Lawyerly

GR No. 209271

2015-12-08

ISAAA v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES)

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

However, the rule on standing is a matter of procedure which can be relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.[40] The Court thus had invariably adopted a liberal policy on standing to allow ordinary citizens and civic organizations to prosecute actions before this Court questioning the constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, rulings or orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities.[41]

GR No. 206020

2015-04-14

1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON v. COMELEC

REYES, J.

Like any other administrative regulations, Resolution No. 9615, or any part thereof, must not run counter to the Constitution. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.[8] In this regard, an administrative regulation, even if it purports to advance a legitimate governmental interest, may not be permitted to run roughshod over the cherished rights of the people enshrined in the Constitution.

GR No. 209287

2015-02-03

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

In this connection, the respondents must always be reminded that the Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform. No act that conflicts with the Constitution can be valid.[24] In Mutuc v. Commission on Elections,[25] therefore, we have emphasized the importance of recognizing and bowing to the supremacy of the Constitution:x x x The concept of the Constitution as the fundamental law, setting forth the criterion for the validity of any public act whether proceeding from the highest official or the lowest functionary, is a postulate of our system of government. That is to manifest fealty to the rule of law, with priority accorded to that which occupies the topmost rung in the legal hierarchy. The three departments of government in the discharge of the functions with which it is [sic] entrusted have no choice but to yield obedience to its commands. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed. Congress in the enactment of statutes must ever be on guard lest the restrictions on its authority, whether substantive or formal, be transcended. The Presidency in the execution of the laws cannot ignore or disregard what it ordains. In its task of applying the law to the facts as found in deciding cases, the judiciary is called upon to maintain inviolate what is decreed by the fundamental law. Even its power of judicial review to pass upon the validity of the acts of the coordinate branches in the course of adjudication is a logical corollary of this basic principle that the Constitution is paramount. It overrides any governmental measure that fails to live up to its mandates. Thereby there is a recognition of its being the supreme law.

GR No. 204819

2014-04-08

JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA

MENDOZA, J.

Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the doctrine that "the rule on standing is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest."[116]

GR No. 208566

2013-11-19

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Moreover, as citizens, petitioners have equally fulfilled the standing requirement given that the issues they have raised may be classified as matters "of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest."[148] The CoA Chairperson's statement during the Oral Arguments that the present controversy involves "not [merely] a systems failure" but a "complete breakdown of controls"[149] amplifies, in addition to the matters above-discussed, the seriousness of the issues involved herein. Indeed, of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.[150] All told, petitioners have sufficient locus standi to file the instant cases.

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. 193636

2012-07-24

MARYNETTE R. GAMBOA v. P/SSUPT. MARLOU C. CHAN

SERENO, J.

Pending the enactment of legislation on data protection, this Court declines to make any further determination as to the propriety of sharing information during specific stages of intelligence gathering. To do otherwise would supplant the discretion of investigative bodies in the accomplishment of their functions, resulting in an undue encroachment on their competence. However, to accord the right to privacy with the kind of protection established in existing law and jurisprudence, this Court nonetheless deems it necessary to caution these investigating entities that information-sharing must observe strict confidentiality. Intelligence gathered must be released exclusively to the authorities empowered to receive the relevant information. After all, inherent to the right to privacy is the freedom 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."[67]

GR No. 181881

2011-10-18

BRICCIO 'RICKY' A. POLLO v. CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID

VILLARAMA, 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 under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution,[27] which provides: Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

GR No. 166471

2011-03-22

TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT

CARPIO, J.

In Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board,[25] the Court held that, "It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution."[26] In Sabio v. Gordon,[27] the Court held that, "the Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the `basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform.'"[28] In Atty. Macalintal v. Commission on Elections,[29] the Court held that, "The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered. Laws that do not conform to the Constitution shall be stricken down for being unconstitutional."[30] In Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System,[31] the Court held that: Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract."[32] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 172589

2010-08-08

JEFFREY NACAGUE v. SULPICIO LINES

CARPIO, J.

In Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board,[26] we explained: As to the mechanics of the test, the law specifies that the procedure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening test and the confirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as much as possible the trustworthiness of the results. But the more important consideration lies in the fact that the tests shall be conducted by trained professionals in access-controlled laboratories monitored by the Department of Health (DOH) to safeguard against results tampering and to ensure an accurate chain of custody.[27]

AM No. P-08-2535

2010-06-23

OCA v. FLORENCIO M. REYES

PER CURIAM

Anent the use of illegal drugs, we have upheld in Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board[7] the validity and constitutionality of the mandatory but random drug testing of officers and employees of both public and private offices. As regards public officers and employees, we specifically held that: Like their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws on public officers, all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. And if RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, by constitutional demand, are required to be accountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency.[8]

	GR No. 209271 2015-12-08	ISAAA v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, the rule on standing is a matter of procedure which can be relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.[40] The Court thus had invariably adopted a liberal policy on standing to allow ordinary citizens and civic organizations to prosecute actions before this Court questioning the constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, rulings or orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities.[41]
	GR No. 206020 2015-04-14	1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON v. COMELEC REYES, J.
Like any other administrative regulations, Resolution No. 9615, or any part thereof, must not run counter to the Constitution. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.[8] In this regard, an administrative regulation, even if it purports to advance a legitimate governmental interest, may not be permitted to run roughshod over the cherished rights of the people enshrined in the Constitution.
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
In this connection, the respondents must always be reminded that the Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform. No act that conflicts with the Constitution can be valid.[24] In Mutuc v. Commission on Elections,[25] therefore, we have emphasized the importance of recognizing and bowing to the supremacy of the Constitution:x x x The concept of the Constitution as the fundamental law, setting forth the criterion for the validity of any public act whether proceeding from the highest official or the lowest functionary, is a postulate of our system of government. That is to manifest fealty to the rule of law, with priority accorded to that which occupies the topmost rung in the legal hierarchy. The three departments of government in the discharge of the functions with which it is [sic] entrusted have no choice but to yield obedience to its commands. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed. Congress in the enactment of statutes must ever be on guard lest the restrictions on its authority, whether substantive or formal, be transcended. The Presidency in the execution of the laws cannot ignore or disregard what it ordains. In its task of applying the law to the facts as found in deciding cases, the judiciary is called upon to maintain inviolate what is decreed by the fundamental law. Even its power of judicial review to pass upon the validity of the acts of the coordinate branches in the course of adjudication is a logical corollary of this basic principle that the Constitution is paramount. It overrides any governmental measure that fails to live up to its mandates. Thereby there is a recognition of its being the supreme law.
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the doctrine that "the rule on standing is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest."[116]
	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Moreover, as citizens, petitioners have equally fulfilled the standing requirement given that the issues they have raised may be classified as matters "of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest."[148] The CoA Chairperson's statement during the Oral Arguments that the present controversy involves "not [merely] a systems failure" but a "complete breakdown of controls"[149] amplifies, in addition to the matters above-discussed, the seriousness of the issues involved herein. Indeed, of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.[150] All told, petitioners have sufficient locus standi to file the instant cases.
	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. 193636 2012-07-24	MARYNETTE R. GAMBOA v. P/SSUPT. MARLOU C. CHAN SERENO, J.
Pending the enactment of legislation on data protection, this Court declines to make any further determination as to the propriety of sharing information during specific stages of intelligence gathering. To do otherwise would supplant the discretion of investigative bodies in the accomplishment of their functions, resulting in an undue encroachment on their competence. However, to accord the right to privacy with the kind of protection established in existing law and jurisprudence, this Court nonetheless deems it necessary to caution these investigating entities that information-sharing must observe strict confidentiality. Intelligence gathered must be released exclusively to the authorities empowered to receive the relevant information. After all, inherent to the right to privacy is the freedom 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."[67]
	GR No. 181881 2011-10-18	BRICCIO 'RICKY' A. POLLO v. CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID VILLARAMA, 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 under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution,[27] which provides: Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
	GR No. 166471 2011-03-22	TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT CARPIO, J.
In Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board,[25] the Court held that, "It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution."[26] In Sabio v. Gordon,[27] the Court held that, "the Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the `basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform.'"[28] In Atty. Macalintal v. Commission on Elections,[29] the Court held that, "The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered. Laws that do not conform to the Constitution shall be stricken down for being unconstitutional."[30] In Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System,[31] the Court held that: Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract."[32] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 172589 2010-08-08	JEFFREY NACAGUE v. SULPICIO LINES CARPIO, J.
In Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board,[26] we explained: As to the mechanics of the test, the law specifies that the procedure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening test and the confirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as much as possible the trustworthiness of the results. But the more important consideration lies in the fact that the tests shall be conducted by trained professionals in access-controlled laboratories monitored by the Department of Health (DOH) to safeguard against results tampering and to ensure an accurate chain of custody.[27]
	AM No. P-08-2535 2010-06-23	OCA v. FLORENCIO M. REYES PER CURIAM
Anent the use of illegal drugs, we have upheld in Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board[7] the validity and constitutionality of the mandatory but random drug testing of officers and employees of both public and private offices. As regards public officers and employees, we specifically held that: Like their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws on public officers, all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. And if RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, by constitutional demand, are required to be accountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency.[8]

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD