Persons and Family Relations Cases - Marriage

8/17/2019 Persons and Family Relations Cases - Marriage

1/43

Introduction to Law

Ople V. Torres

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 127685. July 23, 1998]

BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner , vs. RUBEN D. ORRES, ALE!ANDERAGU"RRE, #E$OR %"LLANUE%A, $"EL"O #AB"O, ROBERBARBERS, $AR&EN$"A REOD"$A, $ESAR SAR"NO, RENAO%ALEN$"A, O&AS P. AFR"$A, #EAD OF #E NA"ONAL$O&PUER $ENER and $#A"R&AN OF #E $O&&"SS"ON ON

AUD", respondents.

D E $ " S " O N

PUNO, J.'

The petition at bar is a commendable efort on the part o enator Blas !.Ople to pre"ent the shrin#in$ o the ri$ht to pri"ac%& which the re"ered 'r.

(ustice Brandeis considered as )the most comprehensi"e o ri$hts and theri$ht most "alued b% ci"ili*ed men.)+,- etitioner Ople pra%s that we

in"alidate Administrati"e Order No. /01 entitled )Adoption o a NationalComputeri*ed Identi2cation 3eerence %stem) on two importantconstitutional $rounds& "i*4 one& it is a usurpation o the power o Con$ressto le$islate& and two& it impermissibl% intrudes on our citi*enr%5s protected*one o pri"ac%. 6e $rant the petition or the ri$hts sou$ht to be "indicatedb% the petitioner need stron$er barriers a$ainst urther erosion.

A.O. No. /01 was issued b% resident !idel V. 3amos on 7ecember ,8&,99: and reads as ollows4

)A7OTION O! A NATIONAL CO';TE3I


2/43

reduce& i not totall% eradicate& raudulent transactions andmisrepresentations?

6>E3EA& a concerted and collaborati"e efort amon$ the "arious basicser"ices and social securit% pro"idin$ a$encies and other $o"ernmentinstrumentalities is re@uired to achie"e such a s%stem?

NO6& T>E3E!O3E& I& !I7EL V. 3A'O& resident o the 3epublic o thehilippines& b% "irtue o the powers "ested in me b% law& do hereb% directthe ollowin$4

ECTION ,. Establishment of a National Computerized IdenticationReference System. A decentrali*ed Identi2cation 3eerence %stem amon$the #e% basic ser"ices and social securit% pro"iders is hereb% established.

EC. 8 Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee. An InterA$enc% Coordinatin$Committee IACCD to drawup the implementin$ $uidelines and o"ersee theimplementation o the %stem is hereb% created& chaired b% the Eecuti"eecretar%& with the ollowin$ as members4

>ead& residential 'ana$ement taf

ecretar%& National Economic 7e"elopment Authorit%ecretar%& 7epartment o the Interior and

Local Fo"ernmentecretar%& 7epartment o >ealth

Administrator& Fo"ernment er"ice Insurance%stem&Administrator& ocial ecurit% %stem& Administrator&National tatistics Oce 'ana$in$ 7irector& NationalComputer Center.

EC. /. Secretariat . The National Computer Center NCCD is hereb%desi$nated as secretariat to the IACC and as such shall pro"ideadministrati"e and technical support to the IACC.

EC. G. Linage Among Agencies. The opulation 3eerence Number 3ND$enerated b% the NO shall ser"e as the common reerence number toestablish a lin#a$e amon$ concerned a$encies. The IACC ecretariat shallcoordinate with the diferent ocial ecurit% and er"ices A$encies toestablish the standards in the use o Biometrics Technolo$% and in computerapplication desi$ns o their respecti"e s%stems.

EC. H. Conduct of Information !issemination Campaign. The Oce o theress ecretar%& in coordination with the National tatistics Oce& the FI


3/43

and as lead a$encies and other concerned a$encies shall underta#e amassi"e trimedia inormation dissemination campai$n to educate and raisepublic awareness on the importance and use o the 3N and the ocialecurit% Identi2cation 3eerence.

EC. :. "unding. The unds necessar% or the implementation o the s%stemshall be sourced rom the respecti"e bud$ets o the concerned a$encies.

EC. . Submission of Regular Reports. The NO& FI and shallsubmit re$ular reports to the Oce o the resident& throu$h the IACC& onthe status o implementation o this underta#in$.

EC. 1. E#ecti$ity . This Administrati"e Order shall ta#e efect immediatel%.

7ONE in the Cit% o 'anila& this ,8th da% o 7ecember in the %ear o OurLord& Nineteen >undred and Ninet%i.

F7.D !I7EL V. 3A'O)

A.O. No. /01 was published in our newspapers o $eneral circulation on (anuar% 88& ,99 and (anuar% 8/& ,99. On (anuar% 8G& ,99& petitioner2led the instant petition a$ainst respondents& then Eecuti"e ecretar%3uben Torres and the heads o the $o"ernment a$encies& who as memberso the InterA$enc% Coordinatin$ Committee& are char$ed with theimplementation o A.O. No. /01. On April 1& ,99& we issued a temporar%restrainin$ order enJoinin$ its implementation.

P()*)*o+( -o+)(+/4

)A. T>E ETABLI>'ENT O! A NATIONAL CO';TE3IIC> 6ILL VIOLATE T>E BILL O! 3IF>TEN>3INE7 IN T>E CONTIT;TION.)+8-

R(/0o+(+)/ -ou+)(u(4

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn2


4/43

A. T>E INTANT ETITION I NOT A (;TICIABLE CAE A 6O;L76A33ANT A (;7ICIAL 3EVIE6?

B. A.O. NO. /01 +,99:- 6A I;E7 6IT>IN T>E EEC;TIVE AN7A7'INIT3ATIVE O6E3 O! T>E 3EI7ENT 6IT>O;T ENC3OAC>INF ON

T>E LEFILATIVE O6E3 O! CONF3E?

$. T>E !;N7 NECEA3= !O3 T>E I'LE'ENTATION O! T>EI7ENTI!ICATION 3E!E3ENCE =TE' 'A= BE O;3CE7 !3O' T>E B;7FETO! T>E CONCE3NE7 AFENCIE?

D. A.O. NO. /01 +,99:- 3OTECT AN IN7IVI7;AL5 INTE3ET IN3IVAC=.+/-

6e now resol"e.

"

As is usual in constitutional liti$ation& respondents raise the thresholdissues relatin$ to the standin$ to sue o the petitioner and the Justiciabilit%o the case at bar. 'ore speci2call%& respondents a"er that petitioner hasno le$al interest to uphold and that the implementin$ rules o A.O. No. /01ha"e %et to be promul$ated.

These submissions do not deser"e our s%mpathetic ear. etitioner Opleis a distin$uished member o our enate. As a enator& petitioner ispossessed o the re@uisite standin$ to brin$ suit raisin$ the issue that the

issuance o A.O. No. /01 is a usurpation o le$islati"e power.+G-

As tapa%erand member o the Fo"ernment er"ice Insurance %stem FID& petitionercan also impu$n the le$alit% o the misali$nment o public unds and themisuse o FI unds to implement A.O. No. /01.+H-

The ripeness or adJudication o the petition at bar is not afected b% theact that the implementin$ rules o A.O. No. /01 ha"e %et to bepromul$ated. etitioner Ople assails A.O. No. /01 as in"alid per se and asin2rmed on its ace. >is action is not premature or the rules %et to bepromul$ated cannot cure its atal deects. 'oreo"er& the respondents

themsel"es ha"e started the implementation o A.O. No. /01 withoutwaitin$ or the rules. As earl% as (anuar% ,9& ,99& respondent ociaecurit% %stem D caused the publication o a notice to bid or themanuacture o the National Identi2cation I7D card. +:- 3espondent Eecuti"eecretar% Torres has publicl% announced that representati"es rom the FIand the ha"e completed the $uidelines or the national identi2cations%stem.+- All si$nals rom the respondents show their unswer"in$ will toimplement A.O. No. /01 and we need not wait or the ormalit% o the rulesto pass Jud$ment on its constitutionalit%. In this li$ht& the dissenters

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn7


5/43

insistence that we ti$hten the rule on standin$ is not a commendablestance as its result would be to throttle an important constitutional principleand a undamental ri$ht.

""

4( +o -o( )o )( -o( *//u(/. P()*)*o+( -l*/ )) A.O. No.38 */ +o) (( *+*/))*( o( :u) l + (+-(, :(yo+

)( 0o( o; )( P(/*(+) )o *//u(. >e alle$es that A.O. No. /01establishes a s%stem o identi2cation that is allencompassin$ in scope&afects the lie and libert% o e"er% !ilipino citi*en and orei$n resident& andmore particularl%& "iolates their ri$ht to pri"ac%.

etitioner5s sedulous concern or the Eecuti"e not to trespass on thelawma#in$ domain o Con$ress is understandable. The blurrin$ o thedemarcation line between the power o the Le$islature to ma#e laws andthe power o the Eecuti"e to eecute laws will disturb their delicatebalance o power and cannot be allowed. >ence& the eercise b% one

branch o $o"ernment o power belon$in$ to another will be $i"en a/)*-)(/-u)*+y b% this Court.

