ltd cases digest.docx

8/9/2019 LTD CASES DIGEST.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-digestdocx 1/31

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4254 September 26, 1951

BORIS ME O!!, petitioner,vs.T"E #IRECTOR O! PRISONS, respondent.

Ambrosio T. Dollete for petitioner.First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianson and Solicitor Florencio Villamor forrespondents.

TU$SON, J.:

This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff, the first havin been denied in a decisionof this Court of !uly "#, $%&%. The history of the petitioner's detention (as thus briefly set forth in thatdecision, (ritten by Mr. !ustice Ben )on*

The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent (ho (as brou ht to this countryfro+ han hai as a secret operative by the !apanese forces durin the latter's re i+e inthese -slands. pon liberation he (as arrested as a !apanese spy, by . . Ar+y Counter-ntelli ence Corps. /ater he (as handed to theCo++on(ealth 0overn+ent for disposition inaccordance (ith Co++on(ealth Act No. 123. Thereafter, the People's Court ordered hisrelease. But the deportation Board ta4in his case up, found that havin no travel docu+entsMejoff (as ille ally in this country, and conse5uently referred the +atter to the i++i ration

authorities. After the correspondin investi ation, the Board of co++issioners of -++i rationon April 6, $%&2, declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines ille ally in $%&&, (ithoutinspection and ad+ission by the i++i ration officials at a desi nation port of entry and,therefore, it ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. Thepetitioner (as then under custody, he havin been arrested on March $2, $%&2. -n May $%&2he (as transferred to the Cebu Provincial !ail to ether (ith three other Russians to a(ait thearrival of so+e Russian vessels. -n !uly and Au ust of that year t(o boats of Russiannationality called at the Cebu Port. But their +asters refused to ta4e petitioner and hisco+panions alle in lac4 of authority to do so. -n 7ctober $%&2 after repeated failures toship this deportee abroad, the authorities re+oved hi+ to Bilibid Prison at Muntin lupa(here he has been confined up to the present ti+e, inas+uch as the Co++issioner of-++i ration believes it is for the best interests of the country to 4eep hi+ under detention(hile arran e+ents for his departure are bein +ade.

The Court held the petitioner's detention te+porary and said that 8te+porary detention is anecessary step in the process of e9clusion or e9pulsion of undesirable aliens and that pendinarran e+ents for his deportation, the 0overn+ent has the ri ht to hold the undesirable alien underconfine+ent for a reasonable len ht of ti+e.8 -t too4 note of the fact, +anifested by the olicitor0eneral's representative in the course of the of the oral ar u++ent, that 8this 0overn+ent desires toe9pel the alien, and does not relish 4eepin hi+ at the people's e9pense . . . +a4in efforts to carryout the decree of e9clusion by the hi hest officer of the land.8 No period (as fi9ed (ithin (hich thei++i ration authorities should carry out the conte+plated deportation beyond the state+ent that



8The +eanin of 'reasonable ti+e' depends upon the circu+stances, specially the difficulties ofobtainin a passport, the availability of transportation, the diplo+atic arran e+ents (ith the

overn+ents concerned and the efforts displayed to send the deportee a(ay:8 but the Court (arnedthat 8under established precedents, too lon a detention +ay justify the issuance of a (rit of habeascorpus .8

Mr. !ustice Paras, no( Chief !ustice, Mr. !ustice ;eria, Mr. !ustice Perfecto, and the (riter of thisdecision dissented. Mr. !ustice ;eria and Mr. !ustice Perfecto voted for outri ht dischar e of theprisoner fro+ custody. Mr. !ustice Paras 5ualified his dissent by statin that he +i ht a ree 8tofurther detention of the herein petitioner, provided that he be released if after si9 +onths, the0overn+ent is still unable to deport hi+.8 This (riter joined in the latter dissent but thou ht that t(o+onths constituted reasonable ti+e.

7ver t(o years havin elapsed since the decision aforesaid (as pro+ul ated, the 0overn+ent hasnot found (ay and +eans of re+ovin the petitioner out of the country, and none are in si ht,althou h it should be said in justice to the deportation authorities, it (as throu h no fault of theirsthat no ship or country (ould ta4e the petitioner.

Aliens ille ally stayin in the Philippines have no ri ht of asylu+ therein < o(apadji vs. =i9on, ept.$2, $%&1, $6> ;. ed., 32%, 3%#?, even if they are 8stateless,8 (hich the petitioner clai+s to be. -t is noless true ho(ever, as i+pliedly stated in this Court's decision, supra, that forei n nationals, notene+y a ainst (ho+ no char e has been +ade other than that their per+ission to stay has e9pired,+ay not indefinitely be 4ept in detention. The protection a ainst deprivation of liberty (ithout dueprocess of la( and e9cept for cri+es co++itted a ainst the la(s of the land is not li+ited toPhilippine citi)ens but e9tends to all residents, e9cept ene+y aliens, re ardless of nationality.=hether an alien (ho entered the country in violation of its i++i ration la(s +ay be detained for aslon as the 0overn+ent is unable to deport hi+, is a point (e need not decide. The petitioner's entryinto the Philippines (as not unla(ful: he (as brou ht by the ar+ed and belli erent forces of a defacto overn+ent (hose decrees (ere la( furin the occupation.

Moreover, by its Constitution <Art. --, ec. "? the Philippines 8adopts the enerally acceptedprinciples of international la( as part of the la( of Nation.8 And in a resolution entitled 8 niversal@eclaration of u+an Ri hts8 and approved by the 0eneral Asse+bly of the nited Nations of (hichthe Philippines is a +e+ber, at its plenary +eetin on @ece+ber $#, $%&2, the ri ht to life and libertyand all other funda+ental ri hts as applied to all hu+an bein s (ere proclai+ed. -t (as thereresolved that 8All hu+an bein s are born free and e5ual in de ree and ri hts8 <Art. $?: that8Everyone is entitled to all the ri hts and freedo+ set forth in this @eclaration, (ithout distinction ofany 4ind, such as race, colour, se9, lan ua e, reli ion, political or other opinion, nationality or socialori in, property, birth, or other status8 <Art. 3?* that 8Every one has the ri ht to an effective re+edy bythe co+petent national tribunals for acts violatin the funda+ental ri hts ranted hi+ by theConstitution or by la(8 <Art. 2?: that 8No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or e9ile8<Art. %?: etc.

-n . . vs. Nichols, &> ;ed. upp., 3#$, it (as said that the court 8has the po(er to release fro+custody an alien (ho has been detained an unreasonably lon period of ti+e by the @epart+ent of!ustice after it has beco+e apparent that althou h a (arrant for his deportation has been issued, the(arrant can not be effectuated:8 that 8the theory on (hich the court is iven the po(er to act is thatthe (arrant of deportation, not havin been able to be e9ecuted, is functus officio and the alien isbein held (ithout any authority of la(.8 The decision cited several cases (hich, it said, settled the+atter definitely in that jurisdiction, addin that the sa+e result had reached in innu+erable caseselse(here. The cases referred to (ere nited tates e9 rel. Ross vs. =allis, 3 Cir. 3>% ;. &#$, &#&:Caranica vs. Na le, % Cir., 32 ;. 3d %66: a4sa ans4y vs. =eedin, % Cir., 6" ;. 3d $", $1 last



para raph: E9 parte Matthe(s, @.C.=.@. =ash., 3>> ;. 26>: Moraitis vs. @elany, @.C. Md. Au . 32,$%&3, &1 ;. upp. &36.

The +ost recent case, as far as (e have been able to find, (as that of tanis)e(s4i vs. =at4ins<$%&2?, %# ;ed. upp., $"3, (hich is nearly fours5uare (ith the case at hand. -n that case astateless person, for+erly a Polish national, resident in the nited tates since $%$$ and +any

ti+es servin as a sea+an on A+erican vessels both in peace and in (ar, (as ordered e9cludedfro+ the nited tates and detained at Ellis -sland at the e9pense of the stea+ship co+pany, (henhe returned fro+ a voya e on (hich he had shipped fro+ Ne( or4 for one or +ore European portsand return to the nited tates. The rounds for his e9clusion (ere that he had no passport ori++i ration visa, and that in $%"> had been convicted of perjury because in certain docu+ents hepresented hi+self to be an A+erican citi)en. pon his application for release on habeas corpus, theCourt released hi+ upon his o(n reco ni)ance. !ud e /eibell, of the nited tates @istrict Court forthe outhern @istrict of Ne( or4, said in part*

=hen the return to the (rit of habeas corpus ca+e before this court, - su ested that allinterested parties . . . +a4e an effort to arran e to have the petitioner ship out of so+ecountry that he (ould receive hi+ as a resident. e is, a native born Pole but the Polish

Consul has advised hi+ in (ritin that he is no lon er a Polish subject. This 0overn+entdoes not clai+ that he is a Polish citi)en. is attorney says he is a stateless. The0overn+ent is (illin that he o bac4 to the ship, but if he (ere sent bac4 aboard a ship andsailed to the Port <Cherbour , ;rance? fro+ (hich he last sailed to the nited tates, he(ould probably be denied per+ission to land. There is no other country that (ould ta4e hi+,(ithout proper docu+ents.

-t see+s to +e that this is a enuine hardship case and that the petitioner should bereleased fro+ custody on proper ter+s. . . .

=hat is to be done (ith the petitionerD The overn+ent has had hi+ in custody al+ostseven +onths and practically ad+its it has no place to send hi+ out of this country. Thestea+ship co+pany, (hich e+ployed hi+ as one of a roup sent to the ship by the nion,(ith proper sea+an's papers issued by the nited tates Coast 0uard, is payin " a dayfor petitioner's board at Ellis -sland. -t is no fault of the stea+ship co+pany that petitioner isan inad+issible alien as the i++i ration officials describe hi+. . . .

- intend to sustain the (rit of habeas corpus and order the release of the petitioner on hiso(n reco ni)ance. e (ill be re5uired to infor+ the i++i ration officials at Ellis -sland by+ail on the $6th of each +onth, statin (here he is e+ployed and (here he can be reachedby +ail. -f the overn+ent does succeed in arran in for petitioner's deportation to a countrythat (ill be ready to receive hi+ as a resident, it +ay then advise the petitioner to that effectand arran e for his deportation in the +anner provided by la(.

Althou h not bindin upon this Court as a precedent, the case aforecited affords a happy solution to

the 5uandry in (hich the parties here finds the+selves, solution (hich (e thin4 is sensible, soundand co+patible (ith la( and the Constitution. ;or this reason, and since the Philippine la( oni++i ration (as patterned after or copied fro+ the A+erican la( and practice, (e choose to follo(and adopt the reasonin and conclusions in the tanis)e(s4i decision (ith so+e +odifications(hich, it is believed, are in consonance (ith the prevailin conditions of peace and order in thePhilippines.

-t (as said or insinuated at the hearin ofthe petition at bar, but not alle ed in the return, that thepetitioner (as en a ed in subversive activities, and fear (as e9pressed that he +i ht join or aid the



disloyal ele+ents if allo(ed to be at lar e. Bearin in +ind the 0overn+ent's alle ation in its ans(erthat 8the herein petitioner (as brou ht to the Philippines by the !apanese forces,8 and the fact that!apan is no lon er at (ar (ith the nited tates or the Philippines nor identified (ith the countriesallied a ainst these nations, the possibility of the petitioner's entertainin or co++ittin hostile actsprejudicial to the interest and security of this country see+s re+ote.

-f (e rant, for the sa4e of ar u+ent, that such a possibility e9ists, still the petitioner's undulyprolon ed detention (ould be un(arranted by la( and the Constitution, if the only purpose of thedetention be to eli+inate a dan er that is by no +eans actual, present, or uncontrolable. After all, the0overn+ent is not i+potent to deal (ith or prevent any threat by such +easure as that just outlined.The thou ht elo5uently e9pressed by Mr. !ustice !ac4son of the nited tates upre+e Court inconnection (ith the appliccation for bail of ten Co++unists convicted by a lo(er court of advocacyof violent overthro( of the nited tates 0overn+ent is, in principle, pertinent and +ay be availed of at this juncture. aid the learned !urist*

The 0overn+et's alternative contention is that defendants, by +isbehavior after conviction,have forfeited their clai+ to bail. 0rave public dan er is said to result fro+ (hat they +ay bee9pected to do, in addition to (hat they have done since their conviction. -f - assu+e that

defendants are disposed to co++it every opportune disloyal to act helpful to Co++unistcountries, it is still difficult to reconcile (ith traditional A+erican la( the jailin of persons bythe courts because of anticipated but as yet unco++itted cri+es. l+prison+ent to protectsociety fro+ predicted but unconsu++ated offenses is so unprecedented in this country andso frau ht (ith dan er of e9cesses and injustice that - a+ loath to resort it, even as adiscretionary judicial techni5ue to supple+ent conviction of such offenses as those of (hichdefendants stand convicted.

