VILAVICENCIO v. LUKBAN (Section 1)Issue:The writ of Habeas Corpus was fled by the petitioner, with the prayer that the respondent produce around 170 women whom Justo u!ban et, al deported to "a#ao$ iberty of abode was also raised #ersus the power of the e%ecuti#e of the &unicipality in deportin' the women without their !nowled'e in his capacity as &ayor$(acts:Justo u!ban as &anila City)s &ayor to'ether with *nton Hohmann, the city)s Chief of +olice, too! custody of about 170 women at the ni'ht of ,ctober -. beyond the latters consent and!nowled'e and thereafter were shipped to &indanao specifcally in "a#ao where they were si'ned as laborers$ /aid women are inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in 0ardenia /treet, in the district of /ampaloc$That when the petitioner fled for habeas corpus, the respondent mo#ed to dismiss the case sayin' that those women were already out of their 1urisdiction and that , it should be fled in the city of "a#ao instead$The court ruled in fa#or of the petitioner with the instructions2(or the respondents to ha#e fulflled the court)s order, three optional courses were open: 314 They could ha#e produced the bodies of the persons accordin' to the command of the writ2 or 3-4 they could ha#e shown by a5da#it that on account of sic!ness or infrmity those persons could not safely be brou'ht before the court2 or 364 they could ha#e presented a5da#its to show that the parties in 7uestion or their attorney wai#ed the ri'ht to be present$Held:The court concluded the case by 'rantin' the parties a''rie#ed the sum of 800 pesos each, plus 100 pesos for nominal dama'e due to contempt of court$ 9easonin' further that if the chief e%ecuti#e of any municipality in the +hilippines could forcibly and ille'ally ta!e a pri#ate citi:en and place him beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his o5cial action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint and that he, the o5cial, had no 1urisdiction o#er this other municipality$;e belie#e the true principle should be that, if the respondent is within the 1urisdiction of thecourt and has it in his power to obey the order of the court and thus to undo the wron' that he has iner of /alon'a to buy the land in 7uestion$ There bein' no consent there is, therefore, no contract to sell to spea! of$ In the case of other lessess 3+ascual et al4 who were able to buy the portion of land that they occupy, there was an e%istin' contract between them and (arrales, unli!e /alon'a who does not ha#e the ri'ht to buy the land in 7uestion because the contract between her and (arrales in nonLe%istent$/ection 10 *rticle II states that FThe /tate shall promote social 1ustice in all phases of national de#elopmentG The aforementioned pro#ision is applicable to the case at bar$ The social 1ustice cannot be in#o!ed to trample on the ri'hts of property owners who ar also entitles for protection under our Constitution$ The social 1ustice consecrated in our Constitution was not intended to ta!e away ri'hts from a person and 'i# them to another who is not entitles thereto$ The plea for social 1ustice cannot nullify the on obli'ations and contracts$ /upreme CourtOs "eision: The appeals was dismissed for lac! of merit and the 1ud'ment appealed is hereby a5rmed$$E&ER v. NEBRASKA ( Section 12)Hrief (act /ummary: +lainti> was con#icted for teachin' a child 0erman under a @ebras!a statute that outlawed the teachin' of forei'n lan'ua'es to students that had not yet completed the ei'hth 'rade$/ynopsis of 9ule of aw$ The (ourteenth *mendment prohibits states from creatin' le'islation that restricts liberty interests when the le'islation is not reasonably related to an acceptable state ob1ecti#e(acts$ +lainti> was con#icted for teachin' a child 0erman under a @ebras!a statute that outlawed the teachin' of forei'n lan'ua'es to students that had not yet completed the ei'hth 'rade$ The /upreme Court of @ebras!a upheld the con#iction$Issue$ "oes the statute as construed and applied unreasonably infrin'e on the liberty 'uaranteed by the (ourteenth *mendmentDHeld$ The statute as applied is unconstitutional because it infrin'es on the liberty interests ofthe plainti> and fails to reasonably relate to any end within the competency of the state$The (ourteenth *mendment encompasses more than merely the freedom from bodily restraint$ The state ar'ues that the purpose of the statute is to encoura'e the =n'lish lan'ua'e to be the nati#e ton'ue of all children raised in the state$ @onetheless, the protection of the Constitution e%tends to those who spea! other lan'ua'es$ =ducation is a fundamental liberty interest that must be protected, and mere !nowled'e of the 0erman lan'ua'e cannot be reasonably re'arded as harmful$"iscussion$ iberty interests may not be interfered with by the states when the interference is arbitrary and not reasonably related to a purpose which the state may permissi#ely re'ulate$#IERCE v. SOCIET& O+ SISTERS (Section 12)Hrief (act /ummary$ *ppellees, two nonLpublic schools, were protected by a preliminary restrainin' order prohibitin' appellants from enforcin' an ,re'on *ct that re7uired parents and 'uardians to send their children to public school$ *ppellants appealed the order$/ynopsis of 9ule of aw$ The 18th *mendment pro#ides a liberty interest in a parentOs or 'uardianOs ri'ht to decide the mode in which their children are educated$ /tateOs may not usurp this ri'ht when the 7uestioned le'islation does not reasonably relate to a #iable state interest$(acts$ *ppellee the /ociety of /isters, a corporation with the power to establish and maintainacademies or schools and *ppellee Hill &ilitary *cademy, a pri#ate or'ani:ation conductin' an elementary, colle'e