The line that delineates Le$islati"e and Eecuti"e power is notindistinct. L(*/l)*( 0o( is )the authorit%& under the Constitution& toma#e laws& and to alter and repeal them.) +1- The Constitution& as the will othe people in their ori$inal& so"erei$n and unlimited capacit%& has "estedthis power in the Con$ress o the hilippines.+9- The $rant o le$islati"epower to Con$ress is broad& $eneral and comprehensi"e. +,0- The le$islati"ebod% possesses plenar% power or all purposes o ci"il $o"ernment. +,,- An%power& deemed to be le$islati"e b% usa$e and tradition& is necessaril%possessed b% Con$ress& unless the Constitution has lod$ed it elsewhere.+,8- In 2ne& ecept as limited b% the Constitution& either epressl% orimpliedl%& le$islati"e power embraces all subJects and etends to matters o$eneral concern or common interest.+,/-

6hile Con$ress is "ested with the power to enact laws& )( P(/*(+)(ehas control o"er the eecuti"e department& bureaus and oces. This meansthat he has the authorit% to assume directl% the unctions o the eecuti"edepartment& bureau and oce& or interere with the discretion o its ocials.+,9- Corollar% to the power o control& the resident also has the dut% o

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn19


6/43

super"isin$ the enorcement o laws or the maintenance o $eneral peaceand public order. Thus& he is $ranted *+*/))*( 0o( o"er bureausand oces under his control to enable him to dischar$e his dutiesefecti"el%.+80-

A*+*/))*( 0o( */ -o+-(+( *) )( o= o; 00ly*+0ol*-*(/ + (+;o-*+ o(/ / ()(*+( :y 0o0(

o(+(+)l o+/.[21]

") (+:l(/ )( P(/*(+) )o >< u+*;o/)+ o; *+*/))*( (?-*(+-y + -(-= )( o?-*l -o+u-)o; */ (+)/.[22] o )*/ (+, ( -+ *//u( *+*/))*( o(/,ul(/ + (ul)*o+/.

P(/-*+*+ ;o )(/( 0(-(0)/, ( ol )) A.O. No. 38*+ol(/ /u:@(-) )) */ +o) 00o0*)( )o :( -o(( :y +*+*/))*( o(. An administrati"e order is4

)ec. /. Administrati$e %rders. Acts o the resident which relate to

particular aspects o $o"ernmental operation in pursuance o his duties asadministrati"e head shall be promul$ated in administrati"e orders.) +8/-

An administrati"e order is an ordinance issued b% the resident whichrelates to speci2c aspects in the administrati"e operation o $o"ernment. ")u/) :( *+ o+y *) )( l + /oul :( ;o )( /ol(0u0o/( o; *0l((+)*+ )( l + -y*+ ou) )( l(*/l)*(0ol*-y.[2] 4( (@(-) )( u(+) )) A.O. No. 38 *0l((+)/ )(l(*/l)*( 0ol*-y o; )( A*+*/))*( $o( o; 1987. The Code is a$eneral law and )incorporates in a uni2ed document the maJor structural&

unctional and procedural principles o $o"ernance)+8H- and )embodieschan$es in administrati"e structures and procedures desi$ned to ser"e thepeople.)+8:- The Code is di"ided into se"en D Boo#s4 Boo# I deals witho"erei$nt% and Feneral Administration& Boo# II with the 7istribution oowers o the three branches o Fo"ernment& Boo# III on the Oce o theresident& Boo# IV on the Eecuti"e Branch& Boo# V on the ConstitutionaCommissions& Boo# VI on National Fo"ernment Bud$etin$& and Boo# VII onAdministrati"e rocedure. These Boo#s contain pro"isions on theor$ani*ation& powers and $eneral administration o the eecuti"e& le$islati"e

and Judicial branches o $o"ernment& the or$ani*ation and administration odepartments& bureaus and oces under the eecuti"e branch& theor$ani*ation and unctions o the Constitutional Commissions and otherconstitutional bodies& the rules on the national $o"ernment bud$et& as wellas $uidelines or the eercise b% administrati"e a$encies o @uasile$islati"eand @uasiJudicial powers. The Code co"ers both the internal administrationo $o"ernment& i.e& internal or$ani*ation& personnel and recruitment&super"ision and discipline& and the efects o the unctions perormed b%

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn26


7/43

administrati"e ocials on pri"ate indi"iduals or parties outside $o"ernment.+8-

It cannot be simplisticall% ar$ued that A.O. No. /01 merel% implementsthe Administrati"e Code o ,91. It establishes or the 2rst time a NationalComputeri*ed Identi2cation 3eerence %stem. uch a %stem re@uires adelicate adJustment o "arious contendin$ state policies the primac% o

national securit%& the etent o pri"ac% interest a$ainst dossier$atherin$ b%$o"ernment& the choice o policies& etc. Indeed& the dissent o 'r. (ustice'endo*a states that the A.O. No. /01 in"ol"es the allimportant reedom othou$ht. As said administrati"e order rede2nes the parameters o somebasic ri$hts o our citi*enr% "isa"is the tate as well as the line thatseparates the administrati"e power o the resident to ma#e rules and thele$islati"e power o Con$ress& it ou$ht to be e"ident that it deals with asubJect that should be co"ered b% law.

Nor is it correct to ar$ue as the dissenters do that A.O. No. /01 is not a

law because it coners no ri$ht& imposes no dut%& afords no protection& andcreates no oce. ;nder A.O. No. /01& a citi*en cannot transact businesswith $o"ernment a$encies deli"erin$ basic ser"ices to the people withoutthe contemplated identi2cation card. No citi*en will reuse to $et thisidenti2cation card or no one can a"oid dealin$ with $o"ernment. It is thusclear as da%li$ht that without the I7& a citi*en will ha"e dicult% eercisin$his ri$hts and enJo%in$ his pri"ile$es. Fi"en this realit%& the contention thatA.O. No. /01 $i"es no ri$ht and imposes no dut% cannot stand.

A$ain& with due respect& the dissentin$ opinions undul% epand the limits

o administrati"e le$islation and conse@uentl% erodes the plenar% power oCon$ress to ma#e laws. This is contrar% to the established approachde2nin$ the traditional limits o administrati"e le$islation. As well stated b%!isher4 ) &+y (ul)*o+/ o((, :( *(-)ly o+ )(0u:l*-. ") */ (( )) *+*/))*( l(*/l)*o+ u/) :( (/)*-)(*+ *)/ /-o0( + 00l*-)*o+. R(ul)*o+/ ( +o) /u00o/( )o :( /u:/)*)u)( ;o )( (+(l 0ol*-y=*+ )) $o+(// (+-)/ *+)( ;o o; 0u:l*- l. Al)ou *+*/))*( (ul)*o+/ ((+)*)l( )o (/0(-), )( u)o*)y )o 0(/-*:( ul(/ + (ul)*o+/

*/ +o) + *+(0(+(+) /ou-( o; 0o( )o =( l/.

[28]

"""

A//u*+, u(+o, )) A.O. No. 38 +(( +o) :( )(/u:@(-) o; l, /)*ll *) -++o) 0// -o+/)*)u)*o+lu/)( / + *+*/))*( l(*/l)*o+ :(-u/(;-*lly *) *ol)(/ )( *) )o 0*-y. The essence o pri"ac% isthe )ri$ht to be let alone.)+89- In the ,9:H case o G*/ol . $o++(-)*-u)&+/0- the ;nited tates upreme Court $a"e more substance to the ri$ht o

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn30


8/43

pri"ac% when it ruled that the ri$ht has a constitutional oundation. It heldthat there is a ri$ht o pri"ac% which can be ound within the penumbras othe !irst& Third& !ourth& !ith and Ninth Amendments&+/,- "i*4

)peci2c $uarantees in the Bill o 3i$hts ha"e penumbras ormed b%emanations rom these $uarantees that help $i"e them lie and substance . Various $uarantees create *ones o pri"ac%. The ri$ht o association

contained in the penumbra o the !irst Amendment is one& as we ha"e seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition a$ainst the @uarterin$ o soldiers inan% house5 in time o peace without the consent o the owner is anotheracet o that pri"ac%. The !ourth Amendment eplicitl% arms the ri$ht othe people to be secure in their persons& houses& papers& and efects&a$ainst unreasonable searches and sei*ures.5 The !ith Amendment in itselIncrimination Clause enables the citi*en to create a *one o pri"ac%which $o"ernment ma% not orce him to surrender to his detriment. TheNinth Amendment pro"ides4 The enumeration in the Constitution& o certain

ri$hts& shall not be construed to den% or dispara$e others retained b% thepeople.5)

In the ,9:1 case o &o;( . &u)u-&+/8- we adopted the G*/ol rulin$that )(( */ -o+/)*)u)*o+l *) )o 0*-y. pea#in$ thru 'r

(ustice& later Chie (ustice& Enri@ue !ernando& we held4

)

The Friswold case in"alidated a Connecticut statute which made the use o

contracepti"es a criminal ofense on the $round o its amountin$ to anunconstitutional in"asion o the ri$ht o pri"ac% o married persons?ri$htull% it stressed )a relationship l%in$ within the *one o pri"ac% createdb% se"eral undamental constitutional $uarantees.) It has widerimplications thou$h. The constitutional ri$ht to pri"ac% has come into itsown.

