnesses and delays the court for over a year.
on 3 March 1986. ◦ on 18 May 1990, petitioner again expressed its inability to proceed to trial because
▪ Aside from the military equipment/items and communications equipment, it had no further evidence to present. Again, in the interest of justice, the
the raiding team was also able to confiscate money in the amount of Sandiganbayan granted petitioner 60 days within which to file an appropriate
 pleading. The Sandiganbayan, however, warned petitioner that failure to act would the administration of former President Marcos by being the latters immediate family,
constrain the court to take drastic action. relative, subordinate or close associate, taking undue advantage of their public office or
◦ Private respondents then filed their motions to dismiss based on Republic v. using their powers, influence x x x; or (2) AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and
Migrino.The Court held in Migrino that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to corruption provided the President assigns their cases to the PCGG.
investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of mere position held without  Ramas case should fall under the first category of AFP personnel before the PCGG could
a showing that they are subordinates of former President Marcos. exercise its jurisdiction over him. Petitioner argues that Ramas was undoubtedly a
◦ Dispositive: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the Amended subordinate of former President Marcos because of his position as the Commanding General
Complaint, without pronouncement as to costs. The counterclaims are likewise of the Philippine Army. Petitioner claims that Ramas position enabled him to receive orders
dismissed for lack of merit, but the confiscated sum of money, communications directly from his commander-in-chief, undeniably making him a subordinate of former
equipment, jewelry and land titles are ordered returned to Elizabeth Dimaano. President Marcos.
◦ The records of this case are hereby remanded and referred to the Hon.  We hold that Ramas was not a subordinate of former President Marcos in the sense
Ombudsman, who has primary jurisdiction over the forfeiture cases under R.A. No. contemplated under EO No. 1 and its amendments.
1379, for such appropriate action as the evidence warrants. This case is also  Mere position held by a military officer does not automatically make him a subordinate as
referred to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a this term is used in EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A absent a showing that he enjoyed close
determination of any tax liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano in connection association with former President Marcos.
herewith. 2 Second issue:
◦ Ruling of the Sandiganbayan  Based on the findings of the Sandiganbayan and the records of this case, we find that
▪ (1.) The actions taken by the PCGG are not in accordance with the rulings petitioner has only itself to blame for non-completion of the presentation of its evidence.
of the Supreme Court in Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan[10] and Republic v. First, this case has been pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan dismissed it.
Migrino[11] which involve the same issues. 3 Third issue:
▪ (2.) No previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal  On 3 March 1986, the Constabulary raiding team served at Dimaanos residence a search
cases was conducted against Ramas and Dimaano. warrant captioned Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. Dimaano was not present
▪ (3.) The evidence adduced against Ramas does not constitute a prima facie during the raid but Dimaanos cousins witnessed the raid. The raiding team seized the items
case against him. detailed in the seizure receipt together with other items not included in the search warrant.
▪ (4.) There was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated. The raiding team seized these items: one baby armalite rifle with two magazines; 40 rounds
of 5.56 ammunition; one pistol, caliber .45; communications equipment, cash consisting of
Issues P2,870,000 and US$50,000, jewelry, and land titles.
1 PCGG’s Jurisdiction to Investigate Private Respondents  Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the raiding team conducted the search
2 Propriety of Dismissal of Case Before Completion of Presentation of Evidence — Petitioner and seizure on March 3, 1986 or five days after the successful EDSA revolution. Petitioner
also contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case before completion of the argues that a revolutionary government was operative at that time by virtue of Proclamation
presentation of petitioners evidence. No. 1 announcing that President Aquino and Vice President Laurel were taking power in the
3 Third Issue: Legality of the Search and Seizure — Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan name and by the will of the Filipino people. Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary
erred in declaring the properties confiscated from Dimaanos house as illegally seized and government effectively withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed
therefore inadmissible in evidence. This issue bears a significant effect on petitioners case private respondents exclusionary right.
since these properties comprise most of petitioners evidence against private respondents.  Moreover, petitioner argues that the exclusionary right arising from an illegal search applies
Petitioner will not have much evidence to support its case against private respondents if only beginning 2 February 1987, the date of ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner
these properties are inadmissible in evidence. contends that all rights under the Bill of Rights had already reverted to its embryonic stage at
the time of the search. Therefore, the government may confiscate the monies and items
Ruling taken from Dimaano and use the same in evidence against her since at the time of their
1 First issue: seizure, private respondents did not enjoy any constitutional right.
 The PCGG, through the AFP Board, can only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt  Petitioner is partly right in its arguments.
practices of AFP personnel who fall under either of the two categories mentioned in Section  The correct issues are: (1) whether the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of
2 of EO No. 1. These are: (1) AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum, that is, after the actual and effective
 take-over of power by the revolutionary government following the cessation of resistance by not repudiate it. The warrant, issued by a judge upon proper application, specified the items
loyalist forces up to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional to be searched and seized. The warrant is thus valid with respect to the items specifically
Constitution); and (2) whether the protection accorded to individuals under the described in the warrant.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) and the Universal Declaration  It is obvious from the testimony of Captain Sebastian that the warrant did not include the
of Human Rights (Declaration) remained in effect during the interregnum. monies, communications equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding team
 We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the confiscated. The search warrant did not particularly describe these items and the raiding
interregnum. However, we rule that the protection accorded to individuals under the team confiscated them on its own authority. The raiding team had no legal basis to seize
Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum. these items without showing that these items could be the subject of warrantless search and
 During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the seizure. Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized these items.The
supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and seizure of these items was therefore void, and unless these items are contraband per se, and
orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was they are not, they must be returned to the person from whom the raiding seized
no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. them. However, we do not declare that such person is the lawful owner of these items,
Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill merely that the search and seizure warrant could not be used as basis to seize and withhold
of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the these items from the possessor. We thus hold that these items should be returned
interregnum. immediately to Dimaano.
 As the Court explained in Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno:A revolution has been
defined as the complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by The Dispositive
those who were previously subject to it or as a sudden, radical and fundamental change in WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The questioned Resolutions of the
the government or political system, usually effected with violence or at least some acts of Sandiganbayan dated 18 November 1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037, remanding the
violence. In Kelsen’s book, General Theory of Law and State, it is defined as that which records of this case to the Ombudsman for such appropriate action as the evidence may warrant, and
occurs whenever the legal order of a community is nullified and replaced by a new order . . . referring this case to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a determination of any
a way not prescribed by the first order itself. tax liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, are AFFIRMED.
 During the interregnum, the government in power was concededly a revolutionary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
government bound by no constitution. No one could validly question the sequestration G.R. No. 100150 January 5, 1994
orders as violative of the Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of Rights during the
interregnum. However, upon the adoption of the Freedom Constitution, the sequestered BRIGIDO R. SIMON, JR., CARLOS QUIMPO, CARLITO ABELARDO, AND GENEROSO OCAMPO,
companies assailed the sequestration orders as contrary to the Bill of Rights of the Freedom petitioners,
Constitution. vs.
 The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration during the COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ROQUE FERMO, AND OTHERS AS JOHN DOES, respondents.
interregnum. Whether the revolutionary government could have repudiated all its
obligations under the Covenant or the Declaration is another matter and is not the issue The City Attorney for petitioners.
here. Suffice it to say that the Court considers the Declaration as part of customary The Solicitor General for public respondent.
international law, and that Filipinos as human beings are proper subjects of the rules of
international law laid down in the Covenant. The fact is the revolutionary government did FACTS:
not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration in the same way it repudiated the 1973
Constitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escape  July 9, 1990 – a Demolition Notice was signed by Carlos Quimpo in his capacity as an Executive
responsibility for the States good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under Officer of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers Management Council under the Office of the City
international law. Mayor
 During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and orders  It was sent to, and received by, the private respondents (being the officers and
issued by government officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the members of the North EDSA Vendors Association, Incorporated).
authority granted them by the revolutionary government. The directives and orders should  In said notice, the respondents were given a grace-period of 3 days (up to 12 July 1990)
not have also violated the Covenant or the Declaration. In this case, the revolutionary within which to vacate the questioned premises of North EDSA.
government presumptively sanctioned the warrant since the revolutionary government did
 Prior to their receipt of the demolition notice, the private respondents were informed by
petitioner Quimpo that their stalls should be removed to give way to the "People's Park".  September 21, 1990 – the motion to dismiss was heard and submitted for resolution, along with
the contempt charge that had meantime been filed by the private respondents, notwithstanding
 July 12 1990 – the group, led by their President Roque Fermo, filed a letter-complaint (Pinag- the objection by petitioners on the ground that the motion to dismiss was still then unresolved.
samang Sinumpaang Salaysay) with the CHR against the petitioners
 It asked the late CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter to be addressed to  September 25, 1990 – the CHR cited the petitioners in contempt for carrying out the demolition
then QC Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr. to stop the demolition of the private respondents' of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia despite the "order to desist", and it imposed a fine of
stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia along North EDSA. P500.00 on each of them.