preparatory, and military trainin' school, obtained preliminary restrainin' orders prohibitin' appellants from enforcin' ,re'onOs Compulsory =ducation *ct$ The *ct re7uired all parents and 'uardians to send children between B and 1A years to a public school$ The appellants appealed the 'rantin' of the preliminary restrainin' orders$Issue$ "oes the *ct unreasonably interfere with the liberty of parents and 'uardians to directthe upbrin'in' and education of children under their controlDHeld$ The *ct #iolates the 18th *mendment because it interferes with protected liberty interests and has no reasonable relationship to any purpose within the competency of the state$The *ppellees ha#e standin' because the result of enforcin' the *ct would be destruction of the appelleesO schools$ The state has the power to re'ulate all schools, but parents and 'uardians ha#e the ri'ht and duty to choose the appropriate preparation for their children$"iscussion$ ;hile the state has the ri'ht to insure that children recei#e a proper education, the 18th *mendment pro#ides parents and 'uardians with a liberty interest in their choice inthe mode in which their children are educated$#EO#LE v. RITTER (Section 12)(*CT/: Heinrich /tefan 9itter was char'ed with the crime of rape with homicide in#ol#in'a youn' 'irl of about 1- years old who had been alle'edly raped and who later died because aforei'n ob1ect left inside her #a'inal canal$ ;hen arrai'ned, the accused pleaded S@ot 0uiltyS$Thereafter, the case was set for trial on the merits$ The trial court rendered a decision con#ictin'the appellant of such crime$I//C=: ;hether /C should a5rm the con#iction of the accused rendered by the lower courtD9CI@0: Inasmuch as it is the bounden duty of this Court to a5rm a 1ud'ment of con#ictiononly if the 'uilt of the accused has been pro#ed beyond reasonable doubt, it behoo#es us to e%ertthe most painsta!in' e>ort to e%amine the records in the li'ht of the ar'uments of both parties if only to satisfy 1udicial conscience that the appellant indeed committed the criminal act$ Hefore thecon#iction is a5rmed, we must frst follow the rule as stated in the case of Crbano#s$ Intermediate *ppellate Court 31.7 /C9* 1 T1IBBU4 to wit: F%%% The rule is that the death of the#ictim must be the direct, natural and lo'ical conse7uence of the wounds inense has not been satisfed$ The established facts do not entirely rule out thepossibility that the appellant couldha#e inserted a forei'n ob1ect inside 9osario)s #a'ina$ Thisob1ect may ha#e caused her death$ It is possible that the appellant could be the 'uilty person$Howe#er, the Court cannot base an a5rmance of con#iction upon mere possibilities$ /uspicionsand possibilities are not e#idence and therefore should not be ta!en a'ainst the accused$3+eople #$ Tolentino, supra4 The appellant certainly committed acts contrary to morals, 'oodcustoms, public order or public policy 3see *rticle -1 Ci#il Code4$ The appellant has abused(ilipino children, enticin' them with money$ The Court deplores the lac! of criminal laws whichwillade7uately protect street children from e%ploitation by pedophiles, pimps, and, perhaps, their own parents or 'uardians who proft from the sale of youn' bodies$ The pro#isions on statutoryrape and other related o>enses were ne#er intended for the relati#ely recent ins in this case are all minors duly represented and 1oined by their parents$ The frst complaint was fled as a ta%payer)s class suit at the Hranch AA 3&a!ati, &etro &anila4, ofthe 9e'ional Trial Court, @ational capital Judicial 9e'ion a'ainst defendant 3respondent4 /ecretary of the "epartment of =n#ironment and @atural 9easources 3"=@94$ +lainti>s alle'ed that they are entitled to the full beneft, use and en1oyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country)s #ir'in tropical forests$ They further asse#erate that they represent their 'eneration as well as 'enerations yet unborn and asserted that continued deforestation ha#e caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecolo'ical balance and ha#e resulted in a host of en#ironmental tra'edies$ +lainti>s prayed that 1ud'ement be rendered orderin' the respondent, his a'ents, representati#es and other persons actin' in his behalf to cancel all e%istin' Timber icense *'reement 3T*4 in the country and to cease and desist from recei#in', acceptin', processin', renewin' or appro#in' new T*s$ "efendant, on the other hand, fled a motion to dismiss on the 'round that the complaint had no cause of action a'ainst him and that it raises a political 7uestion$The 9TC Jud'e sustained the motion to dismiss, further rulin' that 'rantin' of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the Constitution$+lainti>s 3petitioners4 thus fled the instant special ci#il action for certiorari and as!ed the court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the 'round that the respondent 9TC Jud'e 'ra#ely abused his discretion in dismissin' the action$I//C=/:314 ;hether or not the plainti>s ha#e a cause of action$3-4 ;hether or not the complaint raises a political issue$364 ;hether or not the ori'inal prayer of the plainti>s result in the impairment of contracts$9CI@0:(irst Issue: Cause of *ction$9espondents a#er that the petitioners failed to alle'e in their complaint a specifc le'al ri'ht #iolated by the respondent /ecretary for which any relief is pro#ided by law$ The Court did not a'ree with this$ The complaint focuses on one fundamental le'al ri'ht LL the ri'ht to a balanced and healthful ecolo'y which is incorporated in /ection 1A *rticle II of the Constitution$ The said ri'ht carries with it the duty to refrain from impairin' the en#ironmentand implies, amon' many other thin's, the 1udicious