o it is li#ewise in our Jurisdiction. The ri$ht to pri"ac% as such is accordedreco$nition independentl% o its identi2cation with libert%? in itsel& it is ull%deser"in$ o constitutional protection. The lan$ua$e o ro. Emerson is

particularl% apt4 5The concept o limited $o"ernment has alwa%s includedthe idea that $o"ernmental powers stop short o certain intrusions into thepersonal lie o the citi*en. This is indeed one o the basic distinctionsbetween absolute and limited $o"ernment. ;ltimate and per"asi"e controlo the indi"idual& in all aspects o his lie& is the hallmar# o the absolutestate. In contrast& a s%stem o limited $o"ernment sae$uards a pri"atesector& which belon$s to the indi"idual& 2rml% distin$uishin$ it rom thepublic sector& which the state can control. rotection o this pri"ate sectorprotection& in other words& o the di$nit% and inte$rit% o the indi"idualhas

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn32


9/43

become increasin$l% important as modern societ% has de"eloped. All theorces o a technolo$ical a$e industriali*ation& urbani*ation& andor$ani*ation operate to narrow the area o pri"ac% and acilitate intrusioninto it. In modern terms& the capacit% to maintain and support this encla"eo pri"ate lie mar#s the diference between a democratic and a totalitariansociet%.5)

"+((, *; ( (+ )) )( *)o; 0*-y */ (-o+*C( + (+/*+( *+ /((l 0o*/*o+/ o; ou$o+/)*)u)*o+.+//- It is epressl% reco$ni*ed in ection /,D o the Bill o3i$hts4

)Sec& '. ,D The pri"ac% o communication and correspondence shall bein"iolable ecept upon lawul order o the court& or when public saet% ororder re@uires otherwise as prescribed b% law.)

Other acets o the ri$ht to pri"ac% are protected in "arious pro"isions othe B*ll o; R*)/& "i*4+/G-

)Sec& (. No person shall be depri"ed o lie& libert%& or propert% without dueprocess o law& nor shall an% person be denied the e@ual protection o thelaws.

Sec& ). The ri$ht o the people to be secure in their persons& houses& papers&and efects a$ainst unreasonable searches and sei*ures o whate"er natureand or an% purpose shall be in"iolable& and no search warrant or warrant o

arrest shall issue ecept upon probable cause to be determined personall%b% the Jud$e ater eamination under oath or armation o the complainantand the witnesses he ma% produce& and particularl% describin$ the place tobe searched and the persons or thin$s to be sei*ed.

.

Sec& *. The libert% o abode and o chan$in$ the same within the limitsprescribed b% law shall not be impaired ecept upon lawul order o thecourt. Neither shall the ri$ht to tra"el be impaired ecept in the interest o

national securit%& public saet%& or public health& as ma% be pro"ided b% law.

.

Sec& +. The ri$ht o the people& includin$ those emplo%ed in the public andpri"ate sectors& to orm unions& associations& or societies or purposes notcontrar% to law shall not be abrid$ed.

Sec& (,. No person shall be compelled to be a witness a$ainst himsel.)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn34


10/43

o+(/ o; 0*-y are li#ewise reco$ni*ed and protected in our l/ The $**l $o( pro"ides that )+e-"er% person shall respect the di$nit%&personalit%& pri"ac% and peace o mind o his nei$hbors and other persons)and punishes as actionable torts se"eral acts b% a person o meddlin$ andpr%in$ into the pri"ac% o another.+/H- It also holds a public ocer oremplo%ee or an% pri"ate indi"idual liable or dama$es or an% "iolation othe ri$hts and liberties o another person&+/:- and reco$ni*es the pri"ac% oletters and other pri"ate communications.+/- The R(*/( P(+l$o( ma#es a crime the "iolation o secrets b% an ocer& +/1- the re"elationo trade and industrial secrets&+/9- and trespass to dwellin$.+G0-In"asion opri"ac% is an ofense in /0(-*l l/ li#e the Anti6iretappin$ Law&+G,- theecrec% o Ban# 7eposit Act+G8- and the Intellectual ropert% Code+G/- The Rul(/ o; $ou) on pri"ile$ed communication li#ewise reco$ni*e thepri"ac% o certain inormation.+GG-

U+l*=( )( *//(+)(/, ( 0(/-*+ ;o )( 0(*/( )) )(*) )o 0*-y */ ;u+(+)l *) u+)(( :y )($o+/)*)u)*o+, (+-(, *) */ )( :u(+ o; o(+(+) )o /o ))A.O. No. 38 */ @u/)*>( :y /o( -o0(ll*+ /))( *+)((/) + ))*) */ +oly +. A.O. No. /01 is predicated on twoconsiderations4 ,D the need to pro"ide our citi*ens and orei$ners with theacilit% to con"enientl% transact business with basic ser"ice and socialsecurit% pro"iders and other $o"ernment instrumentalities and 8D the needto reduce& i not totall% eradicate& raudulent transactions andmisrepresentations b% persons see#in$ basic ser"ices. It is debatablewhether these interests are compellin$ enou$h to warrant the issuance o

A.O. No. /01. Bu) ) */ +o) u:l( */ )( :o+(//, )(u(+(//, )( o(:() o; A.O. No. 38 *- *; *0l((+)(*ll 0u) ou 0(o0l(/ *) )o 0*-y *+ -l( + 0(/(+) +(.

The () o; A.O. No. 38 lies in its ection G which pro"ides or aopulation 3eerence Number 3ND as a )common reerence number toestablish a lin#a$e amon$ concerned a$encies) throu$h the use o)Biometrics Technolo$%) and )computer application desi$ns.)

B*o()y o :*o()*-/ is )the science o the application o statistical

methods to biolo$ical acts? a mathematical anal%sis o biolo$icadata.)+GH- ( )( :*o()*-/ / +o (ol( *+)o :o-)(oy o; )(-+olo*(/ *- 0o*( 0(-*/( -o+>)*o+ o; +*+**ul/ *(+)*)y )ou )( u/( o; )( *+**ul/ o+0y/*olo*-l + :(*ol --)(*/)*-/.[6] A 0y/*olo*-l--)(*/)*- is a relati"el% stable ph%sical characteristic such as a2n$erprint& retinal scan& hand $eometr% or acial eatures. A :(*ol--)(*/)*- is inuenced b% the indi"idual5s personalit% and includes"oice print& si$nature and #e%stro#e.+G- 'ost biometric identi2cation

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn47


11/43


12/43

( 0o)(+)*l ;o */u/( o; )( ) )o :( )(( u+( A.O.No. 38 -++o) :( u+(0ly( / )( *//(+)(/ o . ursuant tosaid administrati"e order& an indi"idual must present his 3N e"er%time hedeals with a $o"ernment a$enc% to a"ail o basic ser"ices and securit%. >istransactions with the $o"ernment a$enc% will necessaril% be recordedwhether it be in the computer or in the documentar% 2le o the a$enc%. Theindi"idual5s 2le ma% include his transactions or loan a"ailments& income tareturns& statement o assets and liabilities& reimbursements or medication&hospitali*ation& etc. ( o( ;(u(+) )( u/( o; )( PRN, )( :())()( -+-( o; :u*l*+ u( + ;o*:l( *+;o)*o+ :/()ou )( (l(-)o+*- l*+=( o; )( >l(/.[55] ( ) y :()(( ;o *+;ul + u/(;ul o(+(+) 0u0o/(/ :u) )((


13/43

The abilit% o a sophisticated data center to $enerate acomprehensi"e -l()o( o//*( on an indi"idual and transmit ito"er a national networ# is one o the most $raphic threats o the computerre"olution.+:G- The computer is capable o producin$ a comprehensi"edossier on indi"iduals out o inormation $i"en at diferent times and or"aried purposes.+:H- It can continue addin$ to the stored data and #eepin$the inormation up to date. 3etrie"al o stored data is simple. 6heninormation o a pri"ile$ed character 2nds its wa% into the computer& it canbe etracted to$ether with other data on the subJect.+::- Once etracted& theinormation is putt% in the hands o an% person. The end o pri"ac% be$ins.

Thou$h A.O. No. /01 is undoubtedl% not narrowl% drawn& the dissentin$opinions would dismiss its dan$er to the ri$ht to pri"ac% as speculati"e andh%pothetical. A$ain& we cannot countenance such a laidbac# posture. TheCourt will not be true to its role as the ultimate $uardian o the people5slibert% i it would not immediatel% smother the spar#s that endan$er theirri$hts but would rather wait or the 2re that could consume them.

4( (@(-) )( u(+) o; )( Sol*-*)o G(+(l )) +*+**ul / (/o+:l( (owe"er& otheractors& such as customs& ph%sical surroundin$s and practices o a particularacti"it%& ma% ser"e to create or diminish this epectation.+:9- The use obiometrics and computer technolo$% in A.O. No. /01 does not assure theindi"idual o a reasonable epectation o pri"ac%.+0- As technolo$% ad"ances&the le"el o reasonabl% epected pri"ac% decreases.+,- The measure oprotection $ranted b% the reasonable epectation diminishes as rele"anttechnolo$% becomes more widel% accepted.+8- The securit% o the computerdata 2le depends not onl% on the ph%sical inaccessibilit% o the 2le but alsoon the ad"ances in hardware and sotware computer technolo$%. A.O. No.38 */ /o *(ly + )) *+*u /)+ ;o (/o+:l(

(


14/43

penali*es the disclosure b% an% person o data urnished b% the indi"idual tothe NO with imprisonment and 2ne.+/- 3epublic Act No. ,,:, prohibitspublic disclosure o emplo%ment records and reports. +G- These laws&howe"er& appl% to records and data with the NO and the . It is notclear whether the% ma% be applied to data with the other $o"ernmenta$encies ormin$ part o the National I7 %stem. The need to clari% thepenal aspect o A.O. No. /01 is another reason wh% its enactment should be$i"en to Con$ress.