 July 23, 1990 – the CHR issued an Order directing the petitioners to desist from demolishing  March 1, 1991 – the CHR issued an Order, denying petitioners' motion to dismiss and
the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending resolution of the vendors/squatters' complaint supplemental motion to dismiss.
before the Commission and ordering said petitioners to appear before the CHR.  the CHR under its constitutional mandate had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by
the squatters-vendors who complained of the gross violations of their human and
 August 1, 1990 – the CHR ordered the disbursement of financial assistance of not more than constitutional rights. The motion to dismiss should be and is hereby DENIED for lack of
P200,000.00 in favor of the private respondents to purchase light housing materials and food merit.
under the Commission's supervision and again directed the petitioners to "desist from further  it was not the intention of the Constitutional Commission to create only a paper tiger
demolition, with the warning that violation of said order would lead to a citation for contempt limited only to investigating civil and political rights, but it should be considered a quasi-
and arrest." judicial body with the power to provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of
human rights of all persons within the Philippines
 September 10, 1990 – A motion to dismiss questioned CHR's jurisdiction.  the right to earn a living is a right essential to one's right to development, to life and to
 this case came about due to the alleged violation by the petitioners of the Inter-Agency dignity. All these brazenly and violently ignored and trampled upon by respondents with
Memorandum of Agreement whereby Metro-Manila Mayors agreed on a moratorium in little regard at the same time for the basic rights of women and children, and their
the demolition of the dwellings of poor dwellers in Metro-Manila health, safety and welfare. Their actions have psychologically scarred and traumatized
 a perusal of the said Agreement revealed that the moratorium referred to therein refers the children, who were witness and exposed to such a violent demonstration of Man's
to moratorium in the demolition of the structures of poor dwellers; inhumanity to man.
 that the complainants in this case were not poor dwellers but independent business  April 25 1991 – petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied.
entrepreneurs
 that the complainants were occupying government land, particularly the sidewalk of  The petition was initially dismissed in our June 25, 1991 resolution; it was subsequently
EDSA corner North Avenue, QC; reinstated, however, in our June 18 1991 resolution, in which we also issued a temporary
 that the QC City Mayor had the sole and exclusive discretion and authority whether or restraining order, directing the CHR to CEASE and DESIST from further hearing CHR No. 90-1580.
not a certain business establishment should be allowed to operate within the
jurisdiction of QC, to revoke or cancel a permit, if already issued, upon grounds clearly ISSUE: Is CHR authorized to hear and decide on the "demolition case" and to impose a fine for
specified by law and ordinance contempt? (extent of CHR's investigative power)