But the ri ht of every A+erican to e5ual treat+ent before the la( is (rapped up in the sa+econstitutional bundle (ith those of these Co++unists. -f an an er or dis ust (ith thesedefendants (e thro( out the bundle, (e alsocast aside protection for the liberties of +ore(orthy critics (ho +ay be in opposition to the overn+ent of so+e future day.

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1â ph!l.n"t

-f, ho(ever, - (ere to be (ron on all of these abstract or theoretical +atters of principle,there is a very practical aspect of this application (hich +ust not be overloo4ed orunderesti+ated F that is the disastrous effect on the reputation of A+erican justice if -should no( send these +en to jail and the full Court later decide that their conviction isinvalid. All e9perience (ith liti ation teaches that e9istence of a substantial 5uestion about aconviction i+plies a +ore than ne li ible ris4 of reversal. -ndeed this e9perience lies bac4 ofour rule per+ittin and practice of allo(in bail (here such 5uestions e9ist, to avoid theha)ard of unjustifiably i+prisonin persons (ith conse5uent reproach to our syste+ of

justice. -f that is prudent judicial practice in the ordinary case, ho( +uch +ore i+portant toavoid every chance of handin to the Co++unist (orld such an ideolo ical (eapon as it

(ould have if this country should i+prison this handful of Co++unist leaders on a convictionthat our hi hest Court (ould confess to be ille al. Ris4s, of course, are involved in eitherrantin or refusin bail. - a+ naive enou h to underesti+ate the trouble+a4in propensities

of the defendants. But, (ith the @epart+ent of !ustice alert to the the dan ers, the (orstthey can acco+plish in the short ti+e it (ill ta4e to end the liti ation is preferable to thepossibility of national e+barrass+ent fro+ a celebrated case of unjustified i+prison+ent ofCo++unist leaders. nder no circu+stances +ust (e per+it their sy+boli)ation of an evilforce in the (orld to be hallo(ed and lorified by any se+blance of +artyrdo+. The (ay toavoid that ris4 is not to jail these +en until it is finally decided that they should stay jailed.



-f that case is not co+parable (ith ours on the issues presented, its underlyin principle is ofuniversal application. -n fact, its ratio decidendi applies (ith reater force to the present petition,since the ri ht of accused to bail pendin apppeal of his case, as in the case of the ten Co++unists,depends upon the discretion of the court, (hereas the ri ht to be enlar ed before for+al char es areinstituted is absolute. As already noted, not only are there no char es pendin a ainst the petitioner,but the prospects of brin in any a ainst hi+ are sli+ and re+ote.

Pre+ises considered, the (rit (ill issue co++andin the respondents to release the petitioner fro+custody upon these ter+s* The petitioner shall be placed under the surveillance of the i++i rationauthorities or their a ents in such for+ and +anner as +ay be dee+ed ade5uate to insure that he4eep peace and be available (hen the 0overn+ent is ready to deport hi+. The surveillance shall bereasonable and the 5uestion of reasonableness shall be sub+itted to this Court or to the Court of;irst -nstance of Manila for decision in case of abuse. e shall also put up a bond for the abovepurpose in the a+ount of P6,### (ith sufficient surety or sureties, (hich bond the Co++issioner of-++i ration is authori)ed to e9act by section &# of Co++on(ealth Act No. 1$".

No costs (ill be char ed.

#aras, $.%., Feria, &en'(on, #adilla, Re)es and %u'o, %%., concur.

Sep%r%te Op&'&o'(

P$BLO, M., disidente*

@isiento

En decision disada por este Tribunal en la pri+era causa de habeas corpus incoada por el

solicitante Boris Mejoff <0.R. No. / 3266, Mejoff vs. @irector of Prisons? ), se declaro 5ue el habiavenido a ;ilipinas procedente de han hai co+o espia japones: en la liberacion, el ejercitoa+ericano le arresto por se espia, habiendo sido +as tarde entre ado al 0obierno delCo++on(ealth para ser tratado de acuerdo con la ley No.123: pero co+o bajo el Cod o PenalRevisado, antes de su en+ienda por la 7rden Ejecutiva No. &&, <+ayo "$, $%&6? no se casti a ale9tranjero 5ue co+ete traicion, Mejoff fue puesto en libertad. @espues de una debida investi acion,la !unta de @epartacion encontra 5ue el solicitante no tenia per+iso para entrar en ;ilipinas: fueentre ado a la !unta de -n+i acion, la cual ordeno su deportacion a Rusia por el pri+er transportedisponible por haber vendo a5ui ile al+ente: fue enviado a Cebu para 5ue alli se e+barcase, perolos dos barcos de nacionalidad rusa 5ue lle aron a dicho puerto en julio y a osto de $%&2 rehusaronad+itirle. Por no encontrar transportacion para su departacion, Mejoff fue enviado a la Prison deMuntin lupa, donde esta actual+ente de tenido +ientras el 0obierno no encuenra +edio detransportarle a Rusia.

/a +ayoria contiende 5ue 8The Petitioner's entry into the Philippines (as not unla(ful: he (asbrou ht by the ar+ed and belli erent forces of a de facto overn+ent (hose decrees (ere la(durin the occupation.8 Es tan ile al la entrada del solicitante co+o la del ejercito al 5ue sirvio co+oespia. Nin uno tiene derecho a per+anecer a5ui. Puesto 5ue fue vencido el ejercito invasor 5ue letrajo, el solicitante no tiene derecho a pe+anecer a5ui ni un +inuto +as. i desea proteccion, debeacudir al 0obierno !apones a cuyo ejercito el sirvio: el hecho de 5ue ya esta a5ui no le da titulo paraper+anecer libre a5ui. El 5ue ha venido co+o espia de ene+i o del Pueblo de ;ilipinas no tienederecho a pedir i ual trato 5ue a5uel ha entrado de buena fe. GEs 5ue ;ilipinos tiene la obli acion



de aco er a un ciudadano indeseable de RusiaD G@esde cuando tiene 5ue allanarse una nacion aser residencia de una e9tranjero 5ue entro co+o ene+i o o, peor aun, co+o espiaD n Estadotiene indiscutible derecho a deportar y e9pulsar de su territorio a todo e9tranjero indeseable.

El solicitante sostiene 5ue no tiene estado. Eso no es ra)on para 5ue ten a derecho a per+anecera5ui. Puede ser departado a Rusio o a han hai de donde vino. i todos los rusos 5ue, por al uno

5ue otro +otivo, o por odio al co+uniso+o, dejasen su pais y e+i rasen a5ui recla+ando i ualderecho, no habria territorio suficiente para ellos. e puede decir otro tanto de los chinos 5ue, soprete9to de no 5uerer so+eterse al re i+en co+unista, optasen por resider para sie+pre a5ui. silos +is+os co++unistas chinos viniesen clandestina+ente y despues recla+asen i ual proteccionco+o la concedida a Mejoff, Gtendreos 5ue darles por el ustoD

e invoca la resolucion aprobada por la Asa+blea 0eneral de las Naciones nidas, titulada8 niversal @eclaration of u+an Ri hts8, en la 5ue se establece, entre otras cosas, 5ue 8no oneshall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or e9ile.8 o soy de los 5ue creen fir+e+ente en losa rado de esta resolucion: no puedo per+itir 5ue se deten a y se arreste a al uien sin +otivo

justificado, de una +anera arbitraria: pero el solicitante no esta detenido de esta +anera, lo esta deuna +anera provisional. Tan pronto co+o haya barco disponible para su deportacion o tan pronto

co+o pueda e+barcarse en al un barco para el e9tenjero o para cual5uier otro punto a donde5uiera ir, dejara de ser detenido. Conste 5ue no esta preso co+o un cri+inal condenado por undelito: esta tratado co+o cual5uier otro e9tranjero sujeto a deportacion. i el solicitante no hubierasido espia, si no hubiera venido a5ui para ayudar a las hordas japonesas en la subyu acion delpueblo filipino, si hubiera venido co+o visitante, por eje+plo, y, por a)ares de la fortuna, no pudosalir, yo seria el pri+ero en abo ar por su liberacion in+ediata.

e cita el caso de tanis)e(s4i vs. =at4ins, <$%&2 A.M.C. %"$, &3 A+erican !ournal of -nternational/a(, >"3? en el cual el recurrente estuvo detenido ya casi siete +eses cuando se decreto su libertaden un recurso de habeas corpus . En nuestra opinion, dicho caso no tiene si+ulitud con la causapresente. tanis)e(s4i era residente de los Estados desde $%$$: estuvo sirviendo co+o +arino enbarcos +ercantes a+ericanos en tie+po de uerra y se ordeno su detencion en Ellis -sland cuandovolvio a A+erica procedente de un viaje a Europa por no tener papeles de in+i racion.

tanis)e(s4i no habia entrado en los Estados nidos co+o espia, estuvo residiendo en dicho paispor varios aHos, era ya habitante de los Estados unidos. /a ocupacion de +arino es honrosa, la delespia +ercenario, detestable. El espia es peor 5ue el ene+i o. Este lucha cara a cara, y el espia,con disi+ulo y arte en aHosa, escucha lo 5ue a tanis)e(s4i se le haya puesto en libertad. Poneren libertad a un espia es poner en peli ro la se uridad del Estado.

En cuanto a la duracion de la detencion provisional del recurrente, no hay re la fija, depende de lacincunstancia de cada caso particular. Es evidente 5ue los +edios de co+unicacion entre ;ilipinas yRusia o han hai, debico a fala de relciones diplo+aticas, son co+pleta+ente anor+ales. No esculpa del obierno el 5ue no encuentre +edios de transportacion para el.

/a Co+ision de -n+i racion ha dado pasos para 5ue la -nternational Refu ee 7r an)iation of the

nited Nations <-R7# se hiciera car o del recurrente para 5ue pueda ser repartriado o enviado aotro pais e9tranjero, pero el !efe de dicha or ani)acion contesto 5ue no estaba en condicines paraaceptar dicha reco+endacion.

=illia+ Martin !ur ans fue arrestado en % de enero de $%3#, en 3# de +ayo se decreto sudeportacion por el ub ecretario del Tarabajo por violacion de la /ey de -n+i racion: solicto sulibertad bajo el recurso de *abeas $orpus , y en $1 de febrero de $%3> se dene o su peticion: no sele pudo deportar por5ue 8the necessary arran e+ents for his deportation could obviously not be+ade.8 <@istrict Court of Minnesota, $> ;. 3nd series, 6#>?. Co+o se vera, la detencion provisional



de =illia+ Martin !ur ans duro +as de seis aHos: la de Mejoff no ha sido +as 5ue de "$ +eses, yno por5ue el obierno no 5uiere deportarle, sino por5ue no hay +edio disponible para reali)arlo.

En Moraitis vs. @elany, &1 ;. upp., &36, se dijo*

=hat constitutes a reasonable ti+e for the detention of the petitioner in custody fordeportation depends upon the facts and circu+stances of particular cases. This court cannotshut its eyes to the vitally i+portant interests of this country at this ti+e (ith respect to thebottlenec4 of shippin , (hen every available ship, do+estic and forei n, +ust be utili)ed tothe ut+ost (ithout delay conse5uent upon the lac4 of avilable sea+en. nder these presentconditions the court should be liberal indeed in aidin the e9ecutive branch of the oven+entin the strict enforce+ent of la(s so vitally necessary in the co++on defns. There is soundauthority for this vie( in nited tates e9. rel. chli++ vs. o(e, @ C.N. . 333 ;. %1, %>,(here Circuit !ud e /aco+be refused to release an alien (ho had co+e here fro+ 0er+anyand (as ordered deported in $%$6 (hen, by reason of the then e9istin (ar bet(een0er+any and En land, his deportation to 0er+any (as not possible. -t (as said*

At the present ti+e there is no re ular passen er ocean service to 0er+an ports, so the

authorities are unable to for(ard hi+, and are holdin hi+ until so+e opportunity of returninhi+ to 0er+any +ay present itself. is continual detention is unfortunate, but certainly is notille al. is present condition can be alleviated only by the action of the e9ecutive branch ofthe overn+ent. A federal court (ould not be justified in dischar in hi+. . . .