Net& the olicitor Feneral ur$es us to "alidate A.O. No. /015s abrid$mento the ri$ht o pri"ac% b% usin$ the )*o+l (l)*o+/*0 )(/).+H->estressed that the purposes o A.O. No. /01 are4 ,D to streamline andspeed up the implementation o basic $o"ernment ser"ices&8D eradicate raud b% a"oidin$ duplication o ser"ices& and /D $eneratepopulation data or de"elopment plannin$. >e concludes that thesepurposes Justi% the incursions into the ri$ht to pri"ac% or the means arerationall% related to the end.+:-

6e are not impressed b% the ar$ument. In &o;( . &u)u-&+- weupheld the constitutionalit% o 3.A. /0,9& the AntiFrat and Corruptractices Act& as a "alid police power measure. 6e declared that the law& incompellin$ a public ocer to ma#e an annual report disclosin$ his assetsand liabilities& his sources o income and epenses& did not inrin$e on theindi"idual5s ri$ht to pri"ac%. The law was enacted to promote moralit% inpublic administration b% curtailin$ and minimi*in$ the opportunities orocial corruption and maintainin$ a standard o honest% in the publicser"ice.+1-

The same circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar. !or one& 3.A/0,9 is a statute& not an administrati"e order. econdl%& 3.A. /0,9 itsel issucientl% detailed. The law is clear on what practices were prohibited andpenali*ed& and it was narrowl% drawn to a"oid abuses. In the case at barA.O. No. /01 ma% ha"e been impelled b% a worth% purpose& but& it cannotpass constitutional scrutin% or it is not narrowl% drawn. A+ ( +o ol)) (+ )( *+)(*)y o; ;u+(+)l *) */ ) /)=(, )*/-ou) *ll *( )( -ll(+( l, *+*/))*( o(, ul( o

(ul)*o+ /)*-)( /-u)*+y. ") *ll +o) o ;o )( u)o*)*(/ )o*+o=( )( 0(/u0)*o+ o; (ul*)y *+ )( 0(;o+-( o; o?-*lu)*(/. No */ *) (+ou ;o )( u)o*)*(/ )o 0o( )) )(* -)*/ +o) *)*o+l ;o :/*- *) -+ :( **+*/(, *; +o) (;()(,((+ (+ )( o(+(+) o(/ +o) -) *)*o+lly. (y u/)/)*/;-)o*ly /o )( 0(/(+-( o; -o0(ll*+ /))( *+)((/)/ +)) )( l, ul(, o (ul)*o+ */ +oly + )o 0(-lu(:u/(/. This approach is demanded b% the ,91 Constitution whose entirematri is desi$ned to protect human ri$hts and to pre"ent

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn73http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn75http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn73http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn75http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn78


15/43

authoritarianism. In case o doubt& the least we can do is to lean towardsthe stance that will not put in dan$er the ri$hts protected b% theConstitution.

The case o 4l(+ . Ro(+9- cited b% the olicitor Feneral is also ofline. In 4l(+& the ;nited tates upreme Court was presented with the@uestion o whether the tate o New =or# could #eep a centrali*ed

computer record o the names and addresses o all persons who obtainedcertain dru$s pursuant to a doctor5s prescription. The New =or# tateControlled ubstances Act o ,98 re@uired ph%sicians to identi% patientsobtainin$ prescription dru$s enumerated in the statute& i.e.& dru$s with areco$ni*ed medical use but with a potential or abuse& so that the namesand addresses o the patients can be recorded in a centrali*ed computer 2leo the tate 7epartment o >ealth. The plaintifs& who were patients anddoctors& claimed that some people mi$ht decline necessar% medicationbecause o their ear that the computeri*ed data ma% be readil% a"ailableand open to public disclosure? and that once disclosed& it ma% sti$mati*ethem as dru$ addicts.+10- The plaintifs alle$ed that the statute in"aded aconstitutionall% protected *one o pri"ac%& i.e& the indi"idual interest ina"oidin$ disclosure o personal matters& and the interest in independence inma#in$ certain #inds o important decisions. The ;.. upreme Court heldthat while an indi"idual5s interest in a"oidin$ disclosure o personal mattersis an aspect o the ri$ht to pri"ac%& the statute did not pose a $rie"ousthreat to establish a constitutional "iolation. The Court ound that thestatute was necessar% to aid in the enorcement o laws desi$ned tominimi*e the misuse o dan$erous dru$s.( 0)*(+)*(+)*>-)*o+

(u*((+) / 0ou-) o; + o(ly + )*o+l l(*/l)*((-*/*o+ ( u0o+ (-o(+)*o+ :y /0(-*lly 00o*+)(-o*//*o+ *- (l (


16/43

ser"ices& more ecient mana$ement o credit and insurance pro$rams&impro"ement o telecommunications and streamlinin$ o 2nancial acti"ities.+1,- ;sed wisel%& data stored in the computer could help $ood administrationb% ma#in$ accurate and comprehensi"e inormation or those who ha"e torame polic% and ma#e #e% decisions.+18- The bene2ts o the computerhas re"olutioni*ed inormation technolo$%. It de"eloped the internet&+1/- introduced the concept o c%berspace+1G-and the inormationsuperhi$hwa% where the indi"idual& armed onl% with his personal computer&ma% sur and search all #inds and classes o inormation rom libraries anddatabases connected to the net.

"+ +o u+-()*+ )(/, ( l/o u+(/-o( )) )( *) )o0*-y o(/ +o) : ll *+-u/*o+/ *+)o *+**ul 0*-y. ( *)*/ +o) *+)(+( )o /)*I( /-*(+)*>- + )(-+olo*-l +-((+)/)) (++-( 0u:l*- /(*-( + )( -oo+ oo . It merel% re@uiresthat the law be narrowl% ocused+1H- and a compellin$ interest Justi% suchintrusions.+1:- Intrusions into the ri$ht must be accompanied b% propersae$uards and wellde2ned standards to pre"ent unconstitutionain"asions. 6e reiterate that an% law or order that in"ades indi"idual pri"ac%will be subJected b% this Court to strict scrutin%. The reason or this stancewas laid down in &o;( . &u)u-& to wit4

)The concept o limited $o"ernment has alwa%s included the idea that$o"ernmental powers stop short o certain intrusions into the personal lie othe citi*en. This is indeed one o the basic distinctions between absoluteand limited $o"ernment. ;ltimate and per"asi"e control o the indi"idual& in

all aspects o his lie& is the hallmar# o the absolute state. In contrast& as%stem o limited $o"ernment sae$uards a pri"ate sector& which belon$s tothe indi"idual& 2rml% distin$uishin$ it rom the public sector& which the statecan control. rotection o this pri"ate sector protection& in other words& othe di$nit% and inte$rit% o the indi"idual has become increasin$l%important as modern societ% has de"eloped. All the orces o a technolo$icala$e industriali*ation& urbani*ation& and or$ani*ation operate to narrowthe area o pri"ac% and acilitate intrusion into it. In modern terms& thecapacit% to maintain and support this encla"e o pri"ate lie mar#s thediference between a democratic and a totalitarian societ%.)+1-

"%

( *) )o 0*-y */ o+( o; )( o/) )()(+( *)/ o; +l**+ *+ // /o-*()y. The threats emanate rom "arious sources$o"ernments& Journalists& emplo%ers& social scientists& etc.+11- In the case atbar& the threat comes rom the eecuti"e branch o $o"ernment which b%issuin$ A.O. No. /01 pressures the people to surrender their pri"ac% b%$i"in$ inormation about themsel"es on the pretet that it will acilitate

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn81http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn83http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn84http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn85http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn86http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn87http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn81http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn83http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn84http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn85http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn86http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn87http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn88


17/43

deli"er% o basic ser"ices. G*(+ )( (-o=((0*+ 0o( o; )(-o0u)(, o+ly )( *+*((+) *ll ;*l )o 0(-(*( )( +()) A.O. No. 38 *(/ )( o(+(+) )( 0o( )o -o0*l( (/))*+ o//*( *+/) u+/u/0(-)*+ -*)*C(+/. It is timel% to ta#enote o the wellworded warnin$ o Mal"in& (r.& )the disturbin$ result could bethat e"er%one will li"e burdened b% an unerasable record o his past and hislimitations. In a wa%& the threat is that because o its record#eepin$& thesociet% will ha"e lost its beni$n capacit% to or$et.)+19- Obli"ious to thiscounsel& the dissents still sa% we should not be too @uic# in labellin$ theri$ht to pri"ac% as a undamental ri$ht. 6e close with the statement thatthe ri$ht to pri"ac% was not en$ra"ed in our Constitution or atter%.