 September 12, 1990 – during the hearing, the petitioners moved for postponement, arguing that RULING:
the motion to dismiss set for September 21, 1990 had yet to be resolved. The petitioners likewise
manifested that they would bring the case to the courts  The CHR was created by the 1987 Constitution.
 it was formally constituted by then Pres. Corazon Aquino via EO 163, issued on May 5,
 September 18, 1990 – a supplemental motion to dismiss was filed by the petitioners, stating that 1987, in the exercise of her legislative power at the time.
the Commission's authority should be understood as being confined only to the investigation of  it succeeded, but so superseded as well, the Presidential Committee on Human Rights
violations of civil and political rights
 the rights allegedly violated in this case were not civil and political rights, but their  Powers and functions of CHR
privilege to engage in business.
 1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations law; political rights, such as the right to elect public officials, to be elected to public
involving civil and political rights; office, and to form political associations and engage in politics; and social rights, such as
2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations the right to an education, employment, and social services.
thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;  the entitlement that inhere in the individual person from the sheer fact of his humanity.
3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within . . . Because they are inherent, human rights are not granted by the State but can only
the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and be recognized and protected by it.
legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need  include all the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights defined in the
protection; Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;  rights that pertain to man simply because he is human which are part of his natural
5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect birth, right, innate and inalienable.
for the primacy of human rights;  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the International Covenant on
6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political
compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families; Rights, suggests that the scope of human rights can be understood to include those that
7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on relate to an individual's social, economic, cultural, political and civil relations. It thus
human rights; seems to closely identify the term to the universally accepted traits and attributes of
8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of an individual, along with what is generally considered to be his inherent and
documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any inalienable rights, encompassing almost all aspects of life.
investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of  DEFINTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
its functions;  refer to those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in wider
10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or
11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law. administration of the government.
 include the rights of property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of
 The CHR theorizes that the intention of the members of the Constitutional Commission is to contract, etc.
make CHR a quasi-judicial body.  rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community.
 SC: NO.  in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action
a) it is only the first of the enumerated powers and functions that bears any
resemblance to adjudication or adjudgment, but that resemblance can in no  DEFINTION OF POLITICAL RIGHTS
way be synonymous to the adjudicatory power itself.  refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or
b) CHR was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi- administration of government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold public office, the
judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of right of petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the
the latter. management of government.
c) the function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a
controversy is not a judicial function,  It is readily apparent that the delegates envisioned a Commission on Human Rights that would
focus its attention to the more severe cases of human rights violations.
 Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution, is a provision empowering the CHR to 1) protection of rights of political detainees
"investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations 2) treatment of prisoners and the prevention of tortures
involving civil and political rights" 3) fair and public trials
4) cases of disappearances
 DEFINITION/SCOPE OF HUMAN RIGHTS 5) salvagings and hamletting, and
 the basic rights which inhere in man by virtue of his humanity. 6) other crimes committed against the religious.
 include civil rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property; freedom of speech, of
the press, of religion, academic freedom, and the rights of the accused to due process of
 Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the responsible for ULP losing their status as employees
authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendation. • September 29, 1969: PBMEO motion for reconsideration – dismissed since 2 days late

 The order for the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia of the private
respondents cannot fall within the compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and ISSUE:
political rights" intended by the Constitution. 1. Whether or not to regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as
evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining
 The CHR is constitutionally authorized to "adopt its operational guidelines and rules of agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees,
procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court." stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is an inhibition of the rights of
 the CHR acted within its authority in providing in its revised rules, its power "to cite or free expression, free assembly and petition
hold any person in direct or indirect contempt, and to impose the appropriate penalties
in accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court."
 That power to cite for contempt, however, should be understood to apply only to HELD:
violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry
out its investigatorial powers. YES. Set aside as null and void the orders of CFI and reinstate the petitioners.
• In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human
 The "order to desist" (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) in the is not investigatorial personality is the central core as well as the cardinal article of faith of our civilization. The inviolable
in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess. character of man as an individual must be "protected to the largest possible extent in his thoughts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person
• The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the
Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co. assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments,
and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles.
FACTS: • The freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the right to petition are included among
• March 2, 1969: Philippine Blooming Mills discovered that Philippine Blooming Mills Employees the immunities reserved by the sovereign people
Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass demonstration as a valid exercise of their • The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also political
constitutional right of freedom expression in general and of their right of assembly and petition for rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete
redress of grievances in particular before appropriate governmental agency, the Chief Executive, fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the periodic establishment
alleged abuses of the police officers of the municipality of Pasig at Malacañang on March 4, 1969 to of the government through their suffrage but also in the administration of public affairs as well as in
be participated in by the workers in the first, second and third shifts (6am-2pm, 7am-4pm. and 8am- the discipline of abusive public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights so that he can appeal to
5pm respectively) the appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and protection as well as for the
• March 3, 1969: Philippine Blooming Mills held 2 meetings in the morning and afternoon where imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring public officers and employees.
PBMEO confirmed the demonstration which has nothing to do with the Company because the union • While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property
has no quarrel or dispute with Management. That Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company rights is recognized.
personnel manager, informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union o Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible.
guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter o a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely
should not unduly prejudice the normal operation thus whoever fails to report for work the following existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to
morning shall be dismissed for violation of the existing CBA Article XXIV: NO LOCKOUT — NO STRIKE prevent
amounting to an illegal strike o Rationale: Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The debasement of the
• March 3, 1969 9:50 am: Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a cablegram to the Company: human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary
REITERATING REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT EMPLOYEES JOINING DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4, 1969 terms. The wounds fester and the scars remain to humiliate him to his dying day, even as he cries in
• The Company filed for violation of the CBA. PBMEO answered that there is no violation since they anguish for retribution, denial of which is like rubbing salt on bruised tissues.
gave prior notice. Moreover, it was not a mass demonstration for strike against the company. o injunction would be trenching upon the freedom expression of the workers, even if it legally
• Judge Joaquin M. Salvador: PBMEO guilty of bargaining in bad faith and PBMEO officers directly appears to be illegal picketing or strike
• The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of
its employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the its own rules or to except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice
preservation merely of their property rights. require."
o There was a lack of human understanding or compassion on the part of the firm in rejecting the ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
request of the Union for excuse from work for the day shifts in order to carry out its mass
demonstration. And to regard as a ground for dismissal the mass demonstration held against the Prof. Randolf S. David, et al. vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, as President and Commander-in-Chief
Pasig police, not against the company, is gross vindictiveness on the part of the employer, which is as G.R. No. 171396 May 3, 2006
unchristian as it is unconstitutional.
o The most that could happen to them was to lose a day's wage by reason of their absence from These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing Presidential
work on the day of the demonstration. One day's pay means much to a laborer, more especially if he Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), President Gloria Macapagal-
has a family to support. Yet, they were willing to forego their one-day salary hoping that their Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners contend that respondent officials of the
demonstration would bring about the desired relief from police abuses. But management was Government, in their professed efforts to defend and preserve democratic institutions, are actually
adamant in refusing to recognize the superior legitimacy of their right of free speech, free assembly trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
and the right to petition for redress.
o the dismissal for proceeding with the demonstration and consequently being absent from work,  On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Edsa People
constitutes a denial of social justice likewise assured by the fundamental law to these lowly Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency. On the
employees. Section 5 of Article II of the Constitution imposes upon the State "the promotion of social same day, the President issued G. O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017.
justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all of the people," which guarantee is  In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, respondents stated that
emphasized by the other directive in Section 6 of Article XIV of the Constitution that "the State shall the proximate cause behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among some
afford protection to labor ...". Under the Industrial Peace Act, the Court of Industrial Relations is military officers, leftist insurgents of the New People’s Army (NPA), and some members of
enjoined to effect the policy of the law "to eliminate the causes of industrial unrest by encouraging the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President Arroyo. They considered
and protecting the exercise by employees of their right to self-organization for the purpose of the aim to oust or assassinate the President and take-over the reigns of government as a
collective bargaining and for the promotion of their moral, social and economic well-being." clear and present danger.
• The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice defined in Section 4(a-1) in  During the oral arguments held on March 7, 2006, the Solicitor General argued that the
relation to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 intent of the Constitution is to give full discretionary powers to the President in determining
of Republic Act No. 8 guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in concert activities for ... the necessity of calling out the armed forces. He emphasized that none of the petitioners
mutual aid or protection"; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair labor practice for an employer has shown that PP 1017 was without factual bases.
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise their rights guaranteed in Section Three."  By midnight of February 23, 2006, the President convened her security advisers and several
• violation of a constitutional right divests the court of jurisdiction. Relief from a criminal conviction cabinet members to assess the gravity of the fermenting peace and order situation. She
secured at the sacrifice of constitutional liberties, may be obtained through habeas corpus directed both the AFP and the PNP to account for all their men and ensure that the chain of
proceedings even long after the finality of the judgment. There is no time limit to the exercise of the command remains solid and undivided. To protect the young students from any possible
freedoms. The right to enjoy them is not exhausted by the delivery of one speech, the printing of one trouble that might break loose on the streets, the President suspended classes in all levels in
article or the staging of one demonstration. It is a continuing immunity to be invoked and exercised the entire National Capital Region.
when exigent and expedient whenever there are errors to be rectified, abuses to be denounced,  On March 3, 2006, President Arroyo issued PP 1021 declaring that the state of national
inhumanities to be condemned. Otherwise these guarantees in the Bill of Rights would be vitiated by emergency has ceased to exist.
rule on procedure prescribing the period for appeal. The battle then would be reduced to a race for
time. And in such a contest between an employer and its laborer, the latter eventually loses because  In G.R. No. 171396, petitioners Randolf S. David, et al.
he cannot employ the best an dedicated counsel who can defend his interest with the required In the Brief Account submitted by petitioner David, certain facts are established:
diligence and zeal, bereft as he is of the financial resources with which to pay for competent legal first, he was arrested without warrant;
services second, the PNP operatives arrested him on the basis of PP 1017;
• enforcement of the basic human freedoms sheltered no less by the organic law, is a most third, he was brought at Camp Karingal, Quezon City where he was fingerprinted, photographed and
compelling reason to deny application of a Court of Industrial Relations rule which impinges on such booked like a criminal suspect;
human rights. It is an accepted principle that the Supreme Court has the inherent power to "suspend fourth, he was treated brusquely by policemen who held his head and tried to push him inside an
unmarked car;
fifth, he was charged with Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang No. 880 and Inciting to Sedition; of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. It had accomplished the end desired which prompted
sixth, he was detained for seven (7) hours; and President Arroyo to issue PP 1021. But there is nothing in PP 1017 allowing the police, expressly or
seventh, he was eventually released for insufficiency of evidence. impliedly, to conduct illegal arrest, search or violate the citizens constitutional rights.