-f he is not really fit for sea service, it is not probable that he (ould be forced into it, althou hhe +ay be able to serve his overn+ent in so+e other capacity. But ho(ever that +ay be,(hile this country has no po(er under e9istin le islation to i+press hi+ into sea servicea ainst his (ill, he has no just cause to be relieved fro+ the strict enforce+ent of ourdeportation la(s, and to re+ain at liberty in this country as a sanctuary contrary to our la(s.

No es arbitraria la detencion de Mejoff. Esta jutificada por las circunstancias anor+ales.

/a proposicion de vi ilar al recurrente hasta 5ue el obierno encuentre transporte para sudeportacion, supon un asto innecesario.

!oot'ote(

IsupJI supK88L2& Phil., 3$2.I supJIL

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-1955* +'e 19, 196



"$RR S. STONE"ILL, ROBERT P. BROO S, O"N . BROO S %'/ $RL BEC , petitioners,vs."ON. OSE 0. #IO NO, &' &( %p% &t3 %( SECRET$R O! USTICE OSE LU B$N, &' &(

%p% &t3 %( $ t&' #&re tor, N%t&o'% B+re%+ o7 I'8e(t& %t&o' SPECI$L PROSECUTORSPE#RO #. CEN ON, E!REN I. PL$N$ %'/ M$NUEL :ILL$RE$L, R. %'/ $SST. !ISC$L

M$N$SES G. RE ES U#GE $M$#O RO$N, M+'& &p% Co+rt o7 M%'& % U#GE ROM$NC$NSINO, M+'& &p% Co+rt o7 M%'& % U#GE "ERMOGENES C$LU$G, Co+rt o7 !&r(tI'(t%' e o7 R&;% -<+e;o' C&t3 Br%' , %'/ U#GE #$MI$N IMENE , M+'& &p% Co+rt o7<+e;o' C&t3, respondents.

#aredes, #oblador, $ru( and +a(areno and eer, eer and eer and %uan T. David for petitioners.-ffice of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafri(, Assistant Solicitor General #acifico #. de $astro,

Assistant Solicitor General Frine $. aballero, Solicitor $amilo D. /uiason and Solicitor $. #adua for respondents.

CONCEPCION,C.J.:

pon application of the officers of the overn+ent na+ed on the +ar in $ F hereinafter referred toas Respondents Prosecutors F several jud es 3 F hereinafter referred to as Respondents !ud esF issued, on different dates, " a total of &3 search (arrants a ainst petitioners herein & and or thecorporations of (hich they (ere officers, 6 directed to the any peace officer, to search the personsabove na+ed and or the pre+ises of their offices, (arehouses and or residences, and to sei)e andta4e possession of the follo(in personal property to (it*

Boo4s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, led ers, journals,portfolios, credit journals, type(riters, and other docu+ents and or papers sho(in allbusiness transactions includin disburse+ents receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss

state+ents and Bobbins <ci arette (rappers?.

as 8the subject of the offense: stolen or e+be))led and proceeds or fruits of the offense,8 or 8used or intended to be used as the +eans of co++ittin the offense,8 (hich is described in the applicationsadverted to above as 8violation of Central Ban4 /a(s, Tariff and Custo+s /a(s, -nternal Revenue<Code? and the Revised Penal Code.8

Alle in that the afore+entioned search (arrants are null and void, as contravenin the Constitutionand the Rules of Court F because, inter alia * <$? they do not describe (ith particularity thedocu+ents, boo4s and thin s to be sei)ed: <3? cash +oney, not +entioned in the (arrants, (ereactually sei)ed: <"? the (arrants (ere issued to fish evidence a ainst the afore+entioned petitioners

in deportation cases filed a ainst the+: <&? the searches and sei)ures (ere +ade in an ille al+anner: and <6? the docu+ents, papers and cash +oney sei)ed (ere not delivered to the courts thatissued the (arrants, to be disposed of in accordance (ith la( F on March 3#, $%13, said petitionersfiled (ith the upre+e Court this ori inal action for certiorari , prohibition, mandamus and injunction,and prayed that, pendin final disposition of the present case, a (rit of preli+inary injunction beissued restrainin Respondents Prosecutors, their a ents and or representatives fro+ usin theeffects sei)ed as afore+entioned or any copies thereof, in the deportation cases already advertedto, and that, in due course, thereafter, decision be rendered 5uashin the contested search (arrants



and declarin the sa+e null and void, and co++andin the respondents, their a ents orrepresentatives to return to petitioners herein, in accordance (ith ection ", Rule 1>, of the Rules ofCourt, the docu+ents, papers, thin s and cash +oneys sei)ed or confiscated under the search(arrants in 5uestion.

-n their ans(er, respondents prosecutors alle ed,1

<$? that the contested search (arrants are validand have been issued in accordance (ith la(: <3? that the defects of said (arrants, if any, (erecured by petitioners' consent: and <"? that, in any event, the effects sei)ed are ad+issible inevidence a ainst herein petitioners, re ardless of the alle ed ille ality of the afore+entionedsearches and sei)ures.

7n March 33, $%13, this Court issued the (rit of preli+inary injunction prayed for in the petition.o(ever, by resolution dated !une 3%, $%13, the (rit (as partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as the

papers, docu+ents and thin s sei)ed fro+ the offices of the corporations above +entioned areconcerned: but, the injunction (as +aintained as re ards the papers, docu+ents and thin s foundand sei)ed in the residences of petitioners herein. >

Thus, the docu+ents, papers, and thin s sei)ed under the alle ed authority of the (arrants in5uestion +ay be split into t(o <3? +ajor roups, na+ely* <a? those found and sei)ed in the offices ofthe afore+entioned corporations, and <b? those found and sei)ed in the residences of petitionersherein.

As re ards the first roup, (e hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail thele ality of the contested (arrants and of the sei)ures +ade in pursuance thereof, for the si+plereason that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct fro+ thepersonality of herein petitioners, re ardless of the a+ount of shares of stoc4 or of the interest ofeach of the+ in said corporations, and (hatever the offices they hold therein +ay be. 2 -ndeed, it is

(ell settled that the le ality of a sei)ure can be contested onl) by the party (hose ri hts have beeni+paired thereby, % and that the objection to an unla(ful search and sei)ure is purel) personal andcannot be availed of by third parties. $# Conse5uently, petitioners herein +ay not validly object to theuse in evidence a ainst the+ of the docu+ents, papers and thin s sei)ed fro+ the offices andpre+ises of the corporations adverted to above, since the ri ht to object to the ad+ission of saidpapers in evidence belon s e0clusivel) to the corporations, to (ho+ the sei)ed effects belon , and+ay not be invo4ed by the corporate officers in proceedin s a ainst the+ in their individualcapacity. $$ -ndeed, it has been held*

. . . that the 0overn+ent's action in ainin possession of papers belon in tothe corporation did not relate to nor did it affect the personal defendants. -f these papers

(ere unla(fully sei)ed and thereby the constitutional ri hts of or any one (ere invaded, they(ere the ri hts of the corporation and not the ri hts of the other defendants . Ne9t, it is clearthat a 5uestion of the la(fulness of a sei)ure can be raised onl) by one hose ri'hts havebeen invaded . Certainly, such a sei)ure, if unla(ful, could not affect the constitutional ri htsof defendants hose propert) had not been sei(ed or the privac) of hose homes had notbeen disturbed : nor could they clai+ for the+selves the benefits of the ;ourth A+end+ent,(hen its violation, if any, (as (ith reference to the ri hts of another . Remus vs. nitedStates <C.C.A.?3%$ ;. 6#$, 6$$. -t follo(s, therefore, that the 5uestion of the ad+issibility of



the evidence based on an alle ed unla(ful search and sei)ure does not e9tend to thepersonal defendants but e+braces onl) the corporation (hose property (as ta4en. . . . <A0uc4enhei+er Bros. Co. vs. nited tates, O$%36 " ;. 3d. >21, >2%, E+phasis supplied.?

=ith respect to the docu+ents, papers and thin s sei)ed in the residences of petitioners herein, the

afore+entioned resolution of !une 3%, $%13, lifted the (rit of preli+inary injunction previously issuedby this Court, $3 thereby, in effect, restrainin herein Respondents Prosecutors fro+ usin the+ inevidence a ainst petitioners herein.

-n connection (ith said docu+ents, papers and thin s, t(o <3? i+portant 5uestions need be settled,na+ely* <$? (hether the search (arrants in 5uestion, and the searches and sei)ures +ade under theauthority thereof, are valid or not, and <3? if the ans(er to the precedin 5uestion is in the ne ative,(hether said docu+ents, papers and thin s +ay be used in evidence a ainst petitioners herein. 12 ph!1.34t

Petitioners +aintain that the afore+entioned search (arrants are in the nature of eneral (arrantsand that accordin ly, the sei)ures effected upon the authority there of are null and void. -n this

connection, the Constitution$"

provides*

The ri ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects a ainstunreasonable searches and sei)ures shall not be violated, and no (arrants shall issue butupon probable cause, to be deter+ined by the jud e after e9a+ination under oath oraffir+ation of the co+plainant and the (itnesses he +ay produce, and particularly describinthe place to be searched, and the persons or thin s to be sei)ed.

T(o points +ust be stressed in connection (ith this constitutional +andate, na+ely* <$? that no(arrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be deter+ined by the jud e in the +anner set forthin said provision: and <3? that the (arrant shall particularl) describe the thin s to be sei)ed.

None of these re5uire+ents has been co+plied (ith in the contested (arrants. -ndeed, the sa+e(ere issued upon applications statin that the natural and juridical person therein na+ed hadco++itted a 8violation of Central Ban /a(s, Tariff and Custo+s /a(s, -nternal Revenue <Code? andRevised Penal Code.8 -n other (ords, no specific offense had been alle ed in said applications. Theaver+ents thereof (ith respect to the offense co++itted (ere abstract . As a conse5uence, it(as impossible for the jud es (ho issued the (arrants to have found the e9istence of probablecause, for the sa+e presupposes the introduction of co+petent proof that the party a ainst (ho+ itis sou ht has perfor+ed particular acts, or co++itted specific o+issions, violatin a iven provisionof our cri+inal la(s. As a +atter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not alle e anyspecific acts perfor+ed by herein petitioners. -t (ould be the le al heresy, of the hi hest order, to

convict anybody of a 8violation of Central Ban4 /a(s, Tariff and Custo+s /a(s, -nternal Revenue<Code? and Revised Penal Code,8 F as alle ed in the afore+entioned applications F (ithoutreference to any deter+inate provision of said la(s or

To uphold the validity of the (arrants in 5uestion (ould be to (ipe out co+pletely one of the +ostfunda+ental ri hts uaranteed in our Constitution, for it (ould place the sanctity of the do+icile andthe privacy of co++unication and correspondence at the +ercy of the (hi+s caprice or passion ofpeace officers. This is precisely the evil sou ht to be re+edied by the constitutional provision above



5uoted F to outla( the so called eneral (arrants. -t is not difficult to i+a ine (hat (ould happen,in ti+es of 4een political strife, (hen the party in po(er feels that the +inority is li4ely to (rest it,even thou h by le al +eans.

uch is the seriousness of the irre ularities co++itted in connection (ith the disputed search

(arrants, that this Court dee+ed it fit to a+end ection " of Rule $33 of the for+er Rules ofCourt $& by providin in its counterpart, under the Revised Rules of Court $6 that 8a search (arrantshall not issue but upon probable cause in connection ith one specific offense .8 Not satisfied (iththis 5ualification, the Court added thereto a para raph, directin that 8no search (arrant shall issuefor +ore than one specific offense.8

The rave violation of the Constitution +ade in the application for the contested search (arrants (asco+pounded by the description therein +ade of the effects to be searched for and sei)ed, to (it*

Boo4s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts, led ers,portfolios, credit journals, type(riters, and other docu+ents and or papers sho(in all

business transactions includin disburse+ent receipts, balance sheets and related profit andloss state+ents.

Thus, the (arrants authori)ed the search for and sei)ure of records pertainin to all businesstransactions of petitioners herein, re ardless of (hether the transactions (ere le'al or ille'al . The(arrants sanctioned the sei)ure of all records of the petitioners and the afore+entionedcorporations, (hatever their nature, thus openly contravenin the e9plicit co++and of our Bill ofRi hts F that the thin s to be sei)ed be particularl) described F as (ell as tendin to defeat its+ajor objective* the eli+ination of 'eneral (arrants.