"N %"E4 4#EREOF& the petition is $ranted and Administrati"e OrderNo. /01 entitled )Adoption o a National Computeri*ed Identi2cation3eerence %stem) declared null and "oid or bein$ unconstitutional.

SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1936. A0*l 2, 22]

&A. J. ANGEL"NA G. &A"BAG, petitioner, vs. ALFREDO L. BEN"PAHO,RESURRE$$"ON . BORRA, FLOREN"NO A. UASON, JR., %EL&A J. $"N$O, + G"DEON $. DE GU&AN *+ */ -0-*)y / O?-("+$(, F*++-( S(*-(/ D(0)(+) o; )( $o*//*o+ o+El(-)*o+/, respondents.

D E $ " S " O N

$ARP"O, J.'

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_edn89


18/43

( $/(

Beore us is an ori$inal etition or rohibition with pra%er or theissuance o a writ o preliminar% inJunction and a temporar% restrainin$order under 3ule :H o the ,99 3ules o Ci"il rocedure. etitioner 'a. (An$elina F. 'atiba$ PetitionerQ or bre"it%D @uestions the constitutionalit%

o the appointment and the ri$ht to hold oce o the ollowin$4 ,D AlredoL. Benipa%o PBenipa%oQ or bre"it%D as Chairman o the Commission onElections PCO'ELECQ or bre"it%D? and 8D 3esurreccion


19/43

to the same positions.+9- The Oce o the resident submitted theirappointments or con2rmation to the Commission on Appointments. +,0- The%too# their oaths o oce anew.

In his capacit% as CO'ELEC Chairman& Benipa%o issued a 'emorandumdated April ,,& 800,+,,- addressed to petitioner as 7irector IV o the EI7 andto Cinco as 7irector III also o the EI7& desi$natin$ Cinco OcerinChar$e o

the EI7 and reassi$nin$ petitioner to the Law 7epartment. CO'ELEC EI7CommissionerinChar$e 'ehol M. adain obJected to petitionerRsreassi$nment in a 'emorandum dated April ,G& 800,+,8- addressed to theCO'ELEC en banc&peci2call%& Commissioner adain @uestioned Benipa%oRsailure to consult the CommissionerinChar$e o the EI7 in the reassi$nmento petitioner.

On April ,:& 800,& petitioner re@uested Benipa%o to reconsider her relieas 7irector IV o the EI7 and her reassi$nment to the Law 7epartment.+,/- etitioner cited Ci"il er"ice Commission 'emorandum Circular No.

dated April ,0& 800,& remindin$ heads o $o"ernment oces that Ptranserand detail o emplo%ees are prohibited durin$ the election period be$innin$

(anuar% 8 until (une ,/& 800,.Q Benipa%o denied her re@uest orreconsideration on April ,1& 800,&+,G- citin$ CO'ELEC 3esolution No. //00dated No"ember :& 8000& which states in part4

PNO6& T>E3E!O3E& the Commission on Elections b% "irtue o the powersconerred upon it b% the Constitution& the Omnibus Election Code and otherelection laws& as an eception to the ore$oin$ prohibitions& has 3EOLVE7&as it is hereb% 3EOLVE7& to appoint& hire new emplo%ees or 2ll newpositions and transer or reassi$n its personnel& when necessar% in theefecti"e perormance o its mandated unctions durin$ the prohibitedperiod& pro"ided that the chan$es in the assi$nment o its 2eld personnelwithin the thirt%da% period beore election da% shall be efected ater duenotice and hearin$.Q

etitioner appealed the denial o her re@uest or reconsideration to theCO'ELEC en banc in a 'emorandum dated April 8/& 800,.+,H- etitioner also2led an administrati"e and criminal complaint+,:- with the Law

7epartment+,-

a$ainst Benipa%o& alle$in$ that her reassi$nment "iolatedection 8:, hD o the Omnibus Election Code& CO'ELEC 3esolution No./8H1& Ci"il er"ice 'emorandum Circular No. 0& s. 00,& and other pertinentadministrati"e and ci"il ser"ice laws& rules and re$ulations.

7urin$ the pendenc% o her complaint beore the Law 7epartment&petitioner 2led the instant petition @uestionin$ the appointment and theri$ht to remain in oce o Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason& as Chairman andCommissioners o the CO'ELEC& respecti"el%. etitioner claims that the adinterim appointments o Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason "iolate the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn17


20/43

constitutional pro"isions on the independence o the CO'ELEC& as well ason the prohibitions on temporar% appointments and reappointments o itsChairman and members. etitioner also assails as ille$al her remo"al as7irector IV o the EI7 and her reassi$nment to the Law7epartment. imultaneousl%& petitioner challen$es the desi$nation oCinco as OcerinChar$e o the EI7. etitioner& moreo"er& @uestions thele$alit% o the disbursements made b% CO'ELEC !inance er"ices7epartment OcerinChar$e Fideon C. 7e Fu*man to Benipa%o& Borra and

Tuason b% wa% o salaries and other emoluments.

In the meantime& on eptember :& 800,& resident 'acapa$al Arro%orenewed once a$ain the ad interim appointments o Benipa%o as CO'ELECChairman and Borra and Tuason as Commissioners& respecti"el%& or a termo se"en %ears epirin$ on !ebruar% 8& 8001. +,1- The% all too# their oaths ooce anew.

( "//u(/

The issues or resolution o this Court are as ollows4

,. 6hether or not the instant petition satis2es all the re@uirementsbeore this Court ma% eercise its power o Judicial re"iew inconstitutional cases?

8. 6hether or not the assumption o oce b% Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason on the basis o the ad interim appointments issued b% the

resident amounts to a temporar% appointment prohibited b%ection , 8D& Article IC o the Constitution?

/. Assumin$ that the 2rst ad interim appointments and the 2rstassumption o oce b% Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason are le$al&whether or not the renewal o their ad interim appointments andsubse@uent assumption o oce to the same positions "iolate theprohibition on reappointment under ection , 8D& Article IC o theConstitution?

G. 6hether or not Benipa%oRs remo"al o petitioner rom her positionas 7irector IV o the EI7 and her reassi$nment to the Law7epartment is ille$al and without authorit%& ha"in$ been donewithout the appro"al o the CO'ELEC as a colle$ial bod%?

H. 6hether or not the OcerinChar$e o the CO'ELECRs !inanceer"ices 7epartment& in continuin$ to ma#e disbursements in a"oro Benipa%o& Borra& Tuason and Cinco& is actin$ in ecess o

Jurisdiction.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn18


21/43

First Issue: Propriety of Judicial Review

3espondents assert that the petition ails to satis% all the our re@uisitesbeore this Court ma% eercise its power o Judicial re"iew in constitutionalcases. Out o respect or the acts o the Eecuti"e department& which iscoe@ual with this Court& respondents ur$e this Court to rerain rom

re"iewin$ the constitutionalit% o thead interim appointments issued b% theresident to Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason unless all the our re@uisites arepresent. These are4 ,D the eistence o an actual and appropriatecontro"ers%? 8D a personal and substantial interest o the part% raisin$ theconstitutional issue? /D the eercise o the Judicial re"iew is pleaded at theearliest opportunit%? and GD the constitutional issue is the lis mota o thecase.+,9-

3espondents ar$ue that the second& third and ourth re@uisites areabsent in this case. 3espondents maintain that petitioner does not ha"e a

personal and substantial interest in the case because she has not sustaineda direct inJur% as a result o the ad interim appointments o Benipa%o& Borraand Tuason and their assumption o oce. 3espondents point out thatpetitioner does not claim to be lawull% entitled to an% o the positionsassumed b% Benipa%o& Borra or Tuason. Neither does petitioner claim to bedirectl% inJured b% the appointments o these three respondents.

3espondents also contend that petitioner ailed to @uestion theconstitutionalit% o the ad interim appointments at the earliestopportunit%. etitioner 2led the petition onl% on Au$ust /& 800, despite the

act that the ad interim appointments o Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason wereissued as earl% as 'arch 88& 800,. 'oreo"er& the petition was 2led ater thethird time that these three respondents were issued adinterim appointments.

3espondents insist that the real issue in this case is the le$alit% opetitionerRs reassi$nment rom the EI7 to the Law7epartment. Conse@uentl%& the constitutionalit% o the adinterim appointments is not the lis mota o this case.

6e are not persuaded.

Benipa%o reassi$ned petitioner rom the EI7& where she was Actin$7irector& to the Law 7epartment& where she was placed on detail ser"ice.+80- 3espondents claim that the reassi$nment was K pursuant to x x xBenipayo’s authority as Chairan of the Coission on !lections,and as the Coission’s Chief !xecutive "#cer .+8,- E"identl%&respondents anchor the le$alit% o petitionerRs reassi$nment on Benipa%oRsauthorit% as Chairman o the CO'ELEC. The real issue then turns onwhether or not Benipa%o is the lawul Chairman o the CO'ELEC. E"en i

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn21


22/43

petitioner is onl% an Actin$ 7irector o the EI7& her reassi$nment is withoutle$al basis i Benipa%o is not the lawul CO'ELEC Chairman& an ocecreated b% the Constitution.