 In G.R. No. 171409, petitioners Ninez Cacho-Olivares and Tribune Publishing Co., Inc. Significantly, there is nothing in G.O. No. 5 authorizing the military or police to commit acts beyond
Petitioners narration of facts, which the Solicitor General failed to refute, established the following: what are necessary and appropriate to suppress and prevent lawless violence, the limitation of their
first, the Daily Tribune’s offices were searched without warrant; authority in pursuing the Order. Otherwise, such acts are considered illegal.
second, the police operatives seized several materials for publication;
third, the search was conducted at about 1:00 o clock in the morning of February 25, 2006; G.R. No. 171396 (David et al.)
fourth, the search was conducted in the absence of any official of the Daily Tribune except the security The Constitution provides that the right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers
guard of the building; and and effects against unreasonable search and seizure of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
fifth, policemen stationed themselves at the vicinity of the Daily Tribune offices. be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
 In G.R. No. 171483, petitioners KMU, NAFLU-KMU, and their members complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
Undeterred by the announcements that rallies and public assemblies would not be allowed, groups of and the persons or things to be seized. The plain import of the language of the Constitution is that
protesters (members of Kilusang Mayo Uno [KMU] and National Federation of Labor Unions-Kilusang searches, seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search
Mayo Uno [NAFLU-KMU]), marched from various parts of Metro Manila with the intention of warrant or warrant of arrest. Thus, the fundamental protection given by this provision is that between
converging at the EDSA shrine. Those who were already near the EDSA site were violently dispersed person and police must stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or
by huge clusters of anti-riot police. The well-trained policemen used truncheons, big fiber glass refuse to issue search warrants or warrants of arrest.
shields, water cannons, and tear gas to stop and break up the marching groups, and scatter the massed
participants. The same police action was used against the protesters marching forward to Cubao, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Quezon City and to the corner of Santolan Street and EDSA. That same evening, hundreds of riot
policemen broke up an EDSA celebration rally held along Ayala Avenue and Paseo de Roxas Street in Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a
Makati City. private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

SC RULING: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
One of the misfortunes of an emergency, particularly, that which pertains to security, is that military is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
necessity and the guaranteed rights of the individual are often not compatible. Our history reveals
that in the crucible of conflict, many rights are curtailed and trampled upon. Here, the right against (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
unreasonable search and seizure; the right against warrantless arrest; and the freedom of speech, of cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
expression, of the press, and of assembly under the Bill of Rights suffered the greatest blow. circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
x x x
A perusal of the direct injuries allegedly suffered by the said petitioners shows that they resulted from
the implementation, pursuant to G.O. No. 5, of PP 1017.
Neither of the two (2) exceptions mentioned above justifies petitioner
David’s warrantless arrest. During the inquest for the charges of inciting to sedition and violation of BP
Can this Court adjudge as unconstitutional PP 1017 and G.O. No 5 on the basis of these illegal acts? In
880, all that the arresting officers could invoke was their
general, does the illegal implementation of a law render it unconstitutional?
observation that some rallyists were wearing t-shirts with the invective Oust Gloria Now
and their erroneous assumption that petitioner David was the leader of the rally. Consequently, the
Settled is the rule that courts are not at liberty to declare statutes invalid although they may be
Inquest Prosecutor ordered his immediate release on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. He noted
abused and misabused and may afford an opportunity for abuse in the manner of application. The
that petitioner David was not wearing the subject t-shirt and even if he was wearing it, such fact is
validity of a statute or ordinance is to be determined from its general purpose and its efficiency to
insufficient to charge him with inciting to sedition. Further, he also stated that there is insufficient
accomplish the end desired, not from its effects in a particular case. PP 1017 is merely an invocation
evidence for the charge of violation of BP 880 as it was not even known whether petitioner David was
of the President’s calling-out power. Its general purpose is to command the AFP to suppress all forms
the leader of the rally.
But what made it doubly worse for petitioners David et al. is that not only was their right against prevent. Tolerance is the rule and limitation is the exception. Only upon a showing that an assembly
warrantless arrest violated, but also their right to peaceably assemble. presents a clear and present danger that the State may deny the citizens right to exercise it. Indeed,
respondents failed to show or convince the Court that the rallyists committed acts amounting to
Section 4 of Article III guarantees: lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. With the blanket revocation of permits, the distinction
between protected and unprotected assemblies was eliminated.
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or
of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition Moreover, under BP 880, the authority to regulate assemblies and rallies is lodged with the local
the government for redress of grievances. government units. They have the power to issue permits and to revoke such permits after due notice
and hearing on the determination of the presence of clear and present danger. Here, petitioners were
Assembly means a right on the part of the citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to not even notified and heard on the revocation of their permits. The first time they learned of it was at
public affairs. It is a necessary consequence of our republican institution and complements the right the time of the dispersal. Such absence of notice is a fatal defect. When a person’s right is restricted
of speech. As in the case of freedom of expression, this right is not to be limited, much less denied, by government action, it behooves a democratic government to see to it that the restriction is fair,
except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to reasonable, and according to procedure.
prevent. In other words, like other rights embraced in the freedom of expression, the right to assemble
is not subject to previous restraint or censorship. It may not be conditioned upon the prior issuance G.R. No. 171409, (Cacho-Olivares, et al.)
of a permit or authorization from the government authorities except, of course, if the assembly is Rule 126 of The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure lays down the steps in the conduct of search and
intended to be held in a public place, a permit for the use of such place, and not for the assembly itself, seizure. Section 4 requires that a search warrant be issued upon probable cause in connection with
may be validly required. one specific offence to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Section 8 mandates that the search
The ringing truth here is that petitioner David, et al. were arrested while they were exercising their of a house, room, or any other premise be made in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any
right to peaceful assembly. They were not committing any crime, neither was there a showing of a member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient
clear and present danger that warranted the limitation of that right. As can be gleaned from age and discretion residing in the same locality. And Section 9 states that the warrant must direct that
circumstances, the charges of inciting to sedition and violation of BP 880 were mere it be served in the daytime, unless the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched,
afterthought. Even the Solicitor General, during the oral argument, failed to justify the arresting in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. All these
officers conduct. rules were violated by the CIDG operatives.

Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime. The holding of meetings for Not only that, the search violated petitioner’s freedom of the press. The best gauge of a free and
peaceable political action cannot be proscribed. Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings democratic society rests in the degree of freedom enjoyed by its media.
cannot be branded as criminals on that score. The question, if the rights of free speech and peaceful
assembly are not to be preserved, is not as to the auspices under which the meeting was held but as SUMMATION
to its purpose; not as to the relations of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the
bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects. If the persons assembling have It is well to remember that military power is a means to an end and substantive civil rights are ends
committed crimes elsewhere, if they have formed or are engaged in a conspiracy against the public in themselves. How to give the military the power it needs to protect the Republic without
peace and order, they may be prosecuted for their conspiracy or other violations of valid laws. But it is unnecessarily trampling individual rights is one of the eternal balancing tasks of a democratic
a different matter when the State, instead of prosecuting them for such offenses, seizes upon mere state. During emergency, governmental action may vary in breadth and intensity from normal times,
participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion as the basis for a criminal charge. yet they should not be arbitrary as to unduly restrain our people’s liberty.