Relyin upon oncado vs. #eople5s $ourt <2# Phil. $?, Respondents Prosecutors +aintain that, even

if the searches and sei)ures under consideration (ere unconstitutional, the docu+ents, papers andthin s thus sei)ed are ad+issible in evidence a ainst petitioners herein. pon +ature deliberation,ho(ever, (e are unani+ously of the opinion that the position ta4en in the Moncado case +ust beabandoned. aid position (as in line (ith the A+erican co++on la( rule, that the cri+inal shouldnot be allo(ed to o free +erely 8because the constable has blundered,8 $1 upon the theory that theconstitutional prohibition a ainst unreasonable searches and sei)ures is protected by +eans otherthan the e9clusion of evidence unla(fully obtained, $> such as the co++on la( action for da+a esa ainst the searchin officer, a ainst the party (ho procured the issuance of the search (arrant anda ainst those assistin in the e9ecution of an ille al search, their cri+inal punish+ent, resistance,(ithout liability to an unla(ful sei)ure, and such other le al re+edies as +ay be provided by otherla(s.

o(ever, +ost co++on la( jurisdictions have already iven up this approach and eventuallyadopted the e9clusionary rule, reali)in that this is the onl) practical means of enforcin' theconstitutional in6unction a ainst unreasonable searches and sei)ures. -n the lan ua e of !ud e/earned and*

As (e understand it, the reason for the e9clusion of evidence co+petent as such, (hich hasbeen unla(fully ac5uired, is that e9clusion is the only practical (ay of enforcin the



constitutional privile e. -n earlier ti+es the action of trespass a ainst the offendin official+ay have been protection enou h: but that is true no lon er. 7nly in case the prosecution(hich itself controls the sei)in officials, 4no(s that it cannot profit b) their ron' ill that

ron' be repressed .$2

-n fact, over thirty <"#? years before, the ;ederal upre+e Court had already declared*

-f letters and private docu+ents can thus be sei)ed and held and used in evidence a ainst aciti)en accused of an offense, the protection of the &th A+end+ent, declarin his ri hts to besecure a ainst such searches and sei)ures, is of no value , and, so far as those thus placedare concerned, +i ht as (ell be stric4en fro+ the Constitution. The efforts of the courts andtheir officials to brin' the 'uilt) to punishment, praise orth) as the) are, are not to be aidedb) the sacrifice of those 'reat principles established b) )ears of endeavor and sufferin'

hich have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental la of the land .$%

This vie( (as, not only reiterated, but, also, broadened in subse5uent decisions on the sa+e

;ederal Court.3#

After revie(in previous decisions thereon, said Court held, in app vs.-hio <supra .?*

. . . Today (e once a ain e9a+ine the =olf's constitutional docu+entation of the ri ht ofprivacy free fro+ unreasonable state intrusion, and after its do)en years on our boo4s, areled by it to close the only courtroo+ door re+ainin open to evidence secured by officialla(lessness in fla rant abuse of that basic ri ht, reserved to all persons as a specific

uarantee a ainst that very sa+e unla(ful conduct. =e hold that all evidence obtained bysearches and sei)ures in violation of the Constitution is, by that sa+e authority, inad+issiblein a tate.

ince the ;ourth A+end+ent's ri ht of privacy has been declared enforceable a ainst thetates throu h the @ue Process Clause of the ;ourteenth, it is enforceable a ainst the+ bythe sa+e sanction of e9clusion as it used a ainst the ;ederal 0overn+ent. =ere itother(ise, then just as (ithout the =ee4s rule the assurance a ainst unreasonable federalsearches and sei)ures (ould be 8a for+ of (ords,8 valueless and underservin of +ention ina perpetual charter of inesti+able hu+an liberties, so too, ithout that rule the freedom fromstate invasions of privac) ould be so ephemeral and so neatl) severed from its conceptualne0us ith the freedom from all brutish means of coercin' evidence as not to permit this$ourt5s hi'h re'ard as a freedom 8implicit in the concept of ordered libert) .8 At the ti+e thatthe Court held in =olf that the a+end+ent (as applicable to the tates throu h the @ueProcess Clause, the cases of this Court as (e have seen, had steadfastly held that as to

federal officers the ;ourth A+end+ent included the e9clusion of the evidence sei)ed inviolation of its provisions. Even =olf 8stoutly adhered8 to that proposition. The ri ht to (henconceded operatively enforceable a ainst the tates, (as not susceptible of destruction byavulsion of the sanction upon (hich its protection and enjoy+ent had al(ays been dee+eddependent under the Boyd, =ee4s and ilverthorne Cases. Therefore, in e9tendin thesubstantive protections of due process to all constitutionally unreasonable searches F stateor federal F it (as lo ically and constitutionally necessarily that the e9clusion doctrine F anessential part of the ri ht to privacy F be also insisted upon as an essential in redient of the



ri ht ne(ly reco ni)ed by the =olf Case. -n short, the admission of the ne constitutionalRi'ht b) 7olf could not tolerate denial of its most important constitutional privile'e, namel),the e0clusion of the evidence hich an accused had been forced to 'ive b) reason of theunla ful sei(ure. To hold other ise is to 'rant the ri'ht but in realit) to ithhold its privile'eand en6o)ment . 7nly last year the Court itself reco ni)ed that the purpose of the

e0clusionar) rule to 8is to deter 8 to compel respect for the constitutional 'uarant) in theonl) effectivel) available a) 8 b) removin' the incentive to disre'ard it 8 . . . .

The i noble shortcut to conviction left open to the tate tends to destroy the entire syste+ ofconstitutional restraints on (hich the liberties of the people rest. avin once reco ni)ed thatthe ri ht to privacy e+bodied in the ;ourth A+end+ent is enforceable a ainst the tates,and that the ri ht to be secure a ainst rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, thereforeconstitutional in ori in, e can no lon'er permit that ri'ht to remain an empt) promise .Because it is enforceable in the sa+e +anner and to li4e effect as other basic ri hts securedby its @ue Process Clause, e can no lon'er permit it to be revocable at the him of an)

police officer ho, in the name of la enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its en6o)ment.

-ur decision, founded on reason and truth, 'ives to the individual no more than that hichthe $onstitution 'uarantees him to the police officer no less than that to hich honest laenforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that 6udicial inte'rit) so necessar) in the trueadministration of 6ustice . <e+phasis ours.?

-ndeed, the non e9clusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter, but also, to the spirit of theconstitutional injunction a ainst unreasonable searches and sei)ures. To be sure, if the applicant fora search (arrant has co+petent evidence to establish probable cause of the co++ission of a ivencri+e by the party a ainst (ho+ the (arrant is intended, then there is no reason (hy the applicantshould not co+ply (ith the re5uire+ents of the funda+ental la(. pon the other hand, if he has nosuch co+petent evidence, then it is not possible for the !ud e to find that there is probable cause,

and, hence, no justification for the issuance of the (arrant. The only possible e9planation <not justification? for its issuance is the necessity of fishin' evidence of the co++ission of a cri+e. But,then, this fishin e9pedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to establish a probable cause.

Moreover, the theory that the cri+inal prosecution of those (ho secure an ille al search (arrantand or +a4e unreasonable searches or sei)ures (ould suffice to protect the constitutional uaranteeunder consideration, overloo4s the fact that violations thereof are, in eneral, co++itted By a entsof the party in po(er, for, certainly, those belon in to the +inority could not possibly abuse a po(erthey do not have. Re ardless of the handicap under (hich the +inority usually F but,understandably F finds itself in prosecutin a ents of the +ajority, one +ust not lose si ht of thefact that the psycholo ical and +oral effect of the possibility 3$ of securin their conviction, is (atered

do(n by the pardonin po(er of the party for (hose benefit the ille ality had been co++itted.

-n their Motion for Reconsideration and A+end+ent of the Resolution of this Court dated !une 3%,$%13, petitioners alle e that Roo+s Nos. 2$ and %$ of Car+en Apart+ents, ouse No. 3##2, @e(eyBoulevard, ouse No. $&"1, Colorado treet, and Roo+ No. "#& of the Ar+y Navy Club, should beincluded a+on the pre+ises considered in said Resolution as residences of herein petitioners,

arry . tonehill, Robert P. Broo4, !ohn !. Broo4s and Qarl Bec4, respectively, and that,further+ore, the records, papers and other effects sei)ed in the offices of the corporations above



referred to include personal belon in s of said petitioners and other effects under their e9clusivepossession and control, for the e9clusion of (hich they have a standin under the latest rulin s ofthe federal courts of federal courts of the nited tates. 33

=e note, ho(ever, that petitioners' theory, re ardin their alle ed possession of and control over the

afore+entioned records, papers and effects, and the alle ed 8personal8 nature thereof, has Been Advanced, not in their petition or a+ended petition herein, but in the Motion for Reconsideration and A+end+ent of the Resolution of !une 3%, $%13. -n other (ords, said theory (ould appear to bereadjust+ent of that follo(ed in said petitions, to suit the approach inti+ated in the Resolutionsou ht to be reconsidered and a+ended. Then, too, so+e of the affidavits or copies of alle edaffidavits attached to said +otion for reconsideration, or sub+itted in support thereof, contain eitherinconsistent alle ations, or alle ations inconsistent (ith the theory no( advanced by petitionersherein.

pon the other hand, (e are not satisfied that the alle ations of said petitions said +otion forreconsideration, and the contents of the afore+entioned affidavits and other papers sub+itted in

support of said +otion, have sufficiently established the facts or conditions conte+plated in thecases relied upon by the petitioners: to (arrant application of the vie(s therein e9pressed, should(e a ree thereto. At any rate, (e do not dee+ it necessary to e9press our opinion thereon, it beinbest to leave the +atter open for deter+ination in appropriate cases in the future.

=e hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case +ust be, as it is hereby,abandoned: that the (arrants for the search of three <"? residences of herein petitioners, asspecified in the Resolution of !une 3%, $%13, are null and void: that the searches and sei)urestherein +ade are ille al: that the (rit of preli+inary injunction heretofore issued, in connection (iththe docu+ents, papers and other effects thus sei)ed in said residences of herein petitioners ishereby +ade per+anent: that the (rits prayed for are ranted, insofar as the docu+ents, papers

and other effects so sei)ed in the afore+entioned residences are concerned: that theafore+entioned +otion for Reconsideration and A+end+ent should be, as it is hereby, denied: andthat the petition herein is dis+issed and the (rits prayed for denied, as re ards the docu+ents,papers and other effects sei)ed in the t(enty nine <3%? places, offices and other pre+isesenu+erated in the sa+e Resolution, (ithout special pronounce+ent as to costs.

-t is so ordered.

Re)es, %.&.9., Di(on, a:alintal, &en'(on, %.#., aldivar and Sanche(, %%., concur.

C$STRO, ., concurrin and dissentin *

;ro+ +y analysis of the opinion (ritten by Chief !ustice Roberto Concepcion and fro+ the i+port ofthe deliberations of the Court on this case, - ather the follo(in distinct conclusions*

$. All the search (arrants served by the National Bureau of -nvesti ation in this case areeneral (arrants and are therefore proscribed by, and in violation of, para raph " of section

$ of Article --- <Bill of Ri hts? of the Constitution:



3. All the searches and sei)ures conducted under the authority of the said search (arrants(ere conse5uently ille al:

". The non e9clusionary rule enunciated in oncado vs. #eople , 2# Phil. $, should be, and isdeclared, abandoned:

&. The search (arrants served at the three residences of the petitionersare e0pressl) declared null and void the searches and sei)ures therein +adeare e0pressl) declared ille al: and the (rit of preli+inary injunction heretofore issued a ainstthe use of the docu+ents, papers and effect sei)ed in the said residences is +adeper+anent: and

6. Reasonin that the petitioners have not in their pleadin s satisfactorily de+onstrated thatthey have le al standin to +ove for the suppression of the docu+ents, papers and effectssei)ed in the places other than the three residences adverted to above, the opinion (rittenby the Chief !ustice refrains fro+ e0pressl) declarin as null and void the such (arrants

served at such other places and as ille al the searches and sei)ures +ade therein, andleaves 8the +atter open for deter+ination in appropriate cases in the future.8

-t is precisely the position ta4en by the Chief !ustice su++ari)ed in the i++ediately precedinpara raph <nu+bered 6? (ith (hich - a+ not in accord.