mana'ement and conser#ation of the country)s forests$ /ection 8 of =$,$ 1I- e%pressly mandates the "=@9 to be the primary 'o#ernment a'ency responsible for the 'o#ernin' and super#isin' the e%ploration, utili:ation, de#elopment and conser#ation of the country)s natural resources$ The policy declaration of =$,$ 1I- is also substantially reLstated in Title MIN Hoo! IN of the *dministrati#e Code of 1IB7$ Hoth =$,$ 1I- and *dministrati#e Code of 1IB7 ha#e set the ob1ecti#es which will ser#e as the bases for policy formation, and ha#e defned the powers and functions of the "=@9$ Thus, ri'ht of the petitioners 3and all those they represent4 to a balanced and healthful ecolo'y is as clear as "=@9)s duty to protect and ad#ance the said ri'ht$* denial or #iolation of that ri'ht by the other who has the correlati#e duty or obli'ation to respect or protect or respect the same 'i#es rise to a cause of action$ +etitioners maintain that the 'rantin' of the T*, which they claim was done with 'ra#e abuse of discretion, #iolated their ri'ht to a balance and healthful ecolo'y$ Hence, the full protection thereof re7uires that no further T*s should be renewed or 'ranted$*fter careful e%amination of the petitioners) complaint, the Court fnds it to be ade7uate enou'h to show, prima facie, the claimed #iolation of their ri'hts$/econd Issue: +olitical Issue$ /econd para'raph, /ection 1 of *rticle NIII of the constitution pro#ides for the e%panded 1urisdiction #ested upon the /upreme Court$ It allows the Court to rule upon e#en on the wisdom of the decision of the =%ecuti#e and e'islature and to declare their acts as in#alid for lac! or e%cess of 1urisdiction because it is tainted with 'ra#e abuse of discretion$Third Issue: Niolation of the nonLimpairment clause$ The Court held that the Timber icense *'reement is an instrument by which the state re'ulates the utili:ation and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted$ It is not a contract within the pur#iew of the due process clause thus, the nonLimpairment clause cannot be in#o!ed$ It canbe #alidly withdraw whene#er dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case$ The 'rantin' of license does not create irre#ocable ri'hts, neither is it property or property ri'hts$ &oreo#er, the constitutional 'uaranty of nonLimpairment of obli'ations of contract is limit bythe e%ercise by the police power of the /tate, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and 'eneral welfare$ In short, the nonLimpairment clause must yield to the police power of the /tate$The instant petition, bein' impressed with merit, is hereby 09*@T=" and the 9TC decision is /=T */I"=$LLDA v. CA (Section 1')(acts: The a'una a!e "e#elopment *uthority 3"*4 was created throu'h 9* @o$ 8B.0 in order to e%ecute the policy towards en#ironmental protection and sustainable de#elopment so as to accelerate the de#elopment and balanced 'rowth of the a'una a!e area and the surroundin' pro#inces and towns$+" @o$ B16 amended certain sections of 9* 8B.0 since water 7uality studies ha#e shown that the la!e will deteriorate further if steps are not ta!en to chec! the same$ =, I-7 furtherdefned and enlar'ed the functions and powers of the "* and enumerated the towns, cities and pro#inces encompassed by the term Fa'una de Hay 9e'ionG$ Cpon implementation of 9* 71A0 3ocal 0o#ernment Code of 1II14, the municipalities assumed e%clusi#e 1urisdiction X authority to issue fshin' pri#ile'es within their municipal waters since /ec$18I thereof pro#ides: F&unicipal corporations shall ha#e the authority to 'rant fshery pri#ile'es in the municipal waters and impose rental fees or char'es thereforeRG Hi' fshpen operators too! ad#anta'e of the occasion to establish fshpens X fsh ca'es to the consternation of the "*$ The implementation of separate independent policies in fsh ca'es X fsh pen operation and the indiscriminate 'rant of fshpen permits by the la!eshore municipalities ha#e saturated the la!e with fshpens, thereby a''ra#atin' the current en#ironmental problems and ecolo'ical stress of a'una a!e$ The "* then ser#ed notice to the 'eneral public that 314 fshpens, ca'es X other a7uaLculture structures unre'istered with the "* as of &arch 61, 1II6 are declared ille'al2 3-4 those declared ille'al shall be sub1ect to demolition by the +residential Tas! (orce for Ille'al (ishpen and Ille'al (ishin'2 and364 owners of those declared ille'al shall be criminally char'ed with #iolation of /ec$6IL* of 9* 8B.0 as amended by +" B16$ * month later, the "* sent notices ad#isin' the owners of the ille'ally constructed fshpens, fshca'es and other a7uaLculture structures ad#isin' them to dismantle their respecti#e structures otherwise demolition shall be e>ected$ Issues: 1$;hich a'ency of the 'o#ernment P the "* or the towns and municipalities comprisin' the re'ion P should e%ercise 1urisdiction o#er the a'una la!e and its en#irons insofar as the issuance of permits for fshery pri#ile'es is concernedD-$ ;hether the "* is a 7uasiL1udicial a'encyDHeld: 1$ /ec$83!4 of the charter of the "*, 9* 8B.0, the pro#isions of +" B16,and /ec$- of =, @o$I-7, specifcally pro#ide that the "* shall ha#e e%clusi#e 1urisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for any pro1ects or acti#ities in or a>ectin' the said re'ion$ ,n the other hand, 9* 71A0 has 'ranted to the municipalities the e%clusi#e authorityto 'rant fshery pri#ile'es on municipal waters$ The pro#isions of 9* 71A0 do not necessarilyrepeal the laws creatin' the "* and 'rantin' the latter water ri'hts authority o#er a'una de Hay and the la!e re'ion$ ;here there is a conect not only their economic life, but e#en the air they breatheGThe Court also ruled that H+COs amended application was in fact