On the other hand& i Benipa%o is the lawul CO'ELEC Chairman becausehe assumed oce in accordance with the Constitution& then petitionerRsreassi$nment is le$al and she has no cause to complain pro"ided the

reassi$nment is in accordance with the Ci"il er"ice Law. Clearl%& petitionerhas a personal and material sta#e in the resolution o the constitutionalit% oBenipa%oRs assumption o oce. etitionerRs personal and substantiainJur%& i Benipa%o is not the lawul CO'ELEC Chairman& clothes her with there@uisite locus standi to raise the constitutional issue in this petition.

3espondents harp on petitionerRs belated act o @uestionin$ theconstitutionalit% o the ad interim appointments o Benipa%o& Borra and

Tuason. etitioner 2led the instant petition onl% on Au$ust /& 800,& whenthe 2rst ad interim appointments were issued as earl% as 'arch 88& 800,.

>owe"er& it is not the date o 2lin$ o the petition that determines whetherthe constitutional issue was raised at the earliest opportunit%. The earliestopportunit% to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadin$sbeore a competent court that can resol"e the same& such that& Pi it is notraised in the pleadin$s& it cannot be considered at the trial& and& i notconsidered at the trial& it cannot be considered on appeal.Q +88- etitioner@uestioned the constitutionalit% o the ad interim appointments o Benipa%o&Borra and Tuason when she 2led her petition beore this Court& which is theearliest opportunit% or pleadin$ the constitutional issue beore a competentbod%. !urthermore& this Court ma% determine& in the eercise o sounddiscretion& the time when a constitutional issue ma% be passed upon.+8/- There is no doubt petitioner raised the constitutional issue on time.

'oreo"er& the le$alit% o petitionerRs reassi$nment hin$es on theconstitutionalit% o Benipa%oRs ad interim appointment and assumption ooce. ;nless the constitutionalit% o Benipa%oRs ad interim appointmentand assumption o oce is resol"ed& the le$alit% o petitionerRsreassi$nment rom the EI7 to the Law 7epartment cannot bedetermined. Clearl%& the lis mota o this case is the "er% constitutional issue

raised b% petitioner.In an% e"ent& the issue raised b% petitioner is o paramount importance

to the public. The le$alit% o the directi"es and decisions made b% theCO'ELEC in the conduct o the 'a% ,G& 800, national elections ma% be putin doubt i the constitutional issue raised b% petitioner is let unresol"ed. In#eepin$ with this CourtRs dut% to determine whether other a$encies o$o"ernment ha"e remained within the limits o the Constitution and ha"enot abused the discretion $i"en them& this Court ma% e"en brush asidetechnicalities o procedure and resol"e an% constitutional issue raised.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn23


23/43

+8G- >ere the petitioner has complied with all the re@uisite technicalities.'oreo"er& public interest re@uires the resolution o the constitutional issueraised b% petitioner.

$econd Issue: %he &ature of an 'd Interi 'ppointent

etitioner ar$ues that an ad interim appointment to the CO'ELEC is atemporar% appointment that is prohibited b% ection , 8D& Article IC o theConstitution& which pro"ides as ollows4

The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed b% the residentwith the consent o the Commission on Appointments or a term o se"en%ears without reappointment. O those 2rst appointed& three 'embers shallhold oce or se"en %ears& two 'embers or 2"e %ears& and the last'embers or three %ears& without reappointment. Appointment to an%

"acanc% shall be onl% or the unepired term o the predecessor. In no caseshall any (e)er )e appointed or desi*nated in a teporary oractin* capacity .Q Emphasis suppliedD

etitioner posits the "iew that an ad interim appointment can be withdrawnor re"o#ed b% the resident at her pleasure& and can e"en be disappro"ed orsimpl% b%passed b% the Commission on Appointments. !or this reason&petitioner claims that an ad interim appointment is temporar% in characterand conse@uentl% prohibited b% the last sentence o ection , 8D& Article IC o the Constitution.

Based on petitionerRs theor%& there can be no ad interim appointment tothe CO'ELEC or to the other two constitutional commissions& namel% theCi"il er"ice Commission and the Commission on Audit. The last sentenceo ection , 8D& Article IC o the Constitution is also ound in Article IBand Article I7 pro"idin$ or the creation o the Ci"il er"ice Commissionand the Commission on Audit& respecti"el%. etitioner interprets the lastsentence o ection , 8D o Article IC to mean that the adinterim appointee cannot assume oce until his appointment is con2rmedb% the Commission on Appointments or onl% then does his appointmentbecome permanent and no lon$er temporar% in character.

The rationale behind petitionerRs theor% is that onl% an appointee who iscon2rmed b% the Commission on Appointments can $uarantee theindependence o the CO'ELEC. A con2rmed appointee is be%ond theinuence o the resident or members o the Commission on Appointmentssince his appointment can no lon$er be recalled or disappro"ed. rior to hiscon2rmation& the appointee is at the merc% o both the appointin$ andcon2rmin$ powers since his appointment can be terminated at an% time or



24/43

an% cause. In the words o petitioner& a word o 7amocles han$s o"er thehead o e"er% appointee whose con2rmation is pendin$ with theCommission on Appointments.

6e 2nd petitionerRs ar$ument without merit.

An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it ta#esefect immediatel% and can no lon$er be withdrawn b% the resident once

the appointee has @uali2ed into oce. The act that it is subJect tocon2rmation b% the Commission on Appointments does not alter itspermanent character. The Constitution itsel ma#es an adinterim appointment permanent in character b% ma#in$ it efecti"e untildisappro"ed b% the Commission on Appointments or until the netadJournment o Con$ress. The second para$raph o ection ,:& Article VII othe Constitution pro"ides as ollows4

PThe resident shall ha"e the power to ma#e appointments durin$ the

recess o the Con$ress& whether "oluntar% or compulsor%& but suchappointments shall be e+ective only until disappro"al b% the Commissionon Appointments or until the net adJournment o the Con$ress.Q EmphasissuppliedD

Thus& the ad interim appointment remains e+ective until such disappro"aor net adJournment& si$ni%in$ that it can no lon$er be withdrawn orre"o#ed b% the resident. The ear that the resident can withdraw orre"o#e at an% time and or an% reason an ad interim appointment is utterl%without basis.

'ore than hal a centur% a$o& this Court had alread% ruled that an adinterim appointment is permanent in character. In Summers $s& %zaeta.+8H- decided on October 8H& ,9G1& we held that4

P an ad interim appointment is one made in pursuance o para$raphGD& ection ,0& Article VII o the Constitution& which pro"ides that theSresident shall ha"e the power to ma#e appointments durin$ the recess othe Con$ress& but such appointments shall be efecti"e onl% untildisappro"al b% the Commission on Appointments or until the net

adJournment o the Con$ress.R It is an appointent peranent innature, and the circustance that it is su)ect to con-ration )ythe Coission on 'ppointents does not alter its peranentcharacter & An ad interim appointment is disappro"ed certainl% or a reasonother than that its pro"isional period has epired. aid appointment is ocourse distin$uishable rom an Sactin$R appointment which is merel%temporar%& $ood until another permanent appointment isissued.Q Emphasis suppliedD



25/43

The Constitution imposes no condition on the efecti"it% o an adinterim appointment& and thus an ad interim appointment ta#es efectimmediatel%. The appointee can at once assume oce and eercise& asa de /ure ocer& all the powers pertainin$ to the oce. In 0acete $s&Secretary of the Commission on Appointments.+8:- this Court elaborated onthe nature o an ad interim appointment as ollows4

PA distinction is thus made between the eercise o such presidentialprero$ati"e re@uirin$ con2rmation b% the Commission on Appointmentswhen Con$ress is in session and when it is in recess. In the ormer& theresident nominates& and onl% upon the consent o the Commission onAppointments ma% the person thus named assume oce. It is not so withreference to ad interi appointents. It taes e+ect at once. %heindividual chosen ay thus /ualify and perfor his functionwithout loss of tie. 0is title to such o#ce is coplete. In thelan$ua$e o the Constitution& the appointment is efecti"e Suntil disappro"al

b% the Commission on Appointments or until the net adJournment o theCon$ress.RQ

etitioner cites Blac#Rs Law 7ictionar% which de2nes the term PadinterimQ to mean Pin the meantimeQ or Por the time bein$.Q >ence&petitioner ar$ues that anad interim appointment is undoubtedl% temporar%in character. This ar$ument is not new and was answered b% this Courtin 0amantasan ng Lungsod ng 1aynila$s& Intermediate Appellate Court.+8- where we eplained that4

P !rom the ar$uments& it is eas% to see wh% the petitioner shouldeperience dicult% in understandin$ the situation. ri"ate respondent hadbeen etended se"eral Sad interimR appointments which petitionermista#enl% understands as appointments temporar% in nature. erhaps& it isthe literal translation o the word Sad interimR which creates such belie. Theterm is de2ned b% Blac# to mean Pin the meantimeQ or Por the timebein$Q. Thus& an ocer ad interim is one appointed to 2ll a "acanc%& or todischar$e the duties o the oce durin$ the absence or temporar%incapacit% o its re$ular incumbent Blac#Rs Law 7ictionar%& 3e"ised !ourth

Edition& ,91D. But such is not the meanin$ nor the use intended in thecontet o hilippine law. In reerrin$ to 7r. EstebanRs appointments& theterm is not descripti"e o the nature o the appointments $i"en tohim. Rather, it is used to denote the anner in which saidappointents were ade, that is, done )y the President of thePaantasan in the eantie, while the Board of Re*ents, which isori*inally vested )y the 1niversity Charter with the power ofappointent, is una)le to act . .Q Emphasis suppliedD



26/43

Thus& the term Pad interim appointmentQ& as used in letters oappointment si$ned b% the resident& means a permanent appointmentmade b% the resident in the eantie that Con*ress is in recess. Itdoes not mean a temporar% appointment that can be withdrawn or re"o#edat an% time. The term& althou$h not ound in the tet o the Constitution&has ac@uired a de2nite le$al meanin$ under hilippine Jurisprudence. TheCourt had a$ain occasion to eplain the nature o anad interim appointmentin the more recent case o 1arohombsar $s& Court of Appeals.+81- where theCourt stated4

P6e ha"e alread% mentioned that an ad interim appointment is notdescripti"e o the nature o the appointment& that is& it is not indicati"e owhether the appointment is temporar% or in an actin$ capacit%& rather itdenotes the manner in which the appointment was made. In the instantcase& the appointment etended to pri"ate respondent b% then ';resident Alonto& (r. was issued without condition nor limitation as to tenure.

