1. Villavicencio v. Lukban, G.R. No.

L-14639, March 25, 1919

1. Villavicencio v. Lukban
G.R. No. L-14639
March 25, 1919

FACTS:
One hundred and seventy women were isolated from
society, and then at night, without their consent and without
any opportunity to consult with friends or to defend their
rights, were forcibly hustled on board steamers for
transportation to regions unknown. Despite the feeble attempt
to prove that the women left voluntarily and gladly, that such
was not the case is shown by the mere fact that the presence
of the police and the constabulary was deemed necessary and
that these officers of the law chose the shades of night to cloak
their secret and stealthy acts. Indeed, this is a fact impossible
to refute and practically admitted by the respondents.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not, the respondent has the right to deport
women with ill repute.

HELD:
NO. Law defines power. No official, no matter how high,
is above the law. The respondent committed a grave abuse of
discretion by deporting the prostitutes to a new domicile
against their will. There is no law expressly authorizing his
action. On the contrary, there is a law punishing public
officials, not expressly authorized by law or regulation, which
compels any person to change his residence Furthermore, the
prostitutes are still, as citizens of the Philippines, entitled to
the same rights, as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, as every
other citizen. Their choice of profession should not be a cause
for discrimination. It may make some, like the respondent,
quite uncomfortable but it does not authorize anyone to
compel said prostitutes to isolate themselves from the rest of
the human race. These women have been deprived of their
liberty by being exiled to Davao without even being given the
opportunity to collect their belongings or, worse, without even
consenting to being transported to Mindanao.

Page 1 of 58
 1. Villavicencio v. Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

In the recent, the arrival of migrants into the United

States is a very controversial matter. While the federal courts
have, in most cases, blocked and derailed President Donald
Trump’s executive actions against migrants, the rulings may
later change when Trump will have succeeded to pack the
courts with nominees of like persuasion and ideology as his
so-called fever-pitched obsession against “illegal immigrants”.
Emigrate means to leave one’s place of residence while
immigrate means to come to a new country with intent to
permanently reside in there.
Confusingly similar that one must have to listen with
utmost care to make the distinction.
Migration, from or to a place, is a human right, among
the rights enshrined by the United Nations.
In our Constitution, the freedom of movement of a
person, or the liberty of abode and of travel cannot be
impaired except “upon lawful order of the court, or when
necessary in the interest of national security, public safety or
public health.”
In the case of Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919), Justice
George A. Malcolm wrote: “There is no law, order, or regulation
which grants the Mayor of the city of Manila or the chief of
police of that city the power to force citizens of the Philippine
Islands — and these women despite their being in a sense
lepers of society are nevertheless not chattels but Philippine
citizens protected by the same constitutional guaranties as are
other citizens — to change their domicile from Manila to
another locality. On the contrary, Philippine penal law
specifically punishes any public officer who, not being
expressly authorized by law or regulation, compels any person
to change his residence.”

Page 2 of 58
 1. Villavicencio v. Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM ARBITRARY

involved: ARREST AND EXILE

Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to

travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of
individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of
a country, and to leave the country and return to it. The right
includes not only visiting places, but changing the place where
the individual resides or works.
Such a right is provided in the constitutions of numerous
states, and in documents reflecting norms of international law.
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
asserts that, "Everyone has the right to leave any country,
including his own, and to return to his country."
Article 12 (4), Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
provides that, "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right
to enter his own country."
Article 3, section 6 of 1987 Constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines – The liberty of abode and of changing the
same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to
travel be impaired except in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Indeed, the right to travel, along with the right to freedom
of movement, is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The Court
said, "The right to travel and to freedom of movement is a
fundamental right guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the
Philippines is a signatory. And that same right extends to all
residents regardless of nationality. And everyone has the right
to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for
acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
Constitution or by law.

Page 3 of 58
 1. Villavicencio v. Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919

Personal Reflection:

The right to liberty of abode and travel is one of the

tangible proofs of freedom. It is a fundamental right, which
occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of values. It is
part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived
without due process of law and only on clear and compelling
grounds of national security, public health and public safety
as mandated by the Constitution.
In the Philippines today, however, the right to travel has
become illusory. Despite the constitutional safeguard, the
right to travel has been repeatedly abridged, impaired and
violated by courts despite absence of proof that the proposed
travel is inimical to national security, public health and public
safety.
The impairment of the exercise of the right is made easy
through the simple expedient of issuing a "hold departure"
order, which the courts currently issue even without notice
and hearing, amounting to a blatant violation of due process of
law. Such flaw in the system is “weaponized” by the few who
sits atop the monolith of power.
While such right is not absolute but must yield to the
State's inherent police power upon which the Hold-Orders
were premised, if no 'good reasons' have been advanced which
could justify the continued enforcement of the Hold-Orders
Then, the government had abused its discretion in
maintaining the Hold-Orders for an indefinite length of time,
as to do so arbitrarily violated the fundamental right to
freedom of movement.
The fundamental rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured
by those maxims of constitutional law which are the
monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in
securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of
just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the
Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the
commonwealth may be ― government of laws and not of men.