a second application that re7uired a new public notice to befled and a new hearin' to be held$*lthou'h *rticle B1 of the ,mnibus In#estments Code pro#ides that Fall applications and their supportin' documents fled under this code shall be confdential and shall not be disclosed to any person, e%cept with the consent of the applicant,G the Court emphasi:ed that *rticle B1 pro#ides for disclosure Fon the orders of a court of competent 1urisdictionG$ The Court ruled that it had 1urisdiction to order disclosure of the application, amended application, and supportin' documents fled with the H,I under *rticle B1, with certain e%ceptions$The Court went on to note that despite the ri'ht to access information, Fthe Constitution does not open e#ery door to any and all informationG because Fthe law may e%empt certain types of information from public scrutinyG$ Thus it e%cluded Fthe trade secrets and confdential, commercial, and fnancial information of the applicant H+C, and matters a>ectin' national securityG from its order$ The Court did not pro#ide a test for what information is e%cluded from the Constitutional pri#ile'e to access public information, nor did it specify the !inds of information that H+C could withhold under its rulin'$ASSOC O+ S$ALL LAND O(NERS V. DAR (Sec tion 21)These are four consolidated cases 7uestionin' the constitutionality of the Comprehensi#e *'rarian 9eform *ct 39$*$ @o$ AA.7 and related laws i$e$, *'rarian and 9eform Code or 9$*$ @o$ 6B884$Hrief bac!'round: *rticle MIII of the Constitution on /ocial Justice and Human 9i'hts includes a call for the adoption by the /tate of an a'rarian reform pro'ram$ The /tate shall, by law, underta!e an a'rarian reform pro'ram founded on the ri'ht of farmers and re'ular farmwor!ers, who are landless, to own directly or collecti#ely the lands they till or, in the case of other farmwor!ers, to recei#e a 1ust share of the fruits thereof$ 9* 6B88 was enacted in 1IA6$ +$"$ @o$ -7 was promul'ated in 1I7- to pro#ide for the compulsory ac7uisition of pri#ate lands for distribution amon' tenantLfarmers and to specify ma%imum retention limitsfor landowners$ In 1IB7, +resident Cora:on *7uino issued =$,$ @o$ --B, declarin' full land ownership in fa#or of the benefciaries of +" -7 and pro#idin' for the #aluation of still un#alued lands co#ered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment$ In 1IB7, +$+$ @o$ 161, institutin' a comprehensi#e a'rarian reform pro'ram 3C*9+4 was enacted2 later, =$,$ @o$ --I, pro#idin' the mechanics for its 3++161Os4 implementation, was also enacted$ *fterwhich is the enactment of 9$*$ @o$ AA.7, Comprehensi#e *'rarian 9eform aw in 1IBB$ This law, while considerably chan'in' the earlier mentioned enactments, ne#ertheless 'i#es them suppletory e>ect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its pro#isions$TTwo of the consolidated cases are discussed belowU0$9$ @o$ 7B78-: 3*ssociation of /mall andowners #s /ecretary4The *ssociation of /mall andowners in the +hilippines, Inc$ sou'ht e%ception from the land distribution scheme pro#ided for in 9$*$ AA.7$ The *ssociation is comprised of landowners ofricelands and cornlands whose landholdin's do not e%ceed 7 hectares$ They in#o!e that since their landholdin's are less than 7 hectares, they should not be forced to distribute their land to their tenants under 9$*$ AA.7 for they themsel#es ha#e shown willin'ness to tilltheir own land$ In short, they want to be e%empted from a'rarian reform pro'ram because they claim to belon' to a di>erent class$0$9$ @o$ 7I777: 3&anaay #s Juico4@icolas &anaay 7uestioned the #alidity of the a'rarian reform laws 3+" -7, =, --B, and --I4on the 'round that these laws already #aluated their lands for the a'rarian reform pro'ram and that the specifc amount must be determined by the "epartment of *'rarian 9eform 3"*94$ &anaay a#erred that this #iolated the principle in eminent domain which pro#ides that only courts can determine 1ust compensation$ This, for &anaay, also #iolated due process for under the constitution, no property shall be ta!en for public use without 1ust compensation$&anaay also 7uestioned the pro#ision which states that landowners may be paid for their land in bonds and not necessarily in cash$ &anaay a#erred that 1ust compensation has always been in the form of money and not in bonds$I//C=:1$ ;hether or not there was a #iolation of the e7ual protection clause$-$ ;hether or not there is a #iolation of due process$6$ ;hether or not 1ust compensation, under the a'rarian reform pro'ram, must be in terms of cash$H=":1$ @o$ The *ssociation had not shown any proof that they belon' to a di>erent class e%empt from the a'rarian reform pro'ram$ Cnder the law, classifcation has been defned as the 'roupin' of persons or thin's similar to each other in certain particulars and di>erent from each other in these same particulars$ To be #alid, it must conform to the followin' re7uirements:314 it must be based on substantial distinctions23-4 it must be 'ermane to the purposes of the law2364 it must not be limited to e%istin' conditions only2 and384 it must apply e7ually to all the members of the class$=7ual protection simply means that all persons or thin's similarly situated must be treated ali!e both as to the ri'hts conferred and the liabilities imposed$ The *ssociation ha#e not shown that they belon' to a di>erent class and entitled to a di>erent treatment$ The ar'ument that not only landowners but also owners of other properties must be made to share the burden of implementin' land reform must be re1ected$ There is a substantial distinction between these two classes of owners that is clearly #isible e%cept to those who will not see$ There is no need to elaborate on this matter$ In any e#ent, the Con'ress is allowed a wide leeway in pro#idin' for a #alid classifcation$ Its decision is accorded reco'nition and respect by the courts of 1ustice e%cept only where its discretion is abused to the detriment of the Hill of 9i'hts$ In the contrary, it appears that Con'ress is ri'ht in classifyin' small landowners as part of the a'rarian reform pro'ram$-$ @o$ It is true that the determination of 1ust compensation is a power lod'ed in the courts$ Howe#er, there is no law which prohibits administrati#e bodies li!e the "*9 from determinin' 1ust compensation$ In fact, 1ust compensation can be that amount a'reed upon by the landowner and the 'o#ernment P e#en without 1udicial inter#ention so lon' as both parties a'ree$ The "*9 can determine 1ust compensation throu'h appraisers and if the landowner a'rees, then 1udicial inter#ention is not needed$ ;hat is contemplated by law howe#er is that, the 1ust compensation determined by an administrati#e body is merely preliminary$ If the landowner does not a'ree with the fndin' of 1ust compensation by an administrati#e body, then it can 'o to court and the determination of the latter shall be the fnal determination$ This is e#en so pro#ided by 9* AA.7:/ection 1A 3f4: *ny party who disa'rees with the decision may brin' the matter to the court of proper 1urisdiction for fnal determination of 1ust compensation$6$ @o$ &oney as TsoleU payment for 1ust compensation is merely a concept in traditional e%ercise of eminent domain$ The a'rarian reform pro'ram is a re#olutionary e%ercise of eminent domain$ The pro'ram will re7uire billions of pesos in funds if all compensation ha#e to be made in cash P if e#erythin' is in cash, then the 'o#ernment will not ha#e su5cient money hence, bonds, and other securities, i$e$, shares of stoc!s, may be used for 1ust compensation$T6e CIT& GOV o. BAGUIO CIT& v. ATT& $AS(ENG (Section 22)(acts:In pursuance of the fnal "ecision in 0$9$ @o$ 1B0-0A, petitioner issued the sub1ect demolition ad#icesfor the enforcement of "emolition ,rder @o$ 66, /eries of -00. a'ainst *le%ander *mpa'uey, /r$et$al2 "emolition ,rder @o$ B6, /eries of 1III a'ainst Julio "aluyen,/r$, et$al, all in Husol ;atershed,Ha'uio City$ *s it is, the aforesaid indi#iduals fled a petition for in1unction 3Case @o$ 61LC*9L0I4while &a'dalena 0uman'an, et al$ fled a petition for identifcation, delineation and reco'nition ofancestral land claims with prayer for temporary restrainin' order and writ of preliminary in1unction3Case @o$ -ILC*9L0I4$9espondent in his capacity as the 9e'ional Hearin' ,5cer of the @ational Commission on Indi'enous+eoples, Cordillera *dministrati#e 9e'ion 3@CI+LC*94 issued the followin' separate temporaryrestrainin' orders and writs of preliminary in1unction in both cases orders:314 7-LHour Temporary 9estrainin' ,rder dated July -7, -00I, ,rder dated July 61, -00I and ;rit of+reliminary In1unction8 in @CI+ Case @o$ 61LC*9L0I2 and3-47-LHour Temporary 9estrainin' ,rder dated July -7, -00I, ,rder dated July 61, -00I and ;rit of+reliminary In1unction7 in @CI+ Case @o$ -ILC*9L0I$Hence, this petition assertin' that the restrainin' orders and writs of preliminary in1unction wereissued in willful disre'ard, disobedience, def iance and resistance of this CourtOs "ecision in 0$9$ @o$1B0-0A which dismissed the pre#iousin1unction case$ +etitioner contends that respondentOs act ofen1oinin' the e%ecution of the demolition orders and demolition ad#ices is tantamount to allowin'forum shoppin' since the implementation of the demolition orders o#er the structures in the Husol(orest 9eser#ation had already been ad1udicated and a5rmed by this Court$9espondent claims that he issued the restrainin' orders and writs of preliminary in1unction in @CI+Case @os$ 61LC*9L0I and -ILC*9L0I because his 1urisdiction was called upon to protect andpreser#e the ri'hts of the petitioners 3in the @CI+ cases4 who were undoubtedly members of theindi'enous cultural communitiesKindi'enous peoples$ In addition, he maintains that the orders andwrits he issued did not disre'ard the earlier rulin' of this Court in 0$9$ @o$ 1B0-0A because the Courthas in fact a5rmed the power of the @CI+ to issue temporary restrainin' orders and writs ofn1unction without any prohibition a'ainst the issuance of said writs when the main action is forin1unction$Issue:;hether the respondent should be cited in contempt of court for issuin' the sub1ect temporaryrestrainin' orders and writs of preliminary in1unction$Held:The court ruled in a5rmati#e$The said orders clearly contra#ene the courtOs rulin' in 0$9$ @o$ 1B0-0A that =l#in 0uman'an, et$al$who are owners of houses and structures co#ered by the demolition orders issued by petitioner arenot entitled to the in1uncti#e relief pre#iously 'ranted by respondent$The court fnds that petitioners and pri#ate respondents present the #ery same ar'uments andcounterLar'uments with respect to the writ of in1unction a'ainst the fencin' of the Husol ;atershed9eser#ation$ The same le'al issues are thus bein' liti'ated in 0$9$ @o$1B0-0A and in the case at bar,e%cept that di>erent writs of in1unction are bein' assailed$;hile res 1udicata does not apply on account of the di>erent sub1ect matters of the case at bar and0$9$ @o$ 1B0-0A 3they assail di>erent writs of in1unction, albeit issued by the same hearin' o5cer4,the court is constrained by the principle of stare decisis in 'rantin' the instant petition$+etitioner City 0o#ernment of Ha'uio in issuin' the demolition ad#ices are simply enforcin' thepre#ious demolition orders a'ainst the same occupants or claimants or their a'ents and successorsLinL interest, only to be thwarted anew by the in1uncti#e orders and writs issued by