- do not share his reluctance or un(illin ness to e9pressly declare, at this ti+e, the nullity of thesearch (arrants served at places other than the three residences, and the ille ibility of the searchesand sei)ures conducted under the authority thereof. -n +y vie( even the e9acerbatin passions andprejudices inordinately enerated by the environ+ental political and +oral develop+ents of this caseshould not deter this Court fro+ forthri htly layin do(n the la( not only for this case but as (ell for

future cases and future enerations. All the search (arrants, (ithout e9ception, in this case aread+ittedly eneral, blan4et and rovin (arrants and are therefore ad+ittedly and indisputablyoutla(ed by the Constitution: and the searches and sei)ures +ade (ere therefore unla(ful. That thepetitioners, let us assu+e in 'ratia ar'umente , have no le al standin to as4 for the suppression ofthe papers, thin s and effects sei)ed fro+ places other than their residences, to +y +ind, cannot inany +anner affect, alter or other(ise +odify the intrinsic nullity of the search (arrants and theintrinsic ille ality of the searches and sei)ures +ade thereunder. =hether or not the petitionerspossess le al standin the said (arrants are void and re+ain void, and the searches and sei)ures(ere ille al and re+ain ille al. No inference can be dra(n fro+ the (ords of the Constitution that8le al standin 8 or the lac4 of it is a deter+inant of the nullity or validity of a search (arrant or of thela(fulness or ille ality of a search or sei)ure.

7n the 5uestion of le al standin , - a+ of the conviction that, upon the pleadin s sub+itted to thisCourt the petitioners have the re5uisite le al standin to +ove for the suppression and return of thedocu+ents, papers and effects that (ere sei)ed fro+ places other than their fa+ily residences.

7ur constitutional provision on searches and sei)ures (as derived al+ost verbatim fro+ the ;ourth A+end+ent to the nited tates Constitution. -n the +any years of judicial construction andinterpretation of the said constitutional provision, our courts have invariably re arded as doctrinal the



pronounce+ent +ade on the ;ourth A+end+ent by federal courts, especially the ;ederal upre+eCourt and the ;ederal Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The . . doctrines and pertinent cases on standin to +ove for the suppression or return ofdocu+ents, papers and effects (hich are the fruits of an unla(ful search and sei)ure, +ay be

su++ari)ed as follo(s: <a? o(nership of docu+ents, papers and effects ives 8standin :8 <b?o(nership and or control or possession F actual or constructive F of pre+ises searched ives8standin 8: and <c? the 8a rieved person8 doctrine (here the search (arrant and the s(ornapplication for search (arrant are 8pri+arily8 directed solely and e9clusively a ainst the 8a rievedperson,8 ives 8standin .8

An e9a+ination of the search (arrants in this case (ill readily sho( that, e9ceptin three, all (eredirected a ainst the petitioners personally. -n so+e of the+, the petitioners (ere na+ed personally,follo(ed by the desi nation, 8the President and or 0eneral Mana er8 of the particular corporation.The three (arrants e9cepted na+ed three corporate defendants. But the8office house (arehouse pre+ises8 +entioned in the said three (arrants (ere also the sa+e

8office house (arehouse pre+ises8 declared to be o(ned by or under the control of the petitioners inall the other search (arrants directed a ainst the petitioners and or 8the President and or 0eneralMana er8 of the particular corporation. <see pa es 6 3& of Petitioners' Reply of April 3, $%13?. Thesearches and sei)ures (ere to be +ade, and (ere actually +ade, in the8office house (arehouse pre+ises8 o(ned by or under the control of the petitioners.

- nership of matters sei(ed 'ives 8standin'. 8

7(nership of the properties sei)ed alone entitles the petitioners to brin a +otion to return andsuppress, and ives the+ standin as persons a rieved by an unla(ful search and sei)urere ardless of their location at the ti+e of sei)ure. %ones vs. nited States , "13 . . 36>, 31$ <$%1#?

<narcotics stored in the apart+ent of a friend of the defendant?: *en(el vs. nited States , 3%1 ;. 3d.16#, 163 6" <6th Cir. $%1$?, <personal and corporate papers of corporation of (hich the defendant(as president?, nited States vs. %effers , "&3 . . &2 <$%6$? <narcotics sei)ed in an apart+ent notbelon in to the defendant?: #ielo vs. nited States , 2 ;. 3d &%3, &%" <%th Cir. $%36? <boo4s sei)edfro+ the defendant's sister but belon in to the defendant?: Cf. Villano vs. nited States , "$# ;. 3d12#, 12" <$#th Cir. $%13? <papers sei)ed in des4 neither o(ned by nor in e9clusive possession of thedefendant?.

-n a very recent case <decided by the . . upre+e Court on @ece+ber $3, $%11?, it (as held thatunder the constitutional provision a ainst unla(ful searches and sei)ures, a person places hi+selfor his property (ithin a constitutionally protected area, be it his ho+e or his office, his hotel roo+ or

his auto+obile*

=here the ar u+ent falls is in its +isapprehension of the funda+ental nature and scope of;ourth A+end+ent protection. =hat the ;ourth A+end+ent protects is the security a +anrelies upon (hen he places himself or his propert) ithin a constitutionall) protected area, beit his home or his office, his hotel room or his automobile . There he is protected fro+un(arranted overn+ental intrusion. And (hen he puts so+e thin in his filin cabinet, in hisdes4 dra(er, or in his poc4et, he has the ri ht to 4no( it (ill be secure fro+ an unreasonable



search or an unreasonable sei)ure. o it (as that the ;ourth A+end+ent could not toleratethe (arrantless search of the hotel roo+ in %effers , the purloinin of the petitioner's privatepapers in Gouled , or the surreptitious electronic surveilance in Silverman . Countless othercases (hich have co+e to this Court over the years have involved a +yriad of differinfactual conte9ts in (hich the protections of the ;ourth A+end+ent have been appropriately

invo4ed. No doubt, the future (ill brin countless others. By nothin (e say here do (eeither foresee or foreclose factual situations to (hich the ;ourth A+end+ent +ay beapplicable. < *offa vs. .S ., 2> . Ct. &#2 <@ece+ber $3, $%11?. ee also .S. vs. %effers ,"&3 . . &2, >3 . Ct. %" <Nove+ber $", $%6$?. <E+phasis supplied?.

$ontrol of premises searched 'ives ;standin'.;

-ndependent of o(nership or other personal interest in the records and docu+ents sei)ed, thepetitioners have standin to +ove for return and suppression by virtue of their proprietary orleasehold interest in +any of the pre+ises searched. These proprietary and leasehold interests havebeen sufficiently set forth in their +otion for reconsideration and need not be recounted here, e9cept

to e+phasi)e that the petitioners paid rent, directly or indirectly, for practically all the pre+isessearched <Roo+ %$, 2& Car+en Apts: Roo+ "#&, Ar+y Navy Club: Pre+ises 3##2, @e(eyBoulevard: $&"1 Colorado treet?: +aintained personal offices (ithin the corporate offices <-BMC,

TC?: had +ade i+prove+ents or furnished such offices: or had paid for the filin cabinets in(hich the papers (ere stored <Roo+ 3#&, Ar+y Navy Club?: and individually, or throu h theirrespective spouses, o(ned the controllin stoc4 of the corporations involved. The petitioners'proprietary interest in +ost, if not all, of the pre+ises searched therefore independently ives the+standin to +ove for the return and suppression of the boo4s, papers and affects sei)ed therefro+.

-n %ones vs. nited States , supra , the . . upre+e Court delineated the nature and e9tent of theinterest in the searched pre+ises necessary to +aintain a +otion to suppress. After revie(in (hat

it considered to be the unduly technical standard of the then prevailin circuit court decisions, theupre+e Court said <"13 . . 311?*

=e do not li htly depart fro+ this course of decisions by the lo(er courts. =e arepersuaded, ho(ever, that it is unnecessarily and ill advised to i+port into the la(surroundin the constitutional ri ht to be free fro+ unreasonable searches and sei)uressubtle distinctions, developed and refined by the co++on la( in evolvin the body of privateproperty la( (hich, +ore than al+ost any other branch of la(, has been shaped bydistinctions (hose validity is lar ely historical. Even in the area fro+ (hich they derive, dueconsideration has led to the discardin of those distinctions in the ho+eland of the co++onla(. ee 7ccupiers' /iability Act, $%6>, 6 and 1 Eli). 3, c. "$, carryin out /a( Refor+

Co++ittee, Third Report, C+d. %"#6. @istinctions such as those bet(een 8lessee8,8licensee,8 8invitee,8 8 uest,8 often only of ossa+er stren th, ou ht not be deter+inative infashionin procedures ulti+ately referable to constitutional safe uards. ee also $hapmanvs. nited States , "6& . . 1$#, 1$1 $> <$%1$?.

-t has never been held that a person (ith re5uisite interest in the pre+ises searched +ust o(n theproperty sei)ed in order to have standin in a +otion to return and suppress. -n Alioto vs. nitedStates , 3$1 ;. upp. &2 <$%1"?, a Boo44eeper for several corporations fro+ (hose apart+ent the



corporate records (ere sei)ed successfully +oved for their return. -n nited States vs. Antonelli,Fire or:s $o ., 6" ;. upp. 2>#, 2>" <= @. N. . $%&"?, the corporation's president successfully+oved for the return and suppression is to hi+ of both personal and corporate docu+ents sei)edfro+ his ho+e durin the course of an ille al search*

The la ful possession by Antonelli of docu+ents and property, 8 either his o n or thecorporation5s (as entitled to protection a ainst unreasonable search and sei)ure. nder thecircu+stances in the case at bar, the search and sei)ure (ere unreasonable and unla(ful.The +otion for the return of sei)ed article and the suppression of the evidence so obtainedshould be ranted. <E+phasis supplied?.

Ti+e (as (hen only a person (ho had property in interest in either the place searched or thearticles sei)e had the necessary standin to invo4e the protection of the e9clusionary rule. Butin acDonald vs. nite States , ""6 . . &1$ <$%&2?, !ustice Robert !ac4son joined by !ustice ;eli9;ran4furter, advanced the vie( that 8even a uest +ay e9pect the shelter of the rooftree he is undera ainst cri+inal intrusion.8 This vie( finally beca+e the official vie( of the . . upre+e Court and

(as articulated in nited States vs. %effers , &"3 . &2 <$%6$?. Nine years later, in $%1#, in %onesvs. nite States , "13 . . 36>, 31>, the . . upre+e Court (ent a step further. !ones (as a +ereuest in the apart+ent unla(fully searched but the Court nonetheless declared that the e9clusionary

rule protected hi+ as (ell. The concept of 8person a rieved by an unla(ful search and sei)ure8(as enlar ed to include 8anyone le iti+ately on pre+ise (here the search occurs.8

hortly after the . . upre+e Court's %ones decision the . . Court of Appeals for the ;ifth Circuitheld that the defendant or ani)er, sole stoc4holder and president of a corporation had standin in a+ail fraud prosecution a ainst hi+ to de+and the return and suppression of corporateproperty. *en(el vs. nited States , 3%1 ; 3d 16#, 163 <6th Cir. $%1$?, supra . The court conclude thatthe defendant had standin on t(o independent rounds* First 8 he had a sufficient interest in the

property sei)ed, and second 8 he had an ade5uate interest in the pre+ises searched <just li4e inthe case at bar?. A postal inspector had unla(fully searched the corporation' pre+ises and hadsei)ed +ost of the corporation's boo4 and records. /oo4in to %ones , the court observed*

%ones clearly tells us, therefore, (hat is not re5uired 5ualify one as a 8person a rieved byan unla(ful search and sei)ure.8 -t tells us that appellant should not have been precludedfro+ objectin to the Postal -nspector's search and sei)ure of the corporation's boo4s andrecords +erely because the appellant did not sho( o(nership or possession of the boo4sand records or a substantial possessory interest in the invade pre+ises . . . < *en(el vs.

nited States , 3%1 ;. 3d at 16$?. .

*en(el (as soon follo(ed by Villano vs. nited States , "$# ;. 3d 12#, 12", <$#th Cir. $%13?.-n Villano , police officers sei)ed t(o noteboo4s fro+ a des4 in the defendant's place of e+ploy+ent:the defendant did not clai+ o(nership of either: he asserted that several e+ployees <includinhi+self? used the noteboo4s. The Court held that the e+ployee had a protected interest and thatthere also (as an invasion of privacy. Both *en(el and Villano considered also the fact that thesearch and sei)ure (ere 8directed at8 the +ovin defendant. *en(el vs. nited States , 3%1 ;. 3d at123: Villano vs. nited States , "$# ;. 3d at 12".



-n a case in (hich an attorney closed his la( office, placed his files in stora e and (ent to PuertoRico, the Court of Appeals for the Ei hth Circuit reco ni)ed his standin to +ove to 5uash asunreasonable search and sei)ure under the ;ourth A+end+ent of the . . Constitution a rand jurysubpoena duces tecum directed to the custodian of his files. The 0overn+ent contended that thepetitioner had no standin because the boo4s and papers (ere physically in the possession of the

custodian, and because the subpoena (as directed a ainst the custodian. The court rejected thecontention, holdin that

ch(i++er le ally had such possession, control and unrelin5uished personal ri hts in theboo4s and papers as not to enable the 5uestion of unreasonable search and sei)ure to beescaped throu h the +ere procedural device of co+pellin a third party na4ed possessor toproduce and deliver the+. Sch immer vs. nited States , 3"3 ;. 3d 266, 21$ <2th Cir. $%61?.