G.R. No. 171483 (KMU et al.) Perhaps, the vital lesson that we must learn from the theorists who studied the various competing
On the basis of the above principles, the Court likewise considers the dispersal and arrest of political philosophies is that, it is possible to grant government the authority to cope with crises without
the members of KMU et al. (G.R. No. 171483) unwarranted. Apparently, their dispersal was done surrendering the two vital principles of constitutionalism: the maintenance of legal limits to arbitrary
merely on the basis of Malacañang’s directive canceling all permits previously issued by local power, and political responsibility of the government to the governed.
government units. This is arbitrary. The wholesale cancellation of all permits to rally is a blatant
disregard of the principle that freedom of assembly is not to be limited, much less denied, except on
a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to
 WHEREFORE, the Petitions are partly granted. The Court rules that PP 1017 • The writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued was made final and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her
is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on attorneys and representatives were enjoined from using or submitting/admitting as evidence the
the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, the provisions of PP 1017 documents and papers in question.
commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, as well as decrees
• On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Hence this petition.
promulgated by the President, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, the provision
in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution ISSUE:
is CONSTITUTIONAL, but such declaration does not authorize the President to take over
privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior Whether or not thee papers and other materials obtained from forcible entrusion and from unlawful
legislation. means are admissible as evidence in court regarding marital separation and disqualification from
G.O. No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by which the AFP and the medical practice.
PNP should implement PP 1017, i.e. whatever is necessary and appropriate actions and RULING:
measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence. Considering that acts of
terrorism have not yet been defined and made punishable by the Legislature, such portion of • Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional
G.O. No. 5 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable 3 is no less
The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husbands infidelity) who
warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the absence is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the
of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order
rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.4 Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and whimsical inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.5
seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
• The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------
cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by
CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN, respondents. contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.
MENDOZA, J.:
• The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged.
Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected
FACTS:
spouse while the marriage subsists.6 Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to
• Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for
specified exceptions.7 But one thing is freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for
• Petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, each one to share what one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity
a driver and private respondents secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husbands that each owes to the other.
clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martins passport, and photographs.
• The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991
disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
• Dr. Martin brought this action below for recovery of the documents and papers and for damages vs.
against petitioner. ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant.
• The case was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch X, which, after trial, rendered
judgment for private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, declaring him the capital/exclusive owner of the FACTS:
properties and ordering Cecilia Zulueta and any person acting in her behalf to immediately return the - Andre Marti and Shirley Reyes went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export
properties to Dr. Martin. Forwarders" in the Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with them four (4) gift
 wrapped packages. Anita Reyes (the proprietress and no relation to Shirley Reyes) attended Appellant contends that the evidence subject of the imputed offense had been obtained in violation of
to them. The package was to be sent to WALTER FIERZ, his friend in Zurich Switzerland. his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication (Sec. 2
- Anita asked Marti if she could inspect the packages to which the latter refused, assuring her and 3, Art. III, Constitution) and therefore argues that the same should be held inadmissible in evidence
that the packages contained books, cigars and gloves. Anita no longer inspected the packages (Sec. 3 (2), Art. III).
in view of Marti’s representation. The packages were then boxed and ready for shipment.
- Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Sections 2 and 3, Article III of the Constitution provide:
Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following standard operating procedure,
opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened appellant's box, a peculiar odor emitted Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
therefrom. He squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inside. Opening one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding from the inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
opening of one of the gloves. He made an opening on one of the cellophane wrappers and took to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
several grams of the contents thereof . complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
- Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting a searched and the persons or things to be seized.
laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the cellophane wrapper.
- He brought the letter and a sample of appellant's shipment to the Narcotics Section of the Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). He informed the NBI that the rest of the shipment was lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by
still in his office. Therefore, Job Reyes and three (3) NBI agents, and a photographer, went to law.
the Reyes' office.
- Job Reyes brought out the box in which appellant's packages were placed and, in the presence (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
of the NBI agents, opened the top flaps, removed the styro-foam and took out the cellophane any purpose in any proceeding.
wrappers from inside the gloves. Dried marijuana leaves were found to have been contained
inside the cellophane wrappers.
- The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the Government without
- The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of the box and of the contents thereof, the latter transgressing appellant's rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Appellant
after signing a "Receipt" acknowledging custody of the said effects. contends that NBI agents made an illegal search and seizure of the evidence later on used in
- the Narcotics Section of the NBI submitted the dried leaves to the Forensic Chemistry Section prosecuting the case which resulted in his conviction.
for laboratory examination. It turned out that the dried leaves were marijuana flowering tops
as certified by the forensic chemist. - it was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency, who made search/inspection
- An Information was filed against appellant for violation of RA 6425, otherwise known as the of the packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the
Dangerous Drugs Act. part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of
- RTC: Convicted Marti for violating RA 6425 Customs or the Bureau of Posts.
- Reyes opened the box containing the illicit cargo, he took samples of the same to the NBI and
ISSUE: later summoned the agents to his place of business. Thereafter, he opened the parcel
containing the rest of the shipment and entrusted the care and custody thereof to the NBI
Can the accused/appellant invoke against the State that his constitutional right against unreasonable
agents. Clearly, the NBI agents made no search and seizure, much less an illegal one, contrary
searches and seizure has been violated considering that the evidence was primarily discovered and
to the postulate of accused/appellant.
obtained by a private person acting in a private capacity and without the intervention and participation
of State authorities?
- the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes
into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and
RULING: look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed that which is open, where
no trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not search. Where the contraband articles
No. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot are identified without a trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the search
be invoked against the State. that is prohibited by the constitution
 - the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of  alleges that the plaintiffs are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers,
private individuals. The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that
therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked is the country's virgin tropical forests
with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the  was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation
restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. of said resource but are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the
- If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured Court.
if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or  the minors further asseverate that they represent their generation as well as
initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the generations yet unborn
case at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable
search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law  Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered:
enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot  ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to
be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged (1) cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country; (2) Cease and desist
unlawful intrusion by the government. from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- agreements; and granting the plaintiffs . . . such other reliefs just and equitable under
the premises."
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993  General averments of the Complaint:
 tthe Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000)
OPOSA, et. al hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare
vs. and unique species of flora and fauna may be found
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department  these rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable;
of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured
Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66 and flourished since time immemorial
 scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology,
Oposa Law Office for petitioners. the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of 54% for forest cover
The Solicitor General for respondents. and 46% for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses
 the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of deforestation have
FACTS: resulted in a host of environmental tragedies
 the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are so
 The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed before RTC of Makati City, capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter
Branch 66. of judicial notice.