respondent$"espite the CourtOs pronouncement in 0$9$ @o$ 1B0-0A that no such clear le'al ri'ht e%ists in fa#or ofthose occupants or claimants to restrain the enforcement of the demolition orders issued bypetitioner, and hence there remains no le'al impediment to bar their implementation, respondentstill issued the temporary restrainin' orders and writs of preliminary in1unction$9espondent has willfully disre'arded and defes the CourtOs rulin' on a matter submitted for thesecond time before his o5ce$ Hence *tty$ &aswen' is 'uilty of indirect contempt under /ection 7 of9ule 71 of the 9ules of Ci#il +rocedure, as amended, in relation to /ection 63b4 of9ule 71 of the 9ule$BASCO v. #AGCOR (Section 27)(*CT/: +etitioners see! to annul the +*0C,9 charter P +" 1BAI P for bein' alle'edly contrary to morals, public policy and order, monopolistic X tends toward Fcrony economyG, wai#in' the &anila City 'o#ernmentOs ri'ht to impose ta%es X license fees, and #iolatin' the e7ual protection clause, local autonomy and other state policies in the Constitution$I//C=/:;hether +" 1BAI is #alid$H=":=#ery law has in its fa#or the presumption of constitutionality$ (or a law to be nullifed, it must be shown that there is a clear X une7ui#ocal breach of the Constitution$ The 'roundsfor nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt$ The 7uestion of wether +" 1BAI is a wise le'islation is up for Con'ress to determine$The power of 0Cs to re'ulate 'amblin' throu'h the 'rant of franchises, licenses or permits was withdrawn by +" 771, and is now #ested e%clusi#ely on the @ational 0o#ernment$ @ecessarily, the power to demandKcollect license fees is no lon'er #ested in the City of &anila$ 0Cs ha#e no power to ta% 0o#ernment instrumentalities$ +*0C,9, bein'a 0,CC, is therefore e%empt from local ta%es$ The @ational 0o#ernment is supreme o#er local 'o#ernments$ *s such, mere creatures of the /tate cannot defeat national policies usin' the power to ta% as a Ftool for re'ulationG$ The power to ta% cannot be allowedto defeat an instrumentality of the #ery entity which has the inherent power to wield it$ The power of 0Cs to impose ta%es X fees is always sub1ect to limitation pro#ided by Con'ress$ The principle of local autonomy does not ma!e 0Cs so#erei'n within a state, it simply means decentrali:ation$* law doesnOt ha#e to operate in e7ual force on all personsKthin's$ The e7ual protection clause doesnOt preclude classifcation of indi#iduals who may be accorded di>erent treatment under the law as lon' as the classifcation is not unreasonableKarbitrary$ The merefact that some 'amblin' acti#ities are le'ali:ed under certain conditions, while others are prohibited, does not render the applicable laws unconstitutional$LI$BONAS v. $ANGELIN (Section 27)(acts: +etitioner, /ultan *limbusar imbona, was elected /pea!er of the 9e'ional e'islati#e *ssembly or Hatasan' +ampoo! of Central &indanao 3*ssembly4$ ,n ,ctober -1, 1IB7 Con'ressman "atu 0uimid &atalam, Chairman of the Committee on &uslim *>airs of the House of 9epresentati#es, in#ited petitioner in his capacity as /pea!er of the *ssembly of 9e'ion MII in a consultationKdialo'ue with local 'o#ernment o5cials$ +etitioner accepted the in#itation and informed the *ssembly members throu'h the *ssembly /ecretary that there shall be no session in @o#ember as his presence was needed in the house committee hearin' of Con'ress$ Howe#er, on @o#ember -, 1IB7, the *ssembly held a session in defance of the imbona)s ad#ice, where he was unseated from his position$ +etitioner prays that the session)s proceedin's be declared null and #oid and be it declared that he was still the /pea!er of the *ssembly$ +endin' further proceedin's of the case, the /C recei#ed a resolution from the *ssembly e%pressly e%pellin' petitioner)s membership therefrom$ 9espondents ar'ue that petitioner had Sfled a case before the /upreme Court a'ainst some members of the *ssembly on a 7uestion which should ha#e been resol#ed within the confnes of the *ssembly,S for which the respondents now submit that the petition had become Smoot and academicS because its resolution$ Issue: ;hether or not the courts of law ha#e 1urisdiction o#er the autonomous 'o#ernments or re'ions$ ;hat is the e%tent of selfL'o#ernment 'i#en to the autonomous 'o#ernments of 9e'ion MIIDHeld: *utonomy is either decentrali:ation of administration or decentrali:ation of power$ There is decentrali:ation of administration when the central 'o#ernment dele'ates administrati#e powers to political subdi#isions in order to broaden the base of 'o#ernment power and in the process to ma!e local 'o#ernments Smore responsi#e and accountableS$ *tthe same time, it relie#es the central 'o#ernment of the burden of mana'in' local a>airs and enables it to concentrate on national concerns$ The +resident e%ercises S'eneral super#isionS o#er them, but only to Sensure that local a>airs are administered accordin' to law$S He has no control o#er their acts in the sense that he can substitute their 1ud'ments with his own$ "ecentrali:ation of power, on the other hand, in#ol#es an abdication of political power in the fa#or of local 'o#ernments units declared to be autonomous$ In that case, the autonomous 'o#ernment is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum inter#ention from central authorities$*n autonomous 'o#ernment that en1oys autonomy of the latter cate'ory TC,@/T$ 31IB74, *rt$ M, /ec$ 1.$U is sub1ect alone to the decree of the or'anic act creatin' it and accepted principles on the e>ects and limits of Sautonomy$S ,n the other hand, an autonomous 'o#ernment of the former class is, as we noted, under the super#ision of the national 'o#ernment actin' throu'h the +resident 3and the "epartment of ocal 0o#ernment4$ If the /an''unian' +ampoo! 