CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW 2
CASE DIGESTS
Assignment
ATTY. MOHAMMAD FYZEE P. ALIM
Professor
Submitted:
WILLY C. DUMPIT
FIRST YEAR - LLB
GREGORIO AGLIPAY, Petitioner vs. JUAN RUIZ, Respondent
GR No. L-45459, March 13, 1937
FACTS:
In May 1936, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he
would order the issues of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in the City
of Manila of the Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress, organized by the
Roman Catholic Church. In spite of the protest of the petitioner's attorney, the
respondent publicly announced having sent to the United States the designs of the
postage stamps for printing The more important question raised refers to the alleged
violation of the Constitution by the respondent in issuing and selling postage stamps
commemorative of the Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress. It is alleged
that this action of the respondent is violative of the provisions of section 23,
subsection 3, Article VI, of the Constitution of the Philippines, which provides as
follows: No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used,
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, secretarian, institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or
support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as
such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the
armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage, or leprosarium.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the stamp is constitutional?
HELD:
No. Act No. 4052 contemplates no religious purpose in view. What it gives
the Director of Posts is the discretionary power to determine when the issuance of
special postage stamps would be "advantageous to the Government.". It does not
authorize the appropriation, use or application of public money or property for the
use, benefit or support of a particular sect or church. In the present case, however,
the issuance of the postage stamps in question by the Director of Posts and the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications was not inspired by any sectarian
denomination. The main purpose should not be frustrated by its subordinate to mere
incidental results not contemplated But, upon very serious reflection, examination of
Act No. 4052, and scrutiny of the attending circumstances, there has been no
constitutional infraction in the case at bar, Act No. 4052 grants the Director of Posts,
with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, discretion
to misuse postage stamps with new designs. Even if these officials made use of a
poor judgment in issuing and selling the postage stamps in question still, the case of
the petitioner would fail to take in weight. Between the exercise of a poor judgment
and the unconstitutionality of the step taken, a gap exists which is yet to be filled to
justify the court in setting aside the official act assailed as coming within a
constitutional inhibition. Hence, the writ of prohibition was denied, without
pronouncement as to costs.
ANDRES GARCES, Petitioner vs. Hon. ESTENZO, Respondent
G.R. No. L-53487 May 25, 1981
FACTS:
On March 23, 1976, the said barangay council adopted Resolution No. 5,
"reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration" every fifth day of April "of the
feast day of Señor San Vicente Ferrer, the patron saint of Valencia. That resolution
designated the members of nine committees who would take charge of the 1976
festivity. This was provided for (1) the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer
and (2) the construction of a waiting shed as the barangay's projects. Funds for the
two projects would be obtained through the selling of tickets and cash donations. A
controversy arose after the mass when the parish priest, Father Sergio Marilao
Osmeña refused to return that image to the barangay council on the pretext that it
was the property of the church because church funds were used for its acquisition.
Because Father Osmeña did not accede to the council's Resolution No. 6, the
council enacted on May 12, 1976 Resolution No. 10, authorizing the hiring of a
lawyer to file a replevin case against Father Osmeña for the recovery of the image.
On June 14, 1976, the barangay council passed Resolution No. 12, appointing
Veloso as its representative in the replevin case. Later, he and three other persons,
Andres Garces, a member of the Aglipayan Church, and two Catholic laymen, Jesus
Edullantes and Nicetas Dagar, filed against the barangay council and its members a
complaint in the Court of First Instance at Ormoc City. The lower upheld the validity
of the resolutions. Hence, this case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Barangay Council has the right over the custody of the
Relic?
HELD:
Yes. The questioned resolutions do not directly or indirectly establish any
religion, nor abridge religious liberty, nor appropriate public money or property for the
benefit of any sect, priest or clergyman. The wooden image was purchased in
connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint, San
Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with
religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio residents. If there is nothing
unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio,
then any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint cannot be
branded as illegal. The barangay council designated a layman as the custodian of
the wooden image in order to forestall any suspicion that it is favoring the Catholic
church. There can be no question that the image in question belongs to the
barangay council. The council has the right to take measures to recover possession
of the image by enacting Resolutions Nos. 10 and 12. Not every governmental
activity which involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious
tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and
state, freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property.
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, Petitioner vs. CITY OF MANILA, Respondent
G.R. No. L-963, April 30, 1957
FACTS:
On May 29 1953, plaintiff's Philippine agency has been distributing and selling
bibles and/or gospel portions thereof (except during the Japanese occupation)
throughout the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialects.
The acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed plaintiff that it was
conducting the business of general merchandise since November, 1945, without
providing itself with the necessary Mayor's permit and municipal license, in violation
of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364,
and required plaintiff to secure, within three days, the corresponding permit and
license fees, together with compromise covering the period from the 4th quarter of
1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953, in the total sum of P5,821.45. When the case was
set for hearing, plaintiff proved, among other things, that it has been in existence in
the Philippines since 1899, and that its parent society is in New York, United States
of America; that its, contiguous real properties located at Isaac Peral are exempt
from real estate taxes; and that it was never required to pay any municipal license
fee or tax before the war, nor does the American Bible Society in the United States
pay any license fee or sales tax for the sale of bible therein; and it never made any
profit from the sale of its bibles. The court dismissed the case for the lack of merits.
Not satisfied with the verdict, the plaintiff took up the matter to Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the provisions of said ordinances are applicable or not to the
case at bar?
HELD:
No. Under Sec. 27(e) of Commonwealth Act No. 466 or the National Internal
Revenue Code, Corporations or associations organized and operated exclusively for
religious, charitable or educational purposes. Provided, however, That the income of
whatever kind and character from any of its properties, real or personal, or from any
activity conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall
be liable to the tax imposed under this Code shall not be taxed. The price asked for
the bibles and other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than
the actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that American Bible Society was
engaged in the business or occupation of selling said "merchandise" for profit.
Therefore, the Ordinance cannot be applied for in doing so it would impair American
Bible Society’s free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship
as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. Hence, the court reversed
the decision appealed from, sentencing the defendant return to plaintiff the sum of
P5,891.45 unduly collected from it.
IGLESIA NI CRISTO, (INC.), petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent
G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996
FACTS:
Sometime in the months of September, October and November 1992
petitioner submitted to the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and
Television the VTR tapes of its TV program Series Nos. 116, 119, 121 and 128. The
Board classified the series as "X" or not for public viewing on the ground that they
"offend and constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited
by law. Petitioner INC went to court to question the actions of respondent Board. The
RTC ordered the respondent Board to grant petitioner INC the necessary permit for
its TV programs. But on appeal by the respondent Board, the CA reversed the RTC.
The CA ruled that: (1) the respondent Board has jurisdiction and power to review the
TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did not act with
grave abuse of discretion when it denied permit for the exhibition on TV of the three
series of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the ground that the materials constitute an attack
against another religion. The CA also found the subject TV series “indecent, contrary
to law and contrary to good customs.” Dissatisfied with the CA decision, petitioner
INC appealed to the Supreme Court. Hence, this case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the MTRCB Board of Review gravely abuse its discretion
when it prohibited the airing of INC’s religious program?
HELD:
Yes. The court held that it fails to discharge this burden, its act of censorship
will be struck down. It failed in the case at bar. The videotapes were not viewed by
the respondent court as they were not presented as evidence. Yet they were
considered by the respondent court as indecent, contrary to law and good customs,
hence, can be prohibited from public viewing under section 3(c) of PD 1986. This
ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its right
to free exercise of religion. The respondents cannot also rely on the ground "attacks
against another religion" in x-rating the religious program of petitioner. The ground
"attack against another religion" was merely added by the respondent Board in its
Rules. This rule is void for it runs smack against the hoary doctrine that
administrative rules and regulations cannot expand the letter and spirit of the law
they seek to enforce. In x-rating the TV program of the petitioner, the respondents
failed to apply the clear and present danger rule. There is no showing whatsoever of
the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of
the threatened harm. Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be
justified by hypothetical. The court contended that a system of prior restraint may
only be validly administered by judges and not left to administrative agencies. Thus,
the decision of the CA was affirmed.
EBRALINAG, Petitioner vs. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF
CEBU, Respondent
G.R. No. 95770, March 1, 1993
FACTS:
Roel Ebralinag et. al, and the 43 high school and elementary school students
in the towns of Daan Bantayan, Pinamungajan, Carcar, and Taburan Cebu province
filed a case to the Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu and Manuel F.
Biongcog, Cebu District Supervisor. All minors, they were assisted by their parents
who belong to the religious group known as Jehovah's Witnesses. All the petitioners
in these two cases were expelled from their classes by the public school authorities
in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the
patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 of July 11, 1955, and by
Department Order No. 8 dated July 21, 1955 of the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports (DECS) making the flag ceremony compulsory in all educational
institutions. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the
flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that
those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion" which they cannot conscientiously
give to anyone or anything except God. Hence, this controversy.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the expulsion of the petitioners is illegal?
HELD:
Yes. Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest
priority and the amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the
relationship of man to his Creator Petitioners stress, however, that while they do not
take part in the compulsory flag ceremony, they do not engage in "external acts" or
behavior that would offend their countrymen who believe in expressing their love of
country through the observance of the flag ceremony. They quietly stand at attention
during the flag ceremony to show their respect for the right of those who choose to
participate in the solemn proceedings. Since they do not engage in disruptive
behavior, there is no warrant for their expulsion. Expelling or banning the petitioners
from Philippine schools will bring about the very situation that this Court had feared
in Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to
participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive
to love of country or respect for dully constituted authorities. If they quietly stand at
attention during the flag ceremony while their classmates and teachers salute the
flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, we do not see how
such conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a grave and present danger
of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate
public interest that the State has a right to prevent.
