Lawyerly

GR No. 203372

2015-06-16

ATTY. CHELOY E. VELICARIA- GARAFIL v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

CARPIO, J.

The Constitution, admittedly, does not contain an express definition of the executive power reposed in the Chief Executive;[69] it merely contains an enumeration of the powers the President can exercise. Broadly understood,[70] however, executive power is the power to enforce and administer the laws of the land;[71] it is the power to carry the laws into practical operation and to enforce their due observance.[72]

GR No. 203335

2014-02-18

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

ABAD, J.

The first question is whether or not Section 12 has a proper governmental purpose since a law may require the disclosure of matters normally considered private but then only upon showing that such requirement has a rational relation to the purpose of the law,[79] that there is a compelling State interest behind the law, and that the provision itself is narrowly drawn.[80] In assessing regulations affecting privacy rights, courts should balance the legitimate concerns of the State against constitutional guarantees.[81]

GR No. 203335

2014-02-18

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

ABAD, J.

can only go as far as providing an initial lead to an ongoing criminal investigation primarily in the form of an IP address, this limited purpose is not explicit in the assailed provision. Moreover, there is no assurance that the collected traffic data would not be used for preventive purposes as well. Notably, the Solicitor-General defines "due cause" as "good faith law enforcement reason"[122] or "when there's a complaint from a citizen that cybercrime has been committed." According to the Solicitor General this situation is "enough to trigger" a collection of traffic data.[123] However, during the oral arguments, the Solicitor General prevaricated on whether Section 12 could also be used for preventive monitoring. He said that there might be that possibility, although the purpose would "largely" be for the investigation of an existing criminal act.[124] This vagueness is disconcerting, since a preventive monitoring would necessarily entail casting a wider net than an investigation of a specific instance of criminality would. Preventive monitoring would correspondingly need more restrictive procedural safeguards. This failure to provide an unequivocally specified purpose is fatal because it would give the government the roving authority to obtain traffic data for any purpose.[125] Secondly, Section 12 does not indicate who will determine "due cause." This failure to assign the determination of due cause to a specific and independent entity opens the floodgates to possible abuse of the authority to collect traffic data in real-time, since the measure

GR No. 203335

2014-02-18

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

ABAD, J.

But the deliberations of the Bicameral Committee of Congress on this section of the Cybercrime Prevention Act give a proper perspective on the issue. These deliberations show a lack of intent to penalize a "private showing x x x between and among two private persons x x x although that may be a form of obscenity to some."[23] The understanding of those who drew up the cybercrime law is that the element of "engaging in a business" is necessary to constitute the illegal cybersex.[24] The Act actually seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white slave trade, and pornography for favor and consideration. This includes interactive prostitution and pornography, i.e., by webcam.[25]

GR No. 203335

2014-02-18

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

ABAD, J.

The case of Nogales v. People[28] shows the extent to which the State can regulate materials that serve no other purpose than satisfy the market for violence, lust, or pornography.[29] The Court weighed the property rights of individuals against the public welfare. Private property, if containing pornographic materials, may be forfeited and destroyed. Likewise, engaging in sexual acts privately through internet connection, perceived by some as a right, has to be balanced with the mandate of the State to eradicate white slavery and the exploitation of women.

GR No. 179736

2013-06-26

SPS. BILL v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution[44] and in our laws. It is defined as "the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one's person or from intrusion into one's private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person's ordinary sensibilities."[45] It is the right of an individual "to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned."[46] Simply put, the right to privacy is "the right to be let alone."[47]

GR No. 196271

2011-10-18

DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES

BRION, J.

The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, general and comprehensive.[39] The legislative body possesses plenary power for all purposes of civil government.[40] Any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere.[41] Except as limited by the Constitution, either expressly or impliedly, legislative power embraces all subjects and extends to all matters of general concern or common interest.[42]

GR Nos. 171947-48

2011-02-15

MMDA v. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY

VELASCO JR., J.

The Philippine National Police (PNP) - Maritime Group shall submit on or before June 30, 2011 its five-year plan of action on the measures and activities they intend to undertake to apprehend the violators of RA 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 and other pertinent laws, ordinances and regulations to prevent marine pollution in Manila Bay and to ensure the successful prosecution of violators;[8]

GR No. 192935

2010-12-07

LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

MENDOZA, J.

The President's power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed is well recognized. It flows from the faithful-execution clause of the Constitution under Article VII, Section 17 thereof.[56] As the Chief Executive, the president represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has the authority to directly assume the functions of the executive department.[57]

GR Nos. 164368-69

2009-04-02

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

BRION, J.