3of 9e'ion MII4, then, is autonomous in the latter sense, its acts are, debatably beyond the domain of this Court in perhaps the same way that the internal acts, say, of the Con'ress of the +hilippines are beyond our 1urisdiction$ Hut if it is autonomous in the former cate'ory only, it comes unar'uably under our 1urisdiction$ *n e%amination of the #ery +residential "ecree creatin' the autonomous 'o#ernments of &indanao persuades us that they were ne#er meant to e%ercise autonomy in the second sense 3decentrali:ation of power4$ +" @o$ 1A1B, in the frst place, mandates that STtUhe +resident shall ha#e the power of 'eneral super#ision and control o#er *utonomous 9e'ions$S Hence, we assume 1urisdiction$ *nd if we can ma!e an in7uiry in the #alidity of the e%pulsion in 7uestion, with more reason can we re#iew the petitioner)s remo#al as /pea!er$ This case in#ol#es the application of a most important constitutional policy and principle, that of local autonomy$ ;e ha#e to obey the clear mandate on local autonomy$ ;here a law is capable of two interpretations, one in fa#or of centrali:ed power in &alacaQan' and the other benefcial to local autonomy, the scales must be wei'hed in fa#or of autonomy$Cpon the facts presented, we hold that the @o#ember - and ., 1IB7 sessions were in#alid$ Itis true that under /ection 61 of the 9e'ion MII /an''unian 9ules, STsUessions shall not be suspended or ad1ourned e%cept by direction of the /an''unian' +ampoo!S$ Hut while this opinion is in accord with the respondents) own, we still in#alidate the twin sessions in 7uestion, since at the time the petitioner called the Srecess,S it was not a settled matter whether or not he could do so$ In the second place, the in#itation tendered by the Committee on &uslim *>airs of the House of 9epresentati#es pro#ided a plausible reason forthe intermission sou'ht$ *lso, assumin' that a #alid recess could not be called, it does not appear that the respondents called his attention to this mista!e$ ;hat appears is that instead, they opened the sessions themsel#es behind his bac! in an apparent act of mutiny$ Cnder the circumstances, we fnd e7uity on his side$ (or this reason, we uphold the SrecessS called on the 'round of 'ood faith$LEGAS#I v. CSC (Section28) (*CT/ : The fundamental ri'ht of the people to information on matters of public concern is in#o!ed in this special ci#il action for mandamus instituted by petitioner Nalentin $ e'aspi a'ainst the Ci#il /er#ice Commission$ The respondent had earlier denied e'aspi)s re7uest for information on the ci#il ser#ice eli'ibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the Health "epartment of Cebu City$ These 'o#ernment employees, Julian /ibon'hanoy and &ariano *'as, had alle'edly represented themsel#es as ci#il ser#ice eli'ibles who passed the ci#il ser#ice e%aminations for sanitarians$ I//C= : ;,@ the petitioner has le'al to access 'o#ernment records to #alidate the ci#il ser#ice eli'ibilities of the Health "epartment employees H=" : The constitutional 'uarantee to information on matters of public concern is not absolute$ It does not open e#ery door to any and all information$ Cnder the Constitution, access to o5cial records, papers, etc$, are Ssub1ect to limitations as may be pro#ided by lawSThe law may therefore e%empt certain types of information from public scrutiny, such as those a>ectin' national security It follows that, in e#ery case, the a#ailability of access to a particular public record must be circumscribed by the nature of the information sou'ht, i$e$, 3a4 bein' of public concern or one that in#ol#es public interest, and, 3b4 not bein' e%empted by law from the operation of the constitutional 'uarantee$ The threshold 7uestion is, therefore, whether or not the information sou'ht is of public interest or public concern$ This 7uestion is frst addressed to the 'o#ernment a'ency ha#in' custody of the desired information$ Howe#er, as already discussed, this does not 'i#e the a'ency concerned any discretion to 'rant or deny access$ In case of denial of access, the 'o#ernment a'ency has the burden of showin' that the information re7uested is not of public concern, or, if it is of public concern, that the same has been e%empted by law from the operation of the 'uarantee$ To hold otherwise will ser#e to dilute the constitutional ri'ht$ *s aptly obser#ed, S$ $ $ the 'o#ernment is in an ad#anta'eous position to marshall and interpret ar'uments a'ainst release $ $ $S 3B7 Har#ard aw 9e#iew 1.11 T1I78U4$ To safe'uard the constitutional ri'ht, e#ery denial of access by the 'o#ernment a'ency concerned is sub1ect to re#iew by the courts, and in the proper case, access may be compelled by a writ of &andamus +ublic o5ce bein' a public trust it is the le'itimate concern of citi:ens to ensure that 'o#ernment positions re7uirin' ci#il ser#ice eli'ibility are occupied only by persons who are eli'ibles$ +ublic o5cers are at all times accountable to the people e#en as to their eli'ibilities for their respecti#e positions$ In the instant, case while refusin' to confrm or deny the claims of eli'ibility, the respondent has failed to cite any pro#ision in the Ci#il /er#ice aw which would limit the petitioner)s ri'ht to !now who are, and who are not, ci#il ser#ice eli'ibles$ ;eta!e 1udicial notice of the fact that the names of those who pass the ci#il ser#ice e%aminations, as in bar e%aminations and licensure e%aminations for #arious professions, arereleased to the public$ Hence, there is nothin' secret about one)s ci#il ser#ice eli'ibility, if actually possessed$ +etitioner)s re7uest is, therefore, neither unusual nor unreasonable$ *nd when, as in this case, the 'o#ernment