 The the principal petitioners are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective  June 22, 1990 – the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the
parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a complaint based on 2 grounds
domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging 1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him
in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. 2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of Government.
 The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in this petition by  July 12, 1990 Opposition to the Motion – Petitioners’ maintan:
the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper 1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action
motion by the petitioners. 2) the motion is dilatory
3) action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion.
 The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit
 July 18, 1991 – respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to ISSUE: Was the state policy concerning the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
dismiss. has been violated, amongst the other allegations?
 not only was the defendant's claim — that the complaint states no cause of action
against him and that it raises a political question — sustained, RULING:
 granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is
prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.  The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly
 Plaintiffs filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly
Court asking the Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the provides:
respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the
plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also joined the latter in this case.
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Petitioners
 contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains
 This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of
sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment, right of the people to a
the same article:
balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the
concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation
 rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
people's right to a healthful environment. health consciousness among them.
 claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting
Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is available involves  While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
a judicial question. Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
 non-impairement clause does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts. important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter.
 even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that they
may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires.  Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than
self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the
Respondents: advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.
 aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the
respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint  As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are
but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right" which supposedly assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.
entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae." Such
allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action.  If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded
 reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are
political question which should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative branches of mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing
Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners' resources is not to file an action to importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect
court, but to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally. and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for
 the cancellation of the TLAs cannot be done by the State without due process of law. the present generation, but also for those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing
 once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain period of time — usually for twenty- but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.
five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same can neither be revised nor cancelled
unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the  The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition impairing the environment.
to have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be
violative of the requirements of due process.  The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of
the country's forests.
  Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversiby  A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to
disrupted. respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action.
 Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to
health, as well as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation, *** Wherefore when the respondent-Judge granted the Timber License Agreements, it had been on
development and utilization of the country's natural resources, then Pres. Corazon C. Aquino the violation of the said policy. Moreover, the TLA’s are not contracts and the non-impairment clause
promulgated on June 10. 1987, EO 192, Section 4 of which expressly mandates that the that the respondents used as defense cannot be invoked.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's
environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral, resources, CASE OF BARBULESCU V. ROMANIA
including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as
the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to  The Court held that the Article 8 rights of an employee breached when his employer
ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and monitored his personal communications on Yahoo Messenger.
future generations of Filipinos."
 The applicant, Mr Bărbulescu, was an engineer in charge of sales and had set up a Yahoo
 This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of Messenger account – at his employer’s request – for the purpose of responding to customers’
1987, specifically in Section 1 thereof which stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound enquiries. The employer’s internal regulations, which had been signed by Mr Bărbulescu on
ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2 of 20 December 2006, prohibited the use of company resources by employees for private
the same Title, on the other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, it purposes, although these internal regulations did not contain any reference to the employer
makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher authority. monitoring employees’ communications.

 Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve  On 3 July 2007 the employer circulated an information notice to all its employees which it
as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. asked they read and sign. This explained again that time at work should not be spent on
personal matters and that “The employer has a duty to supervise and monitor employees’
 It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific work and to take punitive measures against anyone at fault” [15]. The evidence was that Mr
statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future Bărbulescu had signed at this document some point between 3 and 13 July 2007 (the precise
generations. date and time being apparently unknown).

 June 6, 1977 – the following PDs were issued:  On 13 July 2007 Mr Bărbulescu was informed that his Yahoo messenger communications had
 PD 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) which "declared a continuing policy of the been monitored and that there was evidence that he had been using the Internet for personal
State (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and purposes. He was not told whether the monitoring involved reading the contents of his
nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the messages.
social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos,
and (c) to insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of  Mr Bărbulescu denied that he had used it for personal purposes and saying that he had used
dignity and well-being." As its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities of each generation Yahoo messenger for work-related purposes only. In response his employer sent him a
as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding generations." transcript comprising of 45 pages of messages that he had exchanged with his brother and
 PD 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) gave flesh to the said policy. with his fiancée, some of which were of “an intimate nature”.

 Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful  Mr Bărbulescu’s response was to notify his employer in writing that in his view it had
ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty — under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and committed a criminal offence by breaching the secrecy of correspondence. Mr Bărbulescu’s
functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 — to protect and advance employment was subsequently terminated on 1 August 2007 for breach of the company’s
the said right. internal regulations which forbid the use of “computers, photocopiers, telephones, telex and
fax machines for personal purposes” (see [8] of Chamber Decision dated 12 January 2016).
  Mr Bărbulescu brought a complaint against his dismissal which was rejected by the Bucharest The majority judgment noted that the notion of “private life” may include professional activities and
county court. His appeal against that decision was dismissed. that it is in the course of their working lives that the majority of people have a significant, if not the
greatest, opportunity to develop relationships with the outside world [71]. Furthermore the notion of
 Mr Bărbulescu then made an application to Strasbourg complaining of a breach of his Article “correspondence” is not qualified by any adjective unlike the term “life” and the Court had already held
8 rights, claiming that his dismissal had been based on a breach of his right to respect for his that no such qualification should be made in the context of correspondence by means of telephone
private life and correspondence and that, by not revoking that measure, the domestic courts calls. Telephone calls are covered by the notions of “private life” and “correspondence” within the
had failed to comply with their obligations to protect his Article 8 rights ([55] and [61]). meaning of Article 8. In principle this is also true when they are made or received at work.

 In January 2016 the Fourth Section of the ECHR held that while his article 8 rights were The same reasoning also applies to emails and information obtained about a person’s internet use
engaged, there was no violation as a fair balance had been struck between the respect for his [72]. The Court held on the facts of the case that Mr Bărbulescu’s communications were covered by
private life and correspondence and his employee’s interests (see here for that decision). The the concepts of “private life” and “correspondence” [81].
Chamber took into account the fact that Mr Bărbulescu had been able to bring a complaint in
the courts and that they had found that he had committed a disciplinary offence by using the The majority considered that the State had a positive obligation to ensure respect for private life and
internet for personal purposes during working hours. They also took into account the fact that correspondence in an employment context. It noted that Contracting States must be granted a wide
the employer had only accessed the contents of Mr Bărbulescu’s communications after he had margin of appreciation in assessing the need to establish a legal framework governing conditions in
stated that he had only used Yahoo Messenger for work-related purposes (see [58] of Grand which an employer may regulate electronic or other communications of a non-professional nature by
Chamber decision). its employees in the workplace [119].