The nature, too, of the transaction on which the indictment rests, affords Estrada a reasonable expectation of privacy, as the alleged criminal act related to the opening of a trust account - a transaction that R.A. No. 1405 considers absolutely confidential in nature.[34] We previously rejected, in Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan,[35] the People's nitpicking argument on the alleged dichotomy between bank deposits and trust transactions, when we said:The contention that trust accounts are not covered by the term "deposits," as used in R.A. 1405, by the mere fact that they do not entail a creditor-debtor relationship between the trustor and the bank, does not lie. An examination of the law shows that the term "deposits" used therein is to be understood broadly and not limited only to accounts which give rise to a creditor-debtor relationship between the depositor and the bank.

GR No. 157870

2008-11-03

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD

VELASCO JR., J.

The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure[16] under Sec. 2, Art. III[17] of the Constitution. But while the right to privacy has long come into its own, this case appears to be the first time that the validity of a state-decreed search or intrusion through the medium of mandatory random drug testing among students and employees is, in this jurisdiction, made the focal point. Thus, the issue tendered in these proceedings is veritably one of first impression.

GR NO. 166052

2007-08-29

ANAK MINDANAO PARTY-LIST GROUP v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of control, the President also has the duty of supervising and enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively.[25] (Italics omitted, underscoring supplied) The Constitution's express grant of the power of control in the President justifies an executive action to carry out reorganization measures under a broad authority of law.[26]

GR NO. 139554

2006-07-21

ARMITA B. RUFINO v. BALTAZAR N. ENDRIGA

CARPIO, J.

Laws that create public offices or GOCCs are no different from other statutes in that they are all binding on the Chief Executive. Indeed, while Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the President executes the law, executive power generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws.[76] The corresponding task of the Chief Executive is to see that every government office is managed and maintained properly by the persons in charge of it in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations. Corollary to these powers is the power to promulgate rules and issuances that would ensure a more efficient management of the executive branch, for so long as such issuances are not contrary to law.[77]

GR No. 148208

2004-12-15

CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS

PUNO, J.

This Court has not been apprised as to how precisely the human resource management system of the BSP has been misused. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is therefore presumed that the law has been obeyed,[145] and that official duty has been regularly performed[146] in implementing the said law. Where additional implementing rules would still be necessary to put the assailed provision into continued effect, any "attack on their constitutionality would be premature."[147]

	GR No. 203372 2015-06-16	ATTY. CHELOY E. VELICARIA- GARAFIL v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT CARPIO, J.
The Constitution, admittedly, does not contain an express definition of the executive power reposed in the Chief Executive;[69] it merely contains an enumeration of the powers the President can exercise. Broadly understood,[70] however, executive power is the power to enforce and administer the laws of the land;[71] it is the power to carry the laws into practical operation and to enforce their due observance.[72]
	GR No. 203335 2014-02-18	JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ABAD, J.
The first question is whether or not Section 12 has a proper governmental purpose since a law may require the disclosure of matters normally considered private but then only upon showing that such requirement has a rational relation to the purpose of the law,[79] that there is a compelling State interest behind the law, and that the provision itself is narrowly drawn.[80] In assessing regulations affecting privacy rights, courts should balance the legitimate concerns of the State against constitutional guarantees.[81]
	GR No. 203335 2014-02-18	JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ABAD, J.
can only go as far as providing an initial lead to an ongoing criminal investigation primarily in the form of an IP address, this limited purpose is not explicit in the assailed provision. Moreover, there is no assurance that the collected traffic data would not be used for preventive purposes as well. Notably, the Solicitor-General defines "due cause" as "good faith law enforcement reason"[122] or "when there's a complaint from a citizen that cybercrime has been committed." According to the Solicitor General this situation is "enough to trigger" a collection of traffic data.[123] However, during the oral arguments, the Solicitor General prevaricated on whether Section 12 could also be used for preventive monitoring. He said that there might be that possibility, although the purpose would "largely" be for the investigation of an existing criminal act.[124] This vagueness is disconcerting, since a preventive monitoring would necessarily entail casting a wider net than an investigation of a specific instance of criminality would. Preventive monitoring would correspondingly need more restrictive procedural safeguards. This failure to provide an unequivocally specified purpose is fatal because it would give the government the roving authority to obtain traffic data for any purpose.[125] Secondly, Section 12 does not indicate who will determine "due cause." This failure to assign the determination of due cause to a specific and independent entity opens the floodgates to possible abuse of the authority to collect traffic data in real-time, since the measure
	GR No. 203335 2014-02-18	JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ABAD, J.
But the deliberations of the Bicameral Committee of Congress on this section of the Cybercrime Prevention Act give a proper perspective on the issue. These deliberations show a lack of intent to penalize a "private showing x x x between and among two private persons x x x although that may be a form of obscenity to some."[23] The understanding of those who drew up the cybercrime law is that the element of "engaging in a business" is necessary to constitute the illegal cybersex.[24] The Act actually seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white slave trade, and pornography for favor and consideration. This includes interactive prostitution and pornography, i.e., by webcam.[25]
	GR No. 203335 2014-02-18	JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ABAD, J.
The case of Nogales v. People[28] shows the extent to which the State can regulate materials that serve no other purpose than satisfy the market for violence, lust, or pornography.[29] The Court weighed the property rights of individuals against the public welfare. Private property, if containing pornographic materials, may be forfeited and destroyed. Likewise, engaging in sexual acts privately through internet connection, perceived by some as a right, has to be balanced with the mandate of the State to eradicate white slavery and the exploitation of women.
	GR No. 179736 2013-06-26	SPS. BILL v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY DEL CASTILLO, J.
The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution[44] and in our laws. It is defined as "the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one's person or from intrusion into one's private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person's ordinary sensibilities."[45] It is the right of an individual "to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned."[46] Simply put, the right to privacy is "the right to be let alone."[47]
	GR No. 196271 2011-10-18	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, general and comprehensive.[39] The legislative body possesses plenary power for all purposes of civil government.[40] Any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere.[41] Except as limited by the Constitution, either expressly or impliedly, legislative power embraces all subjects and extends to all matters of general concern or common interest.[42]
	GR Nos. 171947-48 2011-02-15	MMDA v. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY VELASCO JR., J.
The Philippine National Police (PNP) - Maritime Group shall submit on or before June 30, 2011 its five-year plan of action on the measures and activities they intend to undertake to apprehend the violators of RA 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 and other pertinent laws, ordinances and regulations to prevent marine pollution in Manila Bay and to ensure the successful prosecution of violators;[8]
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
The President's power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed is well recognized. It flows from the faithful-execution clause of the Constitution under Article VII, Section 17 thereof.[56] As the Chief Executive, the president represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has the authority to directly assume the functions of the executive department.[57]
	GR Nos. 164368-69 2009-04-02	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA BRION, J.
The nature, too, of the transaction on which the indictment rests, affords Estrada a reasonable expectation of privacy, as the alleged criminal act related to the opening of a trust account - a transaction that R.A. No. 1405 considers absolutely confidential in nature.[34] We previously rejected, in Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan,[35] the People's nitpicking argument on the alleged dichotomy between bank deposits and trust transactions, when we said:The contention that trust accounts are not covered by the term "deposits," as used in R.A. 1405, by the mere fact that they do not entail a creditor-debtor relationship between the trustor and the bank, does not lie. An examination of the law shows that the term "deposits" used therein is to be understood broadly and not limited only to accounts which give rise to a creditor-debtor relationship between the depositor and the bank.
	GR No. 157870 2008-11-03	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD VELASCO JR., J.
The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure[16] under Sec. 2, Art. III[17] of the Constitution. But while the right to privacy has long come into its own, this case appears to be the first time that the validity of a state-decreed search or intrusion through the medium of mandatory random drug testing among students and employees is, in this jurisdiction, made the focal point. Thus, the issue tendered in these proceedings is veritably one of first impression.
	GR NO. 166052 2007-08-29	ANAK MINDANAO PARTY-LIST GROUP v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CARPIO MORALES, J.
As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of control, the President also has the duty of supervising and enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively.[25] (Italics omitted, underscoring supplied) The Constitution's express grant of the power of control in the President justifies an executive action to carry out reorganization measures under a broad authority of law.[26]
	GR NO. 139554 2006-07-21	ARMITA B. RUFINO v. BALTAZAR N. ENDRIGA CARPIO, J.
Laws that create public offices or GOCCs are no different from other statutes in that they are all binding on the Chief Executive. Indeed, while Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the President executes the law, executive power generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws.[76] The corresponding task of the Chief Executive is to see that every government office is managed and maintained properly by the persons in charge of it in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations. Corollary to these powers is the power to promulgate rules and issuances that would ensure a more efficient management of the executive branch, for so long as such issuances are not contrary to law.[77]
	GR No. 148208 2004-12-15	CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS PUNO, J.
This Court has not been apprised as to how precisely the human resource management system of the BSP has been misused. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is therefore presumed that the law has been obeyed,[145] and that official duty has been regularly performed[146] in implementing the said law. Where additional implementing rules would still be necessary to put the assailed provision into continued effect, any "attack on their constitutionality would be premature."[147]

BLAS F. OPLE v. RUBEN D. TORRES