Page 4 of 58
 2. Marcos vs Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989

2. Marcos vs Manglapus
G.R. No. 88211
September 15, 1989

FACTS:
In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed
from the presidency via the non-violent "people power"
revolution and forced into exile. Now, Mr. Marcos, in his
deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines
to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to
the nation of his return at a time when the stability of
government is threatened from various directions and the
economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood
firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his
family.

ISSUES:
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by
the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses
from returning to the Philippines.

HELD:
YES. Contrary to petitioners' view, it cannot be denied
that the President, upon whom executive power is vested, has
unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant of
executive power and which are necessary for her to comply
with her duties under the Constitution. The powers of the
President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in
the article on the Executive Department and in scattered
provisions of the Constitution.
It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately
addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President
which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty
residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare.
The President has determined that the destabilization
caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the
gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total
economic collapse. Given what is within our individual and
common knowledge of the state of the economy, we cannot
argue with that determination.

Page 5 of 58
 2. Marcos vs Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

Following the World Health Organization’s declaration of

the 2019 novel coronavirus (renamed COVID-19) outbreak as
a public health emergency, the Philippine government on
February 02, 2019 deemed it prudent to implement a
temporary travel ban against all foreign nationals coming from
China, Hong Kong and Macau; all foreign nationals who have
been to China, Hong Kong, and Macau in the last 14 days
prior to the arrival to the Philippines; and transiting
passengers from China, Hong Kong, and Macau.
The ban however does not cover Filipino citizens and
holders of permanent resident visas issued by the Philippine
government.
The right to travel is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution,
under Section 6 of Article III of the Bill of Rights, which states
that “the liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
From the wording of the law alone, it is clear that the
right to travel, like most rights, is not absolute and may be
restricted in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health.
Notably, this would not be the first instance under the
1987 Constitution that the government has issued a travel
ban. One of the most distinctive instances where a travel ban
was issued was during the time of former President Cory
Aquino, when the government prevented former President
Ferdinand Marcos and his family from returning to the
country. By affirming President Aquino’s decision to ban
President Marcos from returning, the Supreme Court made a
distinction by saying that the right to travel guaranteed in the
Constitution involves the right to travel within the country, the
right to leave the country, but not the right to return to the
country.

Page 6 of 58
 2. Marcos vs Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO FREE MOVEMENT IN AND OUT

involved: OF THE COUNTRY

Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to

travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of
individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of
a country, and to leave the country and return to it.
The right to travel is part of the "liberty" of which a
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law. It is
part and parcel of the guarantee of freedom of movement that
the Constitution affords its citizen. (Genuino v. De Lima. G.R.
No. 197930. April 17, 2018. Per Justice Reyes, Jr.) Pertinently,
Section 6, Article III of the Constitution provides:
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same
within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to
travel be impaired except in the interest of national security,
public safety or public health, as maybe provided by law.
It is apparent, however, that the right to travel is not
absolute. There are constitutional, statutory and inherent
limitations regulating the right to travel.
Clearly, under the provision, there are only three
considerations that may permit a restriction on the right to
travel: national security, public safety or public health. As a
further requirement, there must be an explicit provision of
statutory law or the Rules of Court providing for the
impairment. The requirement for a legislative enactment was
purposely added to prevent inordinate restraints on the
person's right to travel by administrative officials who may be
tempted to wield authority under the guise of national
security, public safety or public health. This is in keeping with
the principle that ours is a government of laws and not of men
and also with the canon that provisions of law limiting the
enjoyment of liberty should be construed against the
government and in favor of the individual.