There is undoubtedly a conflict between the employer’s right to engage in However it then went on to say that this discretion “cannot be unlimited” and that domestic authorities
monitoring and the employees’ right to protection of their privacy. This conflict should ensure that any introduction of measures to monitor communications should be accompanied
has been settled at European Union level through the adoption of Directive no. by adequate and sufficient “safeguards against abuse” [120].
95/46/EC, which has laid down a number of principles governing the monitoring
of internet and email use in the workplace, including the following in particular. It listed the following six factors in [121] which it stated were relevant:

- Principle of necessity: monitoring must be necessary to achieve a certain aim.  Notification of the monitoring: this should normally be clear about the nature of the monitoring and
- Principle of purpose specification: data must be collected for specified, be given in advance;
explicit and legitimate purposes.
 Extent of the monitoring: a distinction should be made between monitoring the flow of
- Principle of transparency: the employer must provide employees with full communication and their content; whether all or only part of communications were monitored; the
information about monitoring operations. duration of the monitoring; and the number of people who had access to the resulting information;
- Principle of legitimacy: data-processing operations may only take place for  Justification for monitoring: whether the employer had legitimate reasons for the monitoring.
a legitimate purpose. Monitoring the content of communications is more invasive and requires a weightier justification;
- Principle of proportionality: personal data being monitored must be relevant  Necessity of methods and measures deployed: whether the aim of the employer could have been
and adequate in relation to the specified purpose. achieved by less intrusive measures and methods (e.g. without directly accessing the full contents of
Principle of security: the employer is required to take all possible security measures to ensure that the employee’s communications);
the data collected are not accessible to third parties.
 Consequences for the employee: the use made of the monitoring and whether the results used to
RULING achieve the declared aim of the measure; and

On 6 June 2016 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at Mr Bărbulescu’s request. A hearing  Whether there were adequate safeguards: these should ensure that the employer cannot access the
took place on 30 November 2016 and the decision was handed down on 5 September 2017. actual content of communications unless the employee has been notified in advance.
 In Mr Bărbulescu’s case the interests at stake were his “right to respect for his private life and mental suffering but also for the services of a maid. The decision had moreover been based on the
correspondence” and the employer’s “right to engage in monitoring, including the corresponding general assumption that sexuality was not as important for a 50-year-old woman and mother of two
disciplinary powers, in order to ensure the smooth running of the company” [132]. The majority referred children as for someone of a younger age. In the Court’s view, those considerations showed the
to the following when finding that there had been a breach of Article 8: prejudices prevailing in the judiciary in Portugal.

Principal facts
 It did not appear that Mr Bărbulescu had prior notice of the possibility that his communications on
Yahoo Messenger might be monitored [133] & [140]; The applicant, Maria Ivone Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais, is a Portuguese national who was born
in 1945 and lives in Bobadela (Portugal).
 It did not appear that he had been informed of the extent and nature of the monitoring activities or
that the content of his messages would be accessed [133]. The applicant, suffering from a gynaecological disease, had surgery in May 1995. The operation left
here in intense pain and led to a loss of sensation in the vagina, incontinence, difficulty walking and
 Neither the county court nor the court of appeal had considered the scope and degree of intrusion into
sitting, and having sexual relations.
Mr Bărbulescu’s private life and that it appeared that all his communications had been monitored in
real time, accessed and printed out [134]; She found out that a pudendal nerve had been injured during the operation, and she therefore
brought a civil action against the hospital for damages. At first-instance she was awarded 80,000
 Neither of the domestic courts had sufficiently considered whether there was any proper justification
euros (EUR) for the physical and mental suffering caused by the medical error and EUR 16,000 for
for such intrusive monitoring and the aim of the monitoring [135];
the services of a maid to help with household tasks.
 Nor did they consider whether this could have been achieved by less intrusive measures than accessing
However, on appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court, although confirming the findings of the
the content of the messages [136];
first-instance court, found those awards excessive and reduced them to EUR 50,000 and EUR 6,000,
 Nor whether the communications might have been accessed without Mr Bărbulescu’s knowledge respectively. It found in particular that her pain had been aggravated during the surgery, but that it
[140]; was not new and had not resulted exclusively from the injury to the nerve; and that, in any case, she
was already 50 years old at the time of the surgery and the mother of two children, an age when
 The consequence for Mr Bărbulescu was that he received the most severe disciplinary sanction and sexuality was not as important. It further found that she was unlikely to be in need of a full time
was dismissed. maid at the time as, considering the age of her children, she only needed to take care of
Consequently, the Court considered that the domestic authorities had failed to afford adequate her husband.
protection to Mr Bărbulescu’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence and failed to Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
strike a fair balance between the interests at stake [141]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8 (right to
Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal respect for private and family life), the applicant alleged that the Supreme Administrative Court’s
decision to reduce her compensation had been discriminatory, in particular because it had
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal disregarded the importance of a sex life for her as a woman.
(application no. 17484/15) the European Court of Human Rights held, by five votes to two, that
there had been: a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read together with The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 April 2015. Judgment was
Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

The case concerned a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court to reduce the amount of Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine), President, Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta),
compensation awarded to the applicant, a 50-year-old woman suffering from gynaecological
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal), Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Iulia Motoc
complications, as a result of a medical error. An operation in 1995 had left her in intense pain,
(Romania),
incontinent and with difficulties in having sexual relations. The applicant alleged in particular that
the decision to reduce the amount of compensation was discriminatory because it had disregarded Georges Ravarani (Luxembourg), Marko Bošnjak (Slovenia),
the importance of a sex life for her as a woman.
and also Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar.
The Court found in particular that the applicant’s age and sex had apparently been decisive factors in
the national courts’ final decision not only to lower the compensation awarded for physical and Decision of the Court
The Court recalled that gender quality was today a major goal for the member States of the Council
of Europe, meaning that very good reasons would have to be put forward before a difference of
treatment on grounds of sex could be accepted as compatible with the European Convention. In
particular, references to traditions, general assumptions or prevailing social attitudes in a country
were insufficient for a difference in treatment on grounds of sex.

The applicant’s age and sex had apparently been decisive factors in the Supreme Administrative
Court’s final decision not only to lower the compensation for physical and mental suffering but also
the amount allocated for the services of a maid. The Supreme Administrative Court’s decision had
moreover been based on the general assumption that sexuality was not as important for a 50-year-
old woman and mother of two children as for someone of a younger age. It thus ignored the physical
and psychological importance of sexuality for women’s self-fulfillment and other dimensions of
women’s sexuality in the concrete case of the applicant herself. In the Court’s view, those
considerations showed the prejudices prevailing in the judiciary in Portugal.

In contrast, the Court could not help noting the national courts’ approach in two other judgments in

2008 and 2014 concerning complaints by two male patients about medical malpractice. In those
cases, the Supreme Court of Justice found that the fact that the men could no longer have normal
sexual relations had affected their self-esteem and had resulted in “tremendous/strong mental
shock”, regardless of their age or whether they had had children or not.

The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction
with Article 8.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The Court held, by five votes to two, that Portugal was to pay the applicant 3,250 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,460 for costs and expenses