The permanent status o pri"ate respondentRs appointment as Eecuti"eAssistant II was reco$ni*ed and attested to b% the Ci"il er"ice Commission3e$ional Oce No. ,8. Petitioner’s su)ission that privaterespondent’s ad interi appointent is synonyous with ateporary appointent which could )e validly terinated at anytie is clearly untena)le. 'd interi appointents are peranent)ut their ters are only until the Board disapprovesthe&Q Emphasis suppliedD

An ad interim appointee who has @uali2ed and assumed oce becomes

at that moment a $o"ernment emplo%ee and thereore part o the ci"ilser"ice. >e enJo%s the constitutional protection that Q+n-o ocer oremplo%ee in the ci"il ser"ice shall be remo"ed or suspended ecept orcause pro"ided b% law.Q+89- Thus& anadinterim appointment becomes complete and irre"ocable once theappointee has @uali2ed into oce. The withdrawal or re"ocation o an adinterimappointment is possible onl% i it is communicated to the appointeebeore the moment he @uali2es& and an% withdrawal or re"ocation thereateris tantamount to remo"al rom oce.+/0- Once an appointee has @uali2ed& he

ac@uires a le$al ri$ht to the oce which is protected not onl% b% statute butalso b% the Constitution. >e can onl% be remo"ed or cause& ater noticeand hearin$& consistent with the re@uirements o due process.

An ad interim appointment can be terminated or two causes speci2ed inthe Constitution. The 2rst cause is the disappro"al o his adinterim appointment b% the Commission on Appointments. The secondcause is the adJournment o Con$ress without the Commission onAppointments actin$ on his appointment. These two causes are resolutor%conditions epressl% imposed b% the Constitution on all ad



27/43

interim appointments. These resolutor% conditions constitute& in efect& aword o 7amocles o"er the heads o ad interim appointees. No one&howe"er& can complain because it is the Constitution itsel that places theword o 7amocles o"er the heads o the ad interim appointees.

6hile an ad interim appointment is permanent and irre"ocable ecept aspro"ided b% law& an appointment or desi$nation in a temporar% or actin$

capacit% can be withdrawn or re"o#ed at the pleasure o the appointin$power.+/,- A temporar% or actin$ appointee does not enJo% an% securit% otenure& no matter how brie%. This is the #ind o appointment that theConstitution prohibits the resident rom ma#in$ to the three independentconstitutional commissions& includin$ the CO'ELEC. Thus& in 2rillantes $s&3orac.+/8- this Court struc# downas unconstitutional the desi$nation b% then resident Cora*on A@uino oAssociate Commissioner >a%dee =orac as Actin$ Chairperson o theCO'ELEC. This Court ruled that4

PA desi$nation as Actin$ Chairman is b% its "er% terms essentiall%temporar% and thereore re"ocable at will. No cause need beestablished to Justi% its re"ocation. Assumin$ its "alidit%& thedesi$nation o the respondent as Actin$ Chairman o the Commissionon Elections ma% be withdrawn b% the resident o the hilippines atan% time and or whate"er reason she sees 2t. It is doubtul i therespondent& ha"in$ accepted such desi$nation& will not be estoppedrom challen$in$ its withdrawal.

The Constitution pro"ides or man% sae$uards to the independenceo the Commission on Elections& oremost amon$ which is the securit%o tenure o its members. That $uarantee is not a"ailable to therespondent as Actin$ Chairman o the Commission on Elections b%desi$nation o the resident o the hilippines.Q

Earlier& in Nacionalista 0arty $s& 2autista.+//- a case decided under the,9/H Constitution& which did not ha"e a pro"ision prohibitin$ temporar% or

actin$ appointments to the CO'ELEC& this Court ne"ertheless declaredunconstitutional the desi$nation o the olicitor Feneral as actin$ membero the CO'ELEC. This Court ruled that the desi$nation o an actin$Commissioner would undermine the independence o the CO'ELEC andhence "iolate the Constitution. 6e declared then4 PIt would be more in#eepin$ with the intent& purpose and aim o the ramers o the Constitutionto appoint a peranent Commissioner than to desi$nate one to acttemporaril%.Q Emphasis suppliedD



28/43

In the instant case& the resident did in act appoint permanentCommissioners to 2ll the "acancies in the CO'ELEC& subJect onl% tocon2rmation b% the Commission on Appointments. Benipa%o& Borra and

Tuason were etended permanent appointments durin$ the recess oCon$ress. The% were not appointed or desi$nated in a temporar% or actin$capacit%& unli#e Commissioner >a%dee =orac in 2rillantes $s& 3orac+/G- andolicitor Feneral !eli Bautista in Nacionalista 0arty $s& 2autista.+/H- The adinterim appointments o Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason are epressl% allowedb% the Constitution which authori*es the resident& durin$ the recess oCon$ress& to ma#e appointments that ta#e efect immediatel%.

6hile the Constitution mandates that the CO'ELEC Pshall beindependentQ+/:-& this pro"ision should be harmoni*ed with the residentRspower to etend ad interim appointments. To hold that the independence othe CO'ELEC re@uires the Commission on Appointments to 2rst con2rm adinterim appointees beore the appointees can assume oce will ne$ate theresidentRs power to ma#e ad interim appointments. This is contrar% to therule on statutor% construction to $i"e meanin$ and efect to e"er% pro"isiono the law. It will also run counter to the clear intent o the ramers o theConstitution.

The ori$inal drat o ection ,:& Article VII o the Constitution on thenomination o ocers subJect to con2rmation b% the Commission onAppointments did not pro"ide or ad interim appointments. The ori$inaintention o the ramers o the Constitution was to do awa% with adinterim appointments because the plan was or Con$ress to remain insession throu$hout the %ear ecept or a brie /0da% compulsor%recess. >owe"er& because o the need to a"oid disruptions in essentia$o"ernment ser"ices& the ramers o the Constitution thou$ht it wise toreinstate the pro"isions o the ,9/H Constitution on adinterim appointments. The ollowin$ discussion durin$ the deliberations othe Constitutional Commission elucidates this4

P!3. BE3NA4 our compulsor% recess now is onl% /0 da%s. o undersuch circumstances& is it necessar% to pro"ide or adinterimappointments erhaps there should be a little discussion on that.

'. AK;INO4 '% concern is that unless this problem is addressed& thisi*ht present pro)les in ters of anticipatin* interruption of*overnent )usiness& considerin$ that we are not certain o the len$th oin"oluntar% recess or adJournment o the Con$ress. 6e are certain&howe"er& o the in"oluntar% adJournment o the Con$ress which is /0 da%s&but we cannot lea"e to conJecture the matter o in"oluntar% recess.



29/43

!3. BE3NA4 That is correct& but we are tr%in$ to loo# or a ormula. Iwonder i the Commissioner has a ormula .

'3. BENF AOINT'ENT >ALL BEE!!ECTIVE ONL= ;NTIL 7IA3OVAL B= T>E CO''IION ONAOINT'ENT O3 ;NTIL T>E NET A7(O;3N'ENT O! T>E CONF3E.

This is otherwise called the ad interim appointments.