A''rieved person doctrine here the search arrant s primaril) directed a'ainst said person'ives 8standin'. 8

The latest nited tates decision s5uarely in point is nited States vs. &irrell , 3&3 ;. upp. $%$<$%16, . [email protected]. [email protected]. .?. The defendant had stored (ith an attorney certain files and papers, (hichattorney, by the na+e of @unn, (as not, at the ti+e of the sei)in of the records, Birrell's attorney. J@unn, in turn, had stored +ost of the records at his ho+e in the country and on a far+ (hich,accordin to @unn's affidavit, (as under his <@unn's? 8control and +ana e+ent.8 The papers turnedout to be private, personal and business papers to ether (ith corporate boo4s and records of certainunna+ed corporations in (hich Birrell did not even clai+ o(nership. <All of these type records (eresei)ed in the case at bar?. Nevertheless, the search in Birrell (as held invalid by the court (hich heldthat even thou h Birrell did not o(n the pre+ises (here the records (ere stored, he had 8standin 8to +ove for the return of all the papers and properties sei)ed. The court, relyin on %ones vs.

.S ., supra : .S. vs. Antonelli Fire or:s $o ., 6" ;. upp. 2>#, Aff'd $66 ;. 3d 1"$* *en(el vs. .S.,

supra< and Sch immer vs. .S., supra , pointed out that

-t is over(hel+in ly established that the searches here in 5uestion (ere directed solely ande9clusively a ainst Birrell. The only person su ested in the papers as havin violated thela( (as Birrell. The first search (arrant described the records as havin been used 8inco++ittin a violation of Title $2, nited tates Code, ection $"&$, by the use of the +ailsby one /o(ell M. Birrell, . . .8 The second search (arrant (as captioned* 8 nited States of

America vs. 9o ell . &irrell . <p. $%2?

Possession <actual or constructive?, no less than o(nership, ives standin to +ove tosuppress. uch (as the rule even before !ones. <p. $%%?

-f, as thus indicated Birrell had at least constructive possession of the records stored (ith@unn, it +atters not (hether he had any interest in the pre+ises searched. ee also %effersv. nited States , 22 . . Appl. @.C. 62, $2> ;. 3d &%2 <$%6#?, affir+ed &"3 . . &2, >3 . Ct.%", %1 /. Ed. &6% <$%6$?.

The rulin in the &irrell case (as reaffir+ed on +otion for rear u+ent: the nited tates did notappeal fro+ this decision. The factual situation in &irrell is stri4in ly si+ilar to the case of the present



petitioners: as in &irrell , +any personal and corporate papers (ere sei)ed fro+ pre+ises notpetitioners' fa+ily residences: as in &irrell , the searches (ere 8PR-MAR-/ @-RECTE@ 7/ET

AN@ E C/ -SE/ 8 a ainst the petitioners. till both types of docu+ents (ere suppressedin &irrell because of the ille al search. -n the case at bar, the petitioners connection (ith thepre+ises raided is +uch closer than in &irrell .

Thus, the petitioners have full standin to +ove for the 5uashin of all the (arrants re ardless(hether these (ere directed a ainst residences in the narro( sense of the (ord, as lon as thedocu+ents (ere personal papers of the petitioners or <to the e9tent that they (ere corporate papers?(ere held by the+ in a personal capacity or under their personal control.

Prescindin a fro+ the fore oin , this Court, at all events, should order the return to the petitionersall personal and private papers and effects sei)ed, no +atter (here these (ere sei)ed, (hether fro+their residences or corporate offices or any other place or places. The uncontradicted s(ornstate+ents of the petitioners in their, various pleadin s sub+itted to this Court indisputably sho( thata+on st the thin s sei)ed fro+ the corporate offices and other places

(ere personal and private papers and effects belon in to the petitioners.

-f there should be any cate ori)ation of the docu+ents, papers and thin s (hich (here the objectsof the unla(ful searches and sei)ures, - sub+it that the roupin should be*<a? personal or private papers of the petitioners (ere they (ere unla(fully sei)ed, be it their fa+ilyresidences offices, (arehouses and or pre+ises o(ned and or possessed <actually orconstructively? by the+ as sho(n in all the search and in the s(orn applications filed in securin thevoid search (arrants and <b? purely corporate papers belon in to corporations. nder suchcate ori)ation or roupin , the deter+ination of (hich unla(fully sei)ed papers, docu+ents andthin s are personal=private of the petitioners or purel) corporate papers (ill have to be left to thelo(er courts (hich issued the void search (arrants in ulti+ately effectin the suppression and or

return of the said docu+ents.

And as une5uivocally indicated by the authorities above cited, the petitioners li4e(ise have clearle al standin to +ove for the suppression of purel) corporate papers as 8President and or 0eneralMana er8 of the corporations involved as specifically +entioned in the void search (arrants.

;inally, - +ust articulate +y persuasion that althou h the cases cited in +y dis5uisition (ere cri+inalprosecutions, the reat clauses of the constitutional proscription on ille al searches and sei)ures donot (ithhold the +antle of their protection fro+ cases not cri+inal in ori in or nature.

!oot'ote(

$ on. !ose =. @io4no, in his capacity as ecretary of !ustice, !ose /u4ban, in his capacityas Actin @irector, National Bureau of -nvesti ation, pecial Prosecutors Pedro @. Cen)on,Efren -. Plana and Manuel Sillareal, !r. and Assistant ;iscal Maneses 0. Reyes, City ofManila.

3 on. A+ado Roan, !ud e of the Municipal <no( City? Court of Manila, on. Ro+anCansino, !ud e of the Municipal <no( City? Court of Manila, on. er+o enes Calua ,



!ud e of the Court of ;irst -nstance of Ri)al, ue)on City Branch, on. Eulo io Mencias,!ud e of the Court of ;irst -nstance of Ri)al, Pasi Branch, and on. @a+ian !i+ene),!ud e of the Municipal <no( City? Court of ue)on City.

"Coverin the period fro+ March " to March %, $%13.

& arry . tonehill, Robert P. Broo4s, !ohn !. Broo4s and Qarl Bec4.

6 . . Tobacco Corporation, Atlas Ce+ent Corporation, Atlas @evelop+ent Corporation, ;arEast Publishin Corporation <Evenin Ne(s?, -nvest+ent -nc., -ndustrial BusinessMana e+ent Corporation, 0eneral A ricultural Corporation, A+erican Asiatic 7ilCorporation, -nvest+ent Mana e+ent Corporation, oliday ills, -nc., Republic 0lassCorporation, -ndustrial and Business Mana e+ent Corporation, nited ousin Corporation,The Philippine Tobacco ;lue Curin and Redryin Corporation, Republic Real EstateCorporation and Merconsel Corporation.

1

>nter alia .>8=ithout prejudice to e9plainin the reasons for this order in the decision to be rendered inthe case, the (rit of preli+inary injunction issued by us in this case a ainst the use of thepapers, docu+ents and thin s fro+ the follo(in pre+ises* <$? The office of the . .Tobacco Corp. at the /edes+a Bld ., Ar)obispo t., Manila: <3? %"3 0on)ales, Er+ita,Manila: <"? office at Atlanta t. bounded by Chica o, $6th $&th ts., Port Area, Manila: <&?63> Rosario t., Mla.: <6? Atlas Ce+ent Corp. and or Atlas @evelop+ent Corp., Ma saysayBld ., an /uis, Er+ita, Mla.: <1? 3#6 $"th t., Port Area, Mla.: <>? No. 33& an Sicente t.,Mla.: <2? =arehouse No. 3 at Chica o 3"rd ts., Mla.: <%? =arehouse at 3"rd t., bet(eenMuelle de an ;rancisco Boston, Port Area, Mla.: <$#? -nvest+ent -nc., 3&th t. Boston:

<$$? -BMC, Ma saysay Bld ., an /uis, Mla.: <$3? 0eneral A ricultural Corp., Ma saysayBld ., an /uis, Manila: <$"? A+erican Asiatic 7il Corp., Ma saysay Bld ., an /uis, Manila:<$&? Roo+ %$, Car+en Apts.: @e(ey Blvd., Manila: <$6? =arehouse Railroad t. bet(een $>

$3 ts., Port Area, Manila: <$1? R+. "#&, Ar+y Navy Club, Manila, outh Blvd.: <$>?=arehouse Anne9 Bld ., $2th t., Port Area, Manila: <$2? R+. 2$ Car+en Apts.: @e(eyBlvd., Manila: <$%? oliday ills, -nc., Trinity Bld ., an /uis, Manila: <3#? No. 3##2 @e(eyBlvd.: <3$? Pre+ises of 3&th t. Boston, Port Area, Manila: <33? Republic 0lass Corp.,Trinity Bld ., an /uis, Manila: <3"? -BMC, 3nd ;loor, Trinity Bld ., an /uis, Manila: <3&?-BMC, 3nd ;lr., 0ochan co Bl ., 1$# an /uis, Manila: <36? nited ousin Corp., TrinityBld ., an /uis, Manila: <31? Republic Real Estate Corp., Trinity Bld ., an /uis, Manila: <3>?$&"> Colorado t., Malate, Manila: <32? Phil. Tobacco ;lue Curin , Ma saysay Bld ., an

/uis, Manila and <3%? $& Bald(in t., ta. Cru), Manila, in the hearin of @eportation CasesNos. R %6" and %66 a ainst petitioners, before the @eportation Board, is hereby lifted. Thepreli+inary injunction shall continue as to the papers, docu+ents and thin s found in theother pre+ises na+ely* in those of the residences of petitioners, as follo(s* <$? $" NarraRoad, ;orbes Par4, Ma4ati, Ri)al: <3? $6 Narra Road, ;orbes Par4, Ma4ati, Ri)al: and <"? 2

rdaneta Avenue, rdaneta Silla e, Ma4ati, Ri)al.8

2Ne(in ha+, et al. vs. nited tates, & ;. 3d. &%#.



%/esis vs. . ., 1 ;. 3d. 33.

$#>n re @ooley <$%"$? &2 ; 3d. $3$: Rouda vs. . ., $# ;. 1# 3d %$1: /usco vs. . . 32> ;.1%: 0anci vs. . ., 32> ;. Moris vs. . ., 31 ;. 3d &&&.

$$

. . vs. 0ass $> ;. 3d. %%>: People vs. Rubio, 6> Phil. "2&, "%&.$37n March 33, $%13.

$" ection $, para raph ", of Article --- thereof.

$&Readin * . . . A search (arrant shall not issue but upon probable cause to be deter+ined bythe jud e or justice of the peace after e9a+ination under oath or affir+ation of theco+plainant and the (itnesses he +ay produce, and particularly describin the place to besearched, and the persons or thin s to be sei)ed.

$6

. . . A search (arrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection (ith onespecific offense to be deter+ined by the jud e or justice of the peace after e9a+inationunder oath or affir+ation of the co+plainant and the (itnesses he +ay produce, andparticularly describin the place to be searched and persons or thin s to be sei)ed.

No search (arrant shall issue for +ore than one specific offense. < ec. ", Rule $31.?

$1 People vs. @efore, $&# NE 626.

$>=olf vs. Colorado, %" /. ed. $>23.

$2

Pu liese <$%&6? $"" ;. 3d. &%>.$%=ee4s vs. nited tates <$%$&? 3"3 . . "2", 62 /. ed. 163, "& . Ct. "&$: e+phasissupplied.

3#0ouled vs. nited tates <$%3$? 366 3%2, 16 /. ed, 1&>, &$ . Ct. 31$: 7l+stead vs.nited tates <$%32? 3>> &"2, >3 /. ed. %&&, &2 . Ct. 61&, =olf vs. Colorado, ""2

36, %" /. ed. $>23, 1% . Ct. $"6%: El4ins vs. nited tates, "1& 3#1, & /. ed. 3d. $11%,2# . Ct. $&"> <$%1#?: Mapp vs. 7hio <$%1$?, "1> 1&", 1 /. ed. 3d. $#2$, 2$ . Ct. $12&.

3$Even if re+ote.

33Particularly, !ones vs. . . "13 . . 36>: Alioto vs. . ., 3$1 ;ed. upp. &%* . . vs.!effries, >3 . Ct. %"* Sillano vs, . ., "## ;ed. 3d 12#: and en)el vs. . ., 3%1 ;ed. 3d16#.