employees concerned claim to be ci#il ser#ice eli'ibles, the public, throu'h any citi:en, has a ri'ht to #erify their professed eli'ibilities fromthe Ci#il /er#ice Commission$ The ci#il ser#ice eli'ibility of a sanitarian bein' of public concern, and in the absence of e%press limitations under the law upon access to the re'ister of ci#il ser#ice eli'ibles for said position, the duty of the respondent Commission to confrm or deny the ci#il ser#ice eli'ibility of any person occupyin' the position becomes imperati#e$&andamus, therefore liesVAL$ONTE v. DE VILLA (Section 28)(acts:1$*cti#ated throu'h ,I 0-KB7 of the +hilippine 0eneral Head7uarters, *(+, the @C9"istrict Command sou'ht to conduct security operations within its area ofresponsibility and peripheral areas for the purpose of establishin' an e>ecti#eterritorial defense, maintainin' peace and order, and pro#idin' an atmosphereconduci#e to the social, economic and political de#elopment of the @C9$ *s part ofts duty to maintain peace and order, the @C9"C installed chec!points in #ariousparts of Nalen:uela, &etro &anila$-$ +etitioner 39icardo Nalmonte4, to'ether with the Cnion of awyers and *d#ocates for +eopleOs 9i'hts, contended that said chec!points caused worries amon' the residents of Nalen:uela, includin' the possibility of 'ettin' harassed$ *side fromthe possibility of 'ettin' harassed, residents worry of their safety due to thearbitrary, capricious and whimsical disposition of the military mannin' thechec!points, considerin' that their cars and #ehicles are bein' sub1ected to re'ularsearches and chec!Lups, especially at ni'ht or at dawn, without the beneft of asearch warrant andKor court order$6$,n July I, 1IBB, a supply o5cer of the &unicipality of Nalen:uela, Hulacan3Hen1amin +arpon4was 'unned down 3not !illed4 alle'edly by members of the@C9"C mannin' the chec!point for i'norin' andKor refusin' to submit himself tothe chec!point and for continuin' to speed o> in spite of warnin' shots fred in theair$8$ +etitioners 3Nalmonte and C*+4 contended thatthe said chec!points 'i#e therespondents 3"e Nilla4 a blan!et authority to ma!e searches andKor sei:ureswithout search warrant or court order in #iolation of the Constitution$ Nalmontehas claimed that he had 'one thru said chec!points where he was stopped and hiscar sub1ected to searchKchec!Lup without a court order or search warrant$9ulin':1$@o proof has been presented before the Court to show that, in the course of theirroutine chec!s, the military indeed committed specifc #iolations of petitionersO ri'ht a'ainst unlawfulsearches and sei:ures, or other ri'hts$ +etitionerOs 'eneral alle'ation that hehad been stopped and searched without a search warrant by themilitary mannin' the chec!points, without statin' the details of the incidents whichamount to a #iolation of his ri'ht a'ainst unlawful search and sei:ure, is notsu5cient to enable the Court to determine whether there was a #iolation of NalmonteOs ri'ht a'ainst unlawful search and sei:ure$ -$The constitutional ri'ht a'ainst unreasonable searches and sei:ures is a personalri'ht, and could be in#o!ed only by those whose ri'hts ha#e been infrin'ed orthreatened to be infrin'ed$ ;hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable searchand sei:ure in any particularcase is purely a 1udicial 7uestion, determinable from aconsideration of the circumstances in#ol#ed$6$@ot all searches and sei:ures are prohibited$ Those which are reasonable are notforbidden$ * reasonable search is not to be determined by any f%ed formula but isto be resol#ed accordin' to the facts of each case$ ;hen the o5cer merely drawsaside the curtainof a #acant #ehicle which is par!ed on the public fair 'rounds orsimply loo!s into a #ehicle or ecti#e when appro#ed by a ma1ority of the #otes cast by the constituents units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, pro#ided that only pro#inces, cities and 'eo'raphic areas #otin' fa#ourably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous re'ion$/ec$ -0$ ;ithin its territorial 1urisdiction and sub1ect to the pro#isions of this Constitution andnational laws, the or'anic act of autonomous re'ions shall pro#ide for le'islati#e powers o#er:1$ *dministrati#e or'ani:ation2-$ Creation of sources of re#enues26$ *ncestral domain and natural resources28$ +ersonal, family, and property relations2.$ 9e'ional urban and rural plannin' de#elopment2A$ =conomic, social, and tourism de#elopment27$ =ducational policies2B$ +reser#ation and de#elopment of the cultural herita'e2 andI$ /uch other matters as may be authori:ed by law for the promotion of the 'eneral welfare of the people of the re'ion$The +resident has sole authority in the treatyLma!in'$ *9TIC= MNII 3*&=@"&=@T/ ,9 9=NI/I,@/4 /ection 1$ *ny amendment to, or re#ision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: 1$ The Con'ress, upon a #ote of threeLfourths of all its &embers2 or -$ * constitutional con#ention$ /ection 8$ *ny amendment to, or re#ision of, this Constitution under /ection 1 hereof shall be #alid when ratifed by a ma1ority of the #otes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than si%ty days nor later than ninety days after the appro#al of such amendment or re#ision$&,*L*" states that all pro#isions thereof which cannot be reconciled with the present constitution and laws Fshall come into force upon si'nin' of a comprehensi#e compact and upon e>ectin' the necessary chan'es to the le'al framewor!$G The presidentOs authority is limited to proposin' constitutional amendments$ /he cannot 'uarantee to any third party that the re7uired amendments will e#entually be put in place nor e#en be submitted to a plebiscite$ &,*L*" itself presents the need to amend therein$