T>E 3EI7ENT4 Is there an% obJection to the proposed amendment oCommissioners A@uino and Ben$*on& addin$ a para$raph to the lastpara$raph o ection ,: SilenceD The Chair hears none? the amendment isappro"ed.Q+/- Emphasis suppliedD

Clearl%& the reinstatement in the present Constitution o the adinterim appointin$ power o the resident was or the purpose o a"oidin$

interruptions in "ital $o"ernment ser"ices that otherwise would result romprolon$ed "acancies in $o"ernment oces& includin$ the threeconstitutional commissions. In his concurrin$ opinion in 4ue$ara $s&Inocentes&+/1- decided under the ,9/H Constitution& (ustice 3obertoConcepcion& (r. eplained the rationale behind ad interimappointments inthis manner4

PNow& wh% is the lietime o ad interim appointments so limited Because& ithe% epired beore the session o Con$ress& the evil sou*ht to )eavoided 2 interruption in the dischar*e of essential functions U ma%

ta#e place. Because the same e"il would result i the appointments ceasedto be efecti"e durin$ the session o Con$ress and beore itsadJournment. ;pon the other hand& once Con$ress has adJourned& the e"ilaorementioned ma% easil% be conJured b% the issuance o other adinterim appointments or reappointments.Q Emphasis suppliedD

Indeed& the timel% application o the last sentence o ection ,:& ArticleVII o the Constitution barel% a"oided the interruption o essentia$o"ernment ser"ices in the 'a% 800, national elections. !ollowin$ the



30/43

decision o this Court in 4aminde $s& Commission on Appointments.+/9- promul$ated on 7ecember ,/& 8000& the terms o oce o constitutionalocers 2rst appointed under the Constitution would ha"e to be countedstartin$ !ebruar% 8& ,91& the date o rati2cation o the Constitution&re$ardless o the date o their actual appointment. B% this rec#onin$& theterms o oce o three Commissioners o the CO'ELEC& includin$ theChairman& would end on !ebruar% 8& 800,.+G0-

Then CO'ELEC Chairperson >arriet O. 7emetriou was appointed onl% on (anuar% ,,& 8000 to ser"e& pursuant to her appointment papers& until!ebruar% ,H& 8008&+G,- the ori$inal epir% date o the term o herpredecessor& (ustice Bernardo . ardo& who was ele"ated to this Court. Theori$inal epir% date o the term o Commissioner Teresita 7%Liacco !loreswas also !ebruar% ,H& 8008& while that o Commissioner (ulio !. 7esamitowas No"ember /& 800,.+G8- The ori$inal epir% dates o the terms o oce oChairperson 7emetriou and Commissioners !lores and 7esamito werethereore supposed to all after the 'a% 800, elections. uddenl% andunepectedl%& because o the 4aminde rulin$& there were three "acancies inthe se"enperson CO'ELEC& with national elections loomin$ less than threeand onehal months awa%. To their credit& Chairperson 7emetriou andCommissioner !lores "acated their oces on !ebruar% 8& 800, and did not@uestion an% more beore this Court the applicabilit% o the 4aminde rulin$to their own situation.

In a 'aniestation+G/- dated 7ecember 81& 8000 2led with this Court inthe 4aminde case& Chairperson 7emetriou stated that she was "acatin$ heroce on !ebruar% 8& 800,& as she belie"ed an% dela% in choosin$ hersuccessor mi$ht create a Pconstitutional crisisQ in "iew o the proimit% othe 'a% 800, national elections. Commissioner 7esamito chose to 2le apetition or inter"ention+GG- in the 4aminde case but this Court denied theinter"ention. Thus& Commissioner 7esamito also "acated his oce on!ebruar% 8& 800,.

7urin$ an election %ear& Con$ress normall% $oes on "oluntar% recessbetween !ebruar% and (une considerin$ that man% o the members o the>ouse o 3epresentati"es and the enate run or reelection. In 800,& the

Ele"enth Con$ress adJourned rom (anuar% 9& 800, to (une /& 800,.+GH- Concededl%& there was no more time or Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason&who were ori$inall% etended ad interim appointments onl% on 'arch 88&800,& to be con2rmed b% the Commission on Appointments beore the 'a%,G& 800, elections.

I Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason were not etended adinterim appointments to 2ll up the three "acancies in the CO'ELEC& therewould onl% ha"e been one di"ision unctionin$ in the CO'ELEC instead otwo durin$ the 'a% 800, elections. Considerin$ that the Constitution

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn45


31/43

re@uires that Pall election cases shall be heard and decided indi"isionQ&+G:- the remainin$ one di"ision would ha"e been swamped withelection cases. 'oreo"er& since under the Constitution motions orreconsideration Pshall be decided b% the Commission en bancQ& the mereabsence o one o the our remainin$ members would ha"e pre"ented a@uorum& a less than ideal situation considerin$ that the Commissioners areepected to tra"el around the countr% beore& durin$ and ater theelections. There was a $reat probabilit% that disruptions in the conduct othe 'a% 800, elections could occur because o the three "acancies in theCO'ELEC. The successul conduct o the 'a% 800, national elections& ri$htater the tumultuous E7A II and E7A III e"ents& was certainl% essential insae$uardin$ and stren$thenin$ our democrac%.

E"identl%& the eercise b% the resident in the instant case o herconstitutional power to ma#e ad interim appointments pre"ented theoccurrence o the "er% e"il sou$ht to be a"oided b% the second para$raph oection ,:& Article VII o the Constitution. This power to ma#e adinterim appointments is lod$ed in the resident to be eercised b% her in hersound Jud$ment. ;nder the second para$raph o ection ,:& Article VII othe Constitution& the resident can choose either o two modes in appointin$ocials who are subJect to con2rmation b% the Commission onAppointments. !irst& while Con$ress is in session& the resident ma%nominate the prospecti"e appointee& and pendin$ consent o theCommission on Appointments& the nominee cannot @uali% and assumeoce. econd& durin$ the recess o Con$ress& the resident ma% etendan ad interim appointment which allows the appointee to immediatel%

@uali% and assume oce.6hether the resident chooses to nominate the prospecti"e appointee or

etend an ad interim appointment is a matter within the prero$ati"e o theresident because the Constitution $rants her that power. This Court cannotin@uire into the propriet% o the choice made b% the resident in theeercise o her constitutional power& absent $ra"e abuse o discretionamountin$ to lac# or ecess o Jurisdiction on her part& which has not beenshown in the instant case.

The issuance b% residents o ad interim appointments to the CO'ELECis a lon$standin$ practice. !ormer resident Cora*on A@uino issuedan ad interimappointment to Commissioner Alredo E. Abue$.+G- !ormerresident !idel V. 3amos etended ad interim appointments toCommissioners (ulio !. 7esamito& (apal '. Fuiani& Fraduacion A. 3e%esClara"all and 'anolo !. Forospe.+G1- !ormer resident (oseph Estrada alsoetended ad interim appointments to Commissioners Abdul Fani ''arohombsar& Lu*"iminda Tancan$co& 'ehol M. adain and 3alph C. Lantion.+G9-

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/149036.htm#_edn49


32/43

The residentRs power to etend ad interim appointments ma% indeedbrie% put the appointee at the merc% o both the appointin$ and con2rmin$powers. This situation& howe"er& is onl% or a short period rom the time oissuance o the ad interim appointment until the Commission onAppointments $i"es or withholds its consent. The Constitution itselsanctions this situation& as a tradeof a$ainst the e"il o disruptions in "ital$o"ernment ser"ices. This is also part o the chec#andbalance under theseparation o powers& as a tradeof a$ainst the e"il o $rantin$ theresident absolute and sole power to appoint. The Constitution has wisel%subJected the residentRs appointin$ power to the chec#in$ power o thele$islature.

This situation& howe"er& does not compromise the independence o theCO'ELEC as a constitutional bod%. The "acancies in the CO'ELEC areprecisel% sta$$ered to insure that the maJorit% o its members holdcon2rmed appointments& and not one resident will appoint all theCO'ELEC members.+H0- In the instant case& the Commission onAppointments had lon$ con2rmed our+H,- o the incumbent CO'ELECmembers& comprisin$ a maJorit%& who could now be remo"ed rom oceonl% b% impeachment. The special constitutional sae$uards that insure theindependence o the CO'ELEC remain in place.+H8- The CO'ELEC enJo%s2scal autonom%& appoints its own ocials and emplo%ees& and promul$atesits own rules on pleadin$s and practice. 'oreo"er& the salaries o CO'ELECmembers cannot be decreased durin$ their tenure.

In 2ne& we rule that the ad interim appointments etended b% theresident to Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason& as CO'ELEC Chairman andCommissioners& respecti"el%& do not constitute temporar% or actin$appointments prohibited b% ection , 8D& Article IC o the Constitution.

%hird Issue: %he Constitutionality of Renewals of 'ppointents

etitioner also a$ues that assumin$ the 2rst ad interim appointmentsand the 2rst assumption o oce b% Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason areconstitutional& the renewal o the their ad interim appointments and their

subse@uent assumption o oce to the same positions "iolate theprohibition on reappointment under ection , 8D& Article IC o theConstitution& which pro"ides as ollows4

PThe Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed b% the residentwith the consent o the Commission on Appointments or a term o se"en%ears without reappointent . O those 2rst appointed& three 'embersshall hold oce or se"en %ears& two 'embers or 2"e %ears& and the last



33/43

members or three %ears& without reappointent . .Q EmphasissuppliedD

etitioner theori*es that once an ad interim appointee is b%passed b% theCommission on Appointments& his ad interim appointment can no lon$er berenewed because this will "iolate ection , 8D& Article IC o theConstitution which prohibits reappointments. etitioner asserts that this is

particularl% true to permanent appointees who ha"e assumed oce& whichis the situation o Benipa%o& Borra and Tuason i their adinterim appointments are deemed permanent in character.

There is no dispute that an ad interim appointee disappro"ed b% theCommission on Appointments can no lon$er be etended a newappointment. The disappro"al is a 2nal decision o the Commission onAppointments in the eercise o its chec#in$ power on the appointin$authorit% o

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	loisydy
View:	233 times
Download:	0 times

Persons and Family Relations Cases - Marriage

Documents