CA TR7, !., C7NC RR-N0 AN@ @- ENT-N0*

J Attorney client relationship played no part in the decision of the case.



Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 15=6 5 $pr& 19, 2**

GO:ERNMENT O! "ONG ONG SPECI$L $#MINISTR$TI:E REGION, repre(e'te/ b3 t eP & &pp&'e #ep%rtme't o7 +(t& e,Petitioner,vs."ON. !ELI>BERTO T. OL$LI$, R. %'/ U$N $NTONIO MU?O , Respondents.

@ E C - - 7 N

S$N#O:$L-GUTIERRE , J.:

;or our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 16 of the $%%> Rules of CivilProcedure, as a+ended, see4in to nullify the t(o 7rders of the Re ional Trial Court <RTC?, Branch2, Manila <presided by respondent !ud e ;eli9berto T. 7lalia, !r.? issued in Civil Case No. %% %6>>".These are* <$? the 7rder dated @ece+ber 3#, 3##$ allo(in !uan Antonio MuHo), privaterespondent, to post bail: and <3? the 7rder dated April $#, 3##3 denyin the +otion to vacate thesaid 7rder of @ece+ber 3#, 3##$ filed by the 0overn+ent of on Qon pecial Ad+inistrativeRe ion, represented by the Philippine @epart+ent of !ustice <@7!?, petitioner. The petition alle esthat both 7rders (ere issued by respondent jud e (ith rave abuse of discretion a+ountin to lac4or e9cess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution rantin bail to a potentiale9traditee.

The facts are*

7n !anuary "#, $%%6, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Cro(n Colony of onQon si ned an 8A ree+ent for the urrender of Accused and Convicted Persons.8 -t too4 effect on!une 3#, $%%>.

7n !uly $, $%%>, on Qon reverted bac4 to the PeopleUs Republic of China and beca+e the onQon pecial Ad+inistrative Re ion.

Private respondent MuHo) (as char ed before the on Qon Court (ith three <"? counts of the

offense of 8acceptin an advanta e as a ent,8 in violation of ection % <$? <a? of the Prevention ofBribery 7rdinance, Cap. 3#$ of on Qon . e also faces seven <>? counts of the offense ofconspiracy to defraud, penali)ed by the co++on la( of on Qon . 7n Au ust 3", $%%> and7ctober 36, $%%%, (arrants of arrest (ere issued a ainst hi+. -f convicted, he faces a jail ter+ ofseven <>? to fourteen <$&? years for each char e.

7n epte+ber $", $%%%, the @7! received fro+ the on Qon @epart+ent of !ustice a re5uest forthe provisional arrest of private respondent. The @7! then for(arded the re5uest to the National



Bureau of -nvesti ation <NB-? (hich, in turn, filed (ith the RTC of Manila, Branch $% an applicationfor the provisional arrest of private respondent.

7n epte+ber 3", $%%%, the RTC, Branch $%, Manila issued an 7rder of Arrest a ainst privaterespondent. That sa+e day, the NB- a ents arrested and detained hi+.

7n 7ctober $&, $%%%, private respondent filed (ith the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari,prohibition and mandamus (ith application for preli+inary +andatory injunction and or (rit of habeascorpus 5uestionin the validity of the 7rder of Arrest.

7n Nove+ber %, $%%%, the Court of Appeals rendered its @ecision declarin the 7rder of Arrest void.

7n Nove+ber $3, $%%%, the @7! filed (ith this Court a petition for revie( on certiorari, doc4eted as0.R. No. $&#63#, prayin that the @ecision of the Court of Appeals be reversed.

7n @ece+ber $2, 3###, this Court rendered a @ecision rantin the petition of the @7! and

sustainin the validity of the 7rder of Arrest a ainst private respondent. The @ecision beca+e finaland e9ecutory on April $#, 3##$.

Mean(hile, as early as Nove+ber 33, $%%%, petitioner on Qon pecial Ad+inistrative Re ionfiled (ith the RTC of Manila a petition for the e9tradition of private respondent, doc4eted as CivilCase No. %% %6>"", raffled off to Branch $#, presided by !ud e Ricardo Bernardo, !r. ;or his part,private respondent filed, &' t e (%me %(e, % pet&t&o' 7or b%& (hich (as opposed by petitioner.

After hearin , or on 7ctober 2, 3##$, !ud e Bernardo, !r. issued an 7rder denyin the petition forbail, holdin that there is no Philippine la( rantin bail in e9tradition cases and that privaterespondent is a hi h 8fli ht ris4.8

7n 7ctober 33, 3##$, !ud e Bernardo, !r. inhibited hi+self fro+ further hearin Civil Case No. %%%6>"". -t (as then raffled off to Branch 2 presided by respondent jud e.

7n 7ctober "#, 3##$, private respondent filed a +otion for reconsideration of the 7rder denyin hisapplication for bail. This (as ranted by respondent jud e in an 7rder dated @ece+ber 3#, 3##$allo(in private respondent to post bail, thus*

-n conclusion, this Court (ill not contribute to accusedUs further erosion of civil liberties. The petitionfor bail is ranted subject to the follo(in conditions*

$. Bail is set at Php>6#,###.## in cash (ith the condition that accused hereby underta4esthat he (ill appear and ans(er the issues raised in these proceedin s and (ill at all ti+eshold hi+self a+enable to orders and processes of this Court, (ill further appear for

jud +ent. -f accused fails in this underta4in , the cash bond (ill be forfeited in favor of theovern+ent:

3. Accused +ust surrender his valid passport to this Court:



". The @epart+ent of !ustice is iven i++ediate notice and discretion of filin its o(n +otionfor hold departure order before this Court even in e9tradition proceedin : and

&. Accused is re5uired to report to the overn+ent prosecutors handlin this case or if theyso desire to the nearest office, at any ti+e and day of the (ee4: and if they further desire,

+anifest before this Court to re5uire that all the assets of accused, real and personal, befiled (ith this Court soonest, (ith the condition that if the accused flees fro+ his underta4in ,said assets be forfeited in favor of the overn+ent and that the correspondinlien annotation be noted therein accordin ly.

7 7R@ERE@.

7n @ece+ber 3$, 3##$, petitioner filed an ur ent +otion to vacate the above 7rder, but it (asdenied by respondent jud e in his 7rder dated April $#, 3##3.

ence, the instant petition. Petitioner alle ed that the trial court co++itted rave abuse of discretion

a+ountin to lac4 or e9cess of jurisdiction in ad+ittin private respondent to bail: that there isnothin in the Constitution or statutory la( providin that a potential e9traditee has a ri ht to bail, theri ht bein li+ited solely to cri+inal proceedin s.

-n his co++ent on the petition, private respondent +aintained that the ri ht to bail uaranteed under the Bill of Ri hts e9tends to a prospective e9traditee: and that e9tradition is a harsh process resultinin a prolon ed deprivation of oneUs liberty.

ection $", Article --- of the Constitution provides that the ri ht to bail shall not be i+paired, thus*

ec. $". All persons, e9cept those char ed (ith offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua (hen

evidence of uilt is stron , shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be releasedon reco ni)ance as +ay be provided by la(. The ri ht to bail shall not be i+paired even (hen theprivile e of the (rit of habeas corpus is suspended. E9cessive bail shall not be re5uired.

!urisprudence on e9tradition is but in its infancy in this jurisdiction. Nonetheless, this is not the firstti+e that this Court has an occasion to resolve the 5uestion of (hether a prospective e9traditee +aybe ranted bail.

-n Government of nited States of America v. *on. Guillermo G. #ur'anan , #residin' %ud'e, RT$ of anila, &ranch ?@, and ar: &. %imene(, a.:.a. ario &atacan $respo ,$ this Court, spea4in

throu h then Associate !ustice Arte+io S. Pan aniban, later Chief !ustice, held that the

constitutional provision on bail does not apply to e9tradition proceedin s. -t is 8available only incri+inal proceedin s,8 thus*

9 9 9. As su ested by the use of the (ord 8conviction,8 the constitutional provision on bail 5uotedabove, as (ell as ection &, Rule $$& of the Rules of Court, applies only (hen a person has beenarrested and detained for violation of Philippine cri+inal la(s. -t does not apply to e9traditionproceedin s because e9tradition courts do not render jud +ents of conviction or ac5uittal.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_153675_2007.html#fnt1




Moreover, the constitutional ri ht to bail 8flo(s fro+ the presu+ption of innocence in favor of everyaccused (ho should not be subjected to the loss of freedo+ as thereafter he (ould be entitled toac5uittal, unless his uilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt8 < De la $amara v. na'e , &$ CRA $,1, epte+ber $>, $%>$, per ;ernando, % ., later $% ?. -t follo(s that the constitutional provision on bail(ill not apply to a case li4e e9tradition, (here the presu+ption of innocence is not at issue.

The provision in the Constitution statin that the 8ri ht to bail shall not be i+paired even (hen theprivile e of the (rit of habeas corpus is suspended8 does not detract fro+ the rule that theconstitutional ri ht to bail is available only in cri+inal proceedin s. -t +ust be noted that thesuspension of the privile e of the (rit of habeas corpus finds application 8only to persons judiciallychar ed for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected (ith invasion8 < ec. $2, Art. S---,Constitution?. ence, the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail +erely e+phasi)esthe ri ht to bail in cri+inal proceedin s for the afore+entioned offenses. -t cannot be ta4en to +eanthat the ri ht is available even in e9tradition proceedin s that are not cri+inal in nature.

At first lance, the above rulin applies s5uarely to private respondentUs case. o(ever, this Court

cannot i nore the follo(in trends in international la(* <$? the ro(in i+portance of the individualperson in public international la( (ho, in the 3#th century, has radually attained lobal reco nition:<3? the hi her value no( bein iven to hu+an ri hts in the international sphere: <"? thecorrespondin duty of countries to observe these universal hu+an ri hts in fulfillin their treatyobli ations: and <&? the duty of this Court to balance the ri hts of the individual under ourfunda+ental la(, on one hand, and the la( on e9tradition, on the other.

T e mo/er' tre'/ &' p+b & &'ter'%t&o'% %@ &( t e pr&m% 3 p % e/ o' t e @ort o7 t e&'/&8&/+% per(o' %'/ t e (%' t&t3 o7 +m%' r& t(. lo(ly, the reco nition that the individualperson +ay properly be a subject of international la( is no( ta4in root. The vulnerable doctrine thatthe subjects of international la( are li+ited only to states (as dra+atically eroded to(ards the

second half of the past century. ;or one, the Nure+ber and To4yo trials after =orld =ar -- resultedin the unprecedented spectacle of individual defendants for acts characteri)ed as violations of thela(s of (ar, cri+es a ainst peace, and cri+es a ainst hu+anity. Recently, under the Nure+berprinciple, erbian leaders have been persecuted for (ar cri+es and cri+es a ainst hu+anityco++itted in the for+er u oslavia. These si nificant events sho( that the individual person is no(a valid subject of international la(.

7n a +ore positive note, also after =orld =ar --, both international or ani)ations and states avereco nition and i+portance to hu+an ri hts. Thus, on @ece+ber $#, $%&2, the nited Nations0eneral Asse+bly adopted the niversal @eclaration of u+an Ri hts in (hich the ri ht to life,liberty and all the other funda+ental ri hts of every person (ere proclai+ed. =hile not a treaty, t e

pr&' &p e( o't%&'e/ &' t e (%&/ #e %r%t&o' %re 'o@ re o '&;e/ %( +(tom%r& 3 b&'/&' +po't e member( o7 t e &'ter'%t&o'% omm+'&t3. Thus, in e6off v. Director of #risons ,3 t &( Co+rt,&' r%'t&' b%& to % pro(pe t&8e /eportee, e / t %t +'/er t e Co'(t&t+t&o'," the principles setforth in that @eclaration are part of the la( of the land. -n $%11, the N 0eneral Asse+bly alsoadopted the -nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Ri hts (hich the Philippines si ned andratified. ;unda+ental a+on the ri hts enshrined therein are the ri hts of every person to life, liberty,and due process.