RELI GERMAN, Petitioner vs. GEN. SANTIAGO BARANGAN, Respondent
G.R. No. L-68828, March 27, 1985
FACTS:
On October 2, 1984, petitioners, composed of about 50 businessmen,
students and office employees converged at J.P. Laurel Street, Manila, for the
ostensible purpose of hearing Mass at the St. Jude Chapel which adjoins the
Malacañang grounds located in the same street. Wearing the now familiar inscribed
yellow T-shirts, they started to march down said street with raised clenched fists 1
and shouts of anti-government invectives. Along the way, however, they were barred
by respondent Major lsabelo Lariosa, upon orders of his superior and co-respondent
Gen. Santiago Barangan, from proceeding any further, on the ground that St. Jude
Chapel was located within the Malacañang security area. When petitioners'
protestations and pleas to allow them to get inside the church proved unavailing,
they decided to leave. However, because of the alleged warning given them by
respondent Major Lariosa that any similar attempt by petitioners to enter the church
in the future would likewise be prevented, petitioners took this present recourse.
ISSUE:
Whether or not disallowing petitioners to worship and pray at St. Luke is a
violation of their freedom to worship and locomotion?
HELD:
No. Although freedom of religious worship is guaranteed under Article IV,
Section 8, and liberty of abode and travel under Article IV, Section 5 of the
Constitution, have exceptions in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public helath. Said restriction is moreover intended to secure the several executive
offices within the Malacañang grounds from possible external attacks and
disturbances. These offices include communications facilities that link the central
government to all places in the land. Unquestionably, the restriction imposed is
necessary to maintain the smooth functioning of the executive branch of the
government, which petitioners' mass action would certainly disrupt Petitioners are
not denied or restrained of their freedom of belief or choice of their religion, but only
in the manner by which they had attempted to translate the same into action Suffice
it to say that the restriction imposed on the use of J.P. Laurel Street, the wisdom and
reasonableness of which have already been discussed, is allowed under the
fundamental law, the same having been established in the interest of national
security between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a
stretch of road to travel. If the exercise of said religious belief clashes with the
established institutions of society and with the law, then the former must yield and
give way to the latter. Hence, the instant petition was dismissed by Court.
ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Petitioner vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006
FACTS:
On July 27, 2000, complainant Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F.
Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad
Escritor, court interpreter, is living with a man not her husband. They allegedly have
a child of eighteen to twenty years old. Estrada is not personally related either to
Escritor or her partner. Nevertheless, he filed the charge against Escritor as he
believes that she is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court,
thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that
the court condones her act. Respondent Escritor testified that when she entered the
judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow, her husband having died in 1998. She
admitted that she has been living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of
marriage for twenty years and that they have a son. But as a member of the religious
sect known as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract
Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. In
fact, after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a "Declaration
of Pledging Faithfulness," insofar as the congregation is concerned, there is nothing
immoral about the conjugal arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio and they
remain members in good standing in the congregation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge
of gross and immoral conduct?
HELD:
Yes. All government officials and employees must at all times be accountable
to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. This constitutional mandate
should always be in the minds of all public servants to guide them in their actions
during their entire tenure in the government service. The good of the service and the
degree of morality which every official and employee in the public service must
observe, if respect and confidence are to be maintained by the Government in the
enforcement of the law, demand that no untoward conduct on his part, affecting
morality, integrity and efficiency while holding office should be left without proper and
commensurate sanction, all attendant circumstances taken into account. The
exacting standards of ethics and morality imposed upon court judges and court
employees are required to maintain the people’s faith in the courts as dispensers of
justice, and whose image is mirrored by their actuations. By aspiring to these
positions, government employees are deemed to have submitted themselves to
greater scrutiny of their conduct, all in the pursuit of a professional civil service. The
Court has repeatedly applied these principles in analogous cases. Hence, the court
ruled her is guilty of immorality and disgraceful conduct.
ELISEO F. SORIANO, Petitioner vs. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA,
Respondent
GR No. 164785, May 29, 2009
FACTS:
On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as host of the program
Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made obscene remarks against INC. Two days
after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost identical affidavit-complaints were
lodged by Jessie L. Galapon and seven other private respondents, all members of
the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC), against petitioner in connection with the above broadcast.
Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in petitioner’s remark,
was then a minister of INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang Daan.
The remarks stated: “Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling; Gagokatalaga
Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Yung putang babae ang gumaga
nalang doon yung ibaba, ditto kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O,
masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan.
Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.” After a preliminary conference
in which petitioner appeared, the MTRCB, by Order of August 16, 2004, preventively
suspended the showing of Ang Dating Daan program for 20 days, in accordance with
Section 3(d) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1986. The following day, petitioner
sought reconsideration of the preventive suspension order. Two days after, however,
petitioner sought to withdraw his motion for reconsideration, followed by the filing
with this Court of a petition for certiorari and prohibition. On September 27, 2004, the
MTRCB ruled Soriano liable for his utterances. Hence, this petition for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Soriano’s statements during the televised “Ang Dating Daan”
part of the religious discourse and within the protection of Section 5, Art.III?
HELD:
No. The petitioner’s statements did not convey any particular religious
belief, and nothing furthered his avowed evangelical mission. Merely being in a bible
exposition program does not automatically entail that statements made are of a
religious discourse. In the present controversy, considering the adverse effect of
petitioner’s utterances on the viewers’ fundamental rights as well as petitioner’s clear
violation of his duty as a public trustee, the MTRCB properly suspended him from
appearing in Ang Dating Daan for three months. Furthermore, it cannot be properly
asserted that petitioner’s suspension was an undue curtailment of his right to free
speech either as a prior restraint or as a subsequent punishment. Aside from the
given reasons, a requirement that indecent language be avoided has its primary
effect on the form, rather than the content, of serious communication. There are few,
if any, thoughts that cannot be expressed by the use of less offensive language.
Hence, the court affirmed the decision of the MTRCB’s three months suspension of
Ang Dating Daan Progarm.
IMBONG, Petitioner vs. OCHOA, Respondent
G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
FACTS:
On December 21, 2012, despite calls to withhold support thereto, however,
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress. Shortly after
the President placed his imprimatur on the said law, challengers from various sectors
of society came knocking on the doors of the Court, beckoning it to wield the sword
that strikes down constitutional disobedience. Aware of the profound and lasting
impact that its decision may produce, the Court now faces the iuris controversy, as
presented in fourteen (14) petitions and two (2) petitions- in-intervention. A perusal of
the foregoing petitions shows that the petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of
RH Law
ISSUE:
Whether or not R.A. No. 10354 or RH Law violates the right to health?
HELD:
No. Section 9, Article XVI provides that the State shall protect consumers
from trade malpractices and from substandard or hazardous products. Contrary to
the respondent's notion, however, these provisions are self-executing. Unless the
provisions clearly express the contrary, the provisions of the Constitution should be
considered self-executory. The legislative intent in the enactment of the RH Law in
this regard is to leave intact the provisions of R.A. No. 4729. There is no intention at
all to do away with it. It is still a good law and its requirements are still in to be
complied with. Thus, the Court agrees with the observation of respondent Lagman
that the effectivity of the RH Law will not lead to the unmitigated proliferation of
contraceptives since the sale, distribution and dispensation of contraceptive drugs
and devices will still require the prescription of a licensed physician. With R.A. No.
4729 in place, there exists adequate safeguards to ensure the public that only
contraceptives that are safe are made available to the public. Thus, in the distribution
by the DOH of contraceptive drugs and devices, it must consider the provisions of
R.A. No. 4729, which is still in effect, and ensure that the contraceptives that it will
procure shall be from a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and that
the actual dispensation of these contraceptive drugs and devices will done following
a prescription of a qualified medical practitioner. It behooves the Court to await its
determination which drugs or devices are declared by the FDA as safe. Indeed, the
various kinds of contraceptives must first be measured up to the constitutional
yardstick as expounded herein, to be determined as the case presents itself. The
FDA, not Congress, has the expertise to determine whether a particular hormonal
contraceptive or intrauterine device is safe and non-abortifacient. There must first be
a determination by the FDA that they are in fact safe, legal, non-abortifacient and
effective family planning products and supplies. There can be no predetermination
by Congress that the gamut of contraceptives is safe, legal, non-abortifacient and
effective without the proper scientific examination. Hence, the Court held the Status
Quo Ante Order lifted and declared of R.A. No. 10354 as constitutional.
Date: April 24,
2020
NAME: HON. ROBERTO M. LUNA, JR.
Designation: Municipal Mayor of Lingig
Office Address: Poblacion, Lingig, Surigao del Sur
Re: Approval by the Regional Office of CARAGA
Dear Mayor Luna,
This has reference to your request for the use of the school, (Lingig National High
School), for (Quarantine / Isolation Area of 32 Classrooms), in relation to the
COVID-19 public health emergency.
The Department of Education Regional Office of CARAGA has approved the
request, subject to the attached minimum “Terms and Conditions for the Use of
DepEd School by the Local Government Unit as (Quarantine / Isolation Area)” with
annexed School Inventory indicating the facilities of the school relative to the
request.
Kindly sign the Terms and Conditions and the School Inventory to signify your
conformity.
Sincerely,
WILLY C. DUMPIT, PhD,
FRIEdr
(School Head)