The Philippines, alon (ith the other +e+bers of the fa+ily of nations, co++itted to uphold thefunda+ental hu+an ri hts as (ell as value the (orth and di nity of every person. This co++it+entis enshrined in ection --, Article -- of our Constitution (hich provides* 8The tate values the di nityof every hu+an person and uarantees full respect for hu+an ri hts.8 The Philippines, therefore, hasthe responsibility of protectin and pro+otin the ri ht of every person to liberty and due process,

ensurin that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceedin s before a court, to enableit to decide (ithout delay on the le ality of the detention and order their release if justified. -n other(ords, the Philippine authorities are under obli ation to +a4e available to every person underdetention such re+edies (hich safe uard their funda+ental ri ht to liberty. These re+edies includethe ri ht to be ad+itted to bail. =hile this Court in #ur'anan li+ited the e9ercise of the ri ht to bail tocri+inal proceedin s, ho(ever, in li ht of the various international treaties ivin reco nition andprotection to hu+an ri hts, particularly the ri ht to life and liberty, a ree9a+ination of this CourtUsrulin in #ur'anan is in order.

First , (e note that the e9ercise of the tateUs po(er to deprive an individual of his liberty isnot necessarily li+ited to cri+inal proceedin s. Respondents in ad+inistrative proceedin s,

such as deportation and 5uarantine ,&

have li4e(ise been detained.

Second , to li+it bail to cri+inal proceedin s (ould be to close our eyes to our jurisprudentialhistory. Philippine jurisprudence has not li+ited the e9ercise of the ri ht to bail to cri+inalproceedin s only. This Court has ad+itted to bail persons (ho are not involved in cri+inalproceedin s. -n fact, bail has been allo(ed in this jurisdiction to persons in detention durinthe pendency of ad+inistrative proceedin s, ta4in into co ni)ance the obli ation of thePhilippines under international conventions to uphold hu+an ri hts.

The $%#% case of S v. GoBSioco 6 is illustrative. -n this case, a Chinese facin deportation for failureto secure the necessary certificate of re istration (as ranted bail pendin his appeal. After notin

that the prospective deportee had co++itted no cri+e, the Court opined that 8To refuse hi+ bail is totreat hi+ as a person (ho has co++itted the +ost serious cri+e 4no(n to la(:8 and that (hiledeportation is not a cri+inal proceedin , so+e of the +achinery used 8is the +achinery of cri+inalla(.8 Thus, the provisions relatin to bail (as applied to deportation proceedin s.

-n e6off v. Director of #risons 1 and $hirs:off v. $ommission of >mmi'ration ,> this Court ruled thatforei n nationals a ainst (ho+ no for+al cri+inal char es have been filed +ay be released on bailpendin the finality of an order of deportation. As previously stated, the Court in e6off relied uponthe niversal declaration of u+an Ri hts in sustainin the detaineeUs ri ht to bail.

-f bail can be ranted in deportation cases, (e see no justification (hy it should not also be allo(ed

in e9tradition cases. /i4e(ise, considerin that the niversal @eclaration of u+an Ri hts applies todeportation cases, there is no reason (hy it cannot be invo4ed in e9tradition cases. After all, bothare ad+inistrative proceedin s (here the innocence or uilt of the person detained is not in issue.

Clearly, the ri ht of a prospective e9traditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction +ust be vie(ed in theli ht of the various treaty obli ations of the Philippines concernin respect for the pro+otion andprotection of hu+an ri hts. nder these treaties, the presu+ption lies in favor of hu+an liberty. Thus,the Philippines should see to it that the ri ht to liberty of every individual is not i+paired.












ection 3<a? of Presidential @ecree <P.@.? No. $#1% <The Philippine E9tradition /a(? defines8e9tradition8 as 8the re+oval of an accused fro+ the Philippines (ith the object of placin hi+ at thedisposal of forei n authorities to enable the re5uestin state or overn+ent to hold hi+ in connection(ith any cri+inal investi ation directed a ainst hi+ or the e9ecution of a penalty i+posed on hi+under the penal or cri+inal la( of the re5uestin state or overn+ent.8

E9tradition has thus been characteri)ed as the ri ht of a forei n po(er, created by treaty, to de+andthe surrender of one accused or convicted of a cri+e (ithin its territorial jurisdiction, and thecorrelative duty of the other state to surrender hi+ to the de+andin state. 2 -t is not a cri+inalproceedin . % Even if the potential e9traditee is a cri+inal, an e9tradition proceedin is not by itsnature cri+inal, for it is not punish+ent for a cri+e, even thou h such punish+ent +ay follo(e9tradition. $# -t is sui 'eneris, tracin its e9istence (holly to treaty obli ations bet(een differentnations. $$ It &( 'ot % tr&% to /eterm&'e t e +& t or &''o e' e o7 t e pote't&% eAtr%/&tee.$3 Nor isit a full blo(n civil action, but one that is +erely ad+inistrative &' %r% ter .$" -ts object is to preventthe escape of a person accused or convicted of a cri+e and to secure his return to the state fro+(hich he fled, for the purpose of trial or punish+ent. $&

But (hile e9tradition is not a cri+inal proceedin , it is characteri)ed by the follo(in * <a? it entails adeprivation of liberty on the part of the potential e9traditee and <b? t e me%'( emp o3e/ to %tt%&'t e p+rpo(e o7 eAtr%/&t&o' &( % (o t e m% &'er3 o7 r&m&'% %@.This is sho(n by ection 1 of P.@. No. $#1% <The Philippine E9tradition /a(? (hich +andates the 8 &mme/&%te %rre(t %'/tempor%r3 /ete't&o' o7 t e % +(e/ 8 if such 8(ill best serve the interest of justice.8 =e furthernote that ection 3# allo(s the re5uestin state 8in case of ur ency8 to as4 for the 8 pro8&(&o'%%rre(t o7 t e % +(e/, pe'/&' re e&pt o7 t e re +e(t 7or eAtr%/&t&o'8 and that release fro+provisional arrest 8shall not prejudice re arrest and e9tradition of the accused if a re5uest fore9tradition is received subse5uently.8

7bviously, an e9tradition proceedin , (hile ostensibly ad+inistrative, bears all ear+ar4s of a cri+inalprocess. $ pote't&% eAtr%/&tee m%3 be (+bDe te/ to %rre(t, to % pro o' e/ re(tr%&'t o7 &bert3,%'/ 7or e/ to tr%'(7er to t e /em%'/&' (t%te 7o o@&' t e pro ee/&' (. 8Te+porarydetention8 +ay be a necessary step in the process of e9tradition, but the len th of ti+e of thedetention should be reasonable.

Records sho( that private respondent (as arrested on epte+ber 3", $%%%, and re+ainedincarcerated until @ece+ber 3#, 3##$, (hen the trial court ordered his ad+ission to bail. I' ot er@or/(, e %/ bee' /et%&'e/ 7or o8er t@o 2F 3e%r( @&t o+t %8&' bee' o'8& te/ o7 %'3

r&me. By any standard, such an e9tended period of detention is a serious deprivation of hisfunda+ental ri ht to liberty. -n fact, it (as this prolon ed deprivation of liberty (hich pro+pted the

e9tradition court to rant hi+ bail.

=hile our e9tradition la( does not provide for the rant of bail to an e9traditee, ho(ever, there is noprovision prohibitin hi+ or her fro+ filin a +otion for bail, a ri ht to due process under theConstitution.

The applicable standard of due process, ho(ever, should not be the sa+e as that in cri+inalproceedin s. -n the latter, the standard of due process is pre+ised on the presu+ption of innocence





















of the accused. As #ur'anan correctly points out, it is fro+ this +ajor pre+ise that the ancillarypresu+ption in favor of ad+ittin to bail arises. Bearin in +ind the purpose of e9traditionproceedin s, the pre+ise behind the issuance of the arrest (arrant and the 8te+porary detention8 isthe possibility of fli ht of the potential e9traditee. This is based on the assu+ption that suche9traditee is a fu itive fro+ justice. $6 0iven the fore oin , the prospective e9traditee thus bears

the onus probandi of sho(in that he or she is not a fli ht ris4 and should be ranted bail.

The ti+e honored principle of pacta sunt servanda de+ands that the Philippines honor itsobli ations under the E9tradition Treaty it entered into (ith the on Qon pecial Ad+inistrativeRe ion. ;ailure to co+ply (ith these obli ations is a setbac4 in our forei n relations and defeats thepurpose of e9tradition. o(ever, it does not necessarily +ean that in 4eepin (ith its treatyobli ations, the Philippines should di+inish a potential e9traditeeUs ri hts to life, liberty, and dueprocess. More so, (here these ri hts are uaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also byinternational conventions, to (hich the Philippines is a party. =e should not, therefore, deprive ane9traditee of his ri ht to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the rant is satisfactorily+et.

An e9tradition proceedin bein sui 'eneris , the standard of proof re5uired in rantin or denyinbail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in cri+inal cases nor the standard of proof ofpreponderance of evidence in civil cases. =hile ad+inistrative in character, the standard ofsubstantial evidence used in ad+inistrative cases cannot li4e(ise apply iven the object ofe9tradition la( (hich is to prevent the prospective e9traditee fro+ fleein our jurisdiction. -n his

eparate 7pinion in #ur'anan , then Associate !ustice, no( Chief !ustice Reynato . Puno,proposed that a ne( standard (hich he ter+ed 8 e%r %'/ o'8&' &' e8&/e' e8 ( o+ / be +(e/&' r%'t&' b%& &' eAtr%/&t&o' %(e(. Accordin to hi+, this standard should be lo(er than proofbeyond reasonable doubt but hi her than preponderance of evidence. The potential e9traditee +ustprove by 8clear and convincin evidence8 that he is not a fli ht ris4 and (ill abide (ith all the orders

and processes of the e9tradition court.

-n this case, there is no sho(in that private respondent presented evidence to sho( that he is nota 7 & t r&(. Conse5uently, this case should be re+anded to the trial court to deter+ine (hetherprivate respondent +ay be ranted bail on the basis of 8clear and convincin evidence.8

0"ERE!ORE , (e #ISMISS the petition. This case is REM$N#E# to the trial court to deter+ine(hether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of 8clear and convincin evidence.8 -f not,the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his i++ediate detention: andthereafter, conduct the e9tradition proceedin s (ith dispatch.

SO OR#ERE#.$NGELIN$ S$N#O:$L-GUTIERRE

Associate !ustice

=E C7NC R*





RE N$TO S. PUNOChief !ustice

OPOS$ vs. !$CTOR$N0.R. No. $#$#2". !uly "#, $%%".

!$CTSHThe petitioners, all +inors, sou ht the help of the upre+e Court to order the respondent, then

ecretary of @ENR, to cancel all e9istin Ti+ber /icense A ree+ent <T/A? in the country and tocease and desist fro+ receivin , acceptin , processin , rene(in or approvin ne( T/As. Theyalle ed that the +assive co++ercial lo in in the country is causin vast abuses on rainforest.They further asserted that the ri hts of their eneration and the ri hts of the enerations yetunborn to a balanced and healthful ecolo y. Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detri+entalconse5uences of continued and deforestation are so capable of un5uestionable de+onstration that

the sa+e +ay be sub+itted as a +atter of judicial notice. This not(ithstandin , they e9pressed their intention to present e9pert (itnesses as (ell as docu+entary, photo raphic and fil+ evidence in thecourse of the trial.

ISSUEH=hether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.

"EL#H

The C decided in the affir+ative. /ocus standi +eans the ri ht of the liti ant to act or to beheard. nder ection $1, Article -- of the $%2> constitution, it states that* The state shall protect andadvance the ri ht of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolo y in accord (ith the rhyth+ andhar+ony of nature. Petitioners, +inors assert that they represent their eneration as (ell as

eneration yet unborn. =e find no difficulty in rulin that they can, for the+selves, for others of their eneration and for the succeedin enerations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of

the succeedin enerations can only be based on the concept of inter enerational responsibilityinsofar as the ri ht to a balanced and healthful ecolo y is concerned. uch a ri ht, as hereinafter e9pounded considers the Vrhyth+ and har+ony of natureW. Nature +eans the created (orld in itsentirety. uch rhyth+ and har+ony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition,utili)ation, +ana e+ent, rene(al and conservation of the countryUs forest, +ineral, land, (atersfisheries, (ildlife, off shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their e9ploration,develop+ent and utili)ation be e5uitably accessible to the present as (ell as future enerations.Needless to say, every eneration has a responsibility to the ne9t to preserve that rhyth+ andhar+ony for the full enjoy+ent of a balanced and healthful ecolo y. Put a little differently, the +inorUsassertion of their ri ht to a sound environ+ent constitutes, at the sa+e ti+e, the perfor+ance of their obli ation to ensure the protection of that ri ht for the enerations to co+e. This land+ar4 case has



been ruled as a class suit because the subject +atter of the co+plaint is of co++on and eneralinterest, not just for several but for A// C-T-XEN 7; T E P -/-PP-NE .

ltd cases digest.docx

Documents