Page 7 of 58
 2. Marcos vs Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989

Personal Reflection:

Justice Douglas, in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, said:

“Free movement by the citizen is, of course, as dangerous to a
tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly, and
it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interest of
security."
Freedom of movement in Philippine law has evolved
through the 1935, 1973 and 1987 constitutions.
Drastic attempts by the government to control the travel
of citizens during the period of martial law did reach the
Court. The curtailment took the form of denial of exit permits.
The Court had occasion to warn the Travel Processing Center
not to treat the constitutional guarantee of the right to travel
as an empty phrase in a pauper’s will.
The 1987 Constitution has strengthened the guarantee
by splitting freedom of movement into two distinct sentences
and treating them differently. The liberty of abode is treated in
a separate sentence. It may be impaired only “upon lawful
order of the court,” and the court is to be guided by “the limits
prescribed by law” on the liberty itself.
As to liberty of travel, under the 1987 law, it may be
impaired even without a court order, but the appropriate
executive officer is not armed with arbitrary discretion to
impose limitations. He can impose limits only on the basis of
“national security, public safety, or public health” and “as may
be provided by law,” a limitive phrase which had disappeared
from the less libertarian 1973 text.
The limitation on the right to travel must be based on law
and not on a mere executive circular. The limitation may also
be by legitimate court order under the Rules of Court. When
by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all
auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry
it into effect may be employed by such court or officer.” The
executive department is claiming similar discretionary power
and without relation to national security, public safety, and
public health.

Page 8 of 58
 3. Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986

3. Manotoc v. CA
G.R. No. L-62100
May 30, 1986

FACTS:
Petitioner was charged with estafa and was allowed by
the Court to post bail. Petitioner filed before each trial court
motion for permission to leave the country stating his desire to
go to US relative to his business transactions and
opportunities. Such was opposed by the prosecution and was
also denied by the judges. He filed petition for certiorari with
CA seeking to annul the prior orders and the SEC
communication request denying his leave to travel abroad.
According to the petitioner, having been admitted to bail as a
matter of right, neither the courts that granted him bail nor
SEC, which has no jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent
him from exercising his constitutional right to travel.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not, petitioner’s constitutional right to travel
was violated.

RULING:
NO. The court has power to prohibit person admitted to
bail from leaving the country because this is a necessary
consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. The
condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at
all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as
a valid restriction on his constitutional right to travel. In case
he will be allowed to leave the country without sufficient
reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of courts.
Furthermore, petitioner failed to satisfy trial court and CA of
the urgency of his travel, duration thereof, as well as consent
of his surety to the proposed travel. He was not able to show
the necessity of his travel abroad. He never indicated that no
other person in his behalf could undertake such business
transaction.
According to SC, the order of trial court in releasing
petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as
contemplated by the provision on right to travel.

Page 9 of 58
 3. Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

In Genuino v. De Lima, docketed as G.R. No. 197930,

promulgated on 17 April 2018, the Supreme Court struck
down DOJ Circular No. 41 as unconstitutional as it violates
one’s constitutional right to travel, and that there is no law
which authorizes the Secretary of Justice to issue HDOs,
WLOs, or allow departure orders (ADO); and upheld the
constitutional right to travel of former president Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo and several others. DOJ 41 authorized the
secretary of justice to issue “hold departure orders” or HDOs,
“watchlist orders” or WLOs and “allow departure orders” or
ADOs on those intending to travel.
Primacy of liberty. Invoking DOJ 41, then Justice
Secretary Leila de Lima (now a detained senator) ordered
immigration officers to stop Arroyo and her husband, Jose
Miguel Arroyo, from boarding an international flight at the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport on Nov. 15, 2011, to seek
medical treatment abroad.
However, the 50-page landmark decision (Genuino vs De
Lima, April 17, 2018), masterfully penned by Justice Andres
B. Reyes Jr., held: “The right to travel is part of the ‘liberty’ of
which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of
law.”
Paraphrasing the Constitution, Justice Reyes explained
that the right cannot be limited or “impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety or public health,”
and the limitation must be explicitly contained in a “statutory
law or the Rules of Court,” not in a mere administrative
issuance.
“Without a law to justify its action, the issuance of DOJ
Circular No. 41 is an unauthorized act of the DOJ of
empowering itself under the pretext of dire exigency or urgent
necessity.” Unlike the courts, the DOJ does not have the
inherent power “to restrict the right to travel in any way.”

Page 10 of 58
 3. Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO FREE MOVEMENT IN AND OUT

involved: OF THE COUNTRY AND RIGHT TO BE
CONSIDERED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN
GUILTY

Bail under Rule 114 is the security given for the release
of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as
required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may
be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash
deposit, or recognizance (Sec. 1). Bail is the security required
by the court and given by the accused to ensure that the
accused appear before the proper court at the scheduled time
and place to answer the charges brought against him. It is
awarded to the accused to honor the presumption of
innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt,
and to enable him to prepare his defense without being
subject to punishment prior to conviction (Cortes vs. Catral,
279 SCRA 1. Its main purpose is to relieve an accused from
the rigors of imprisonment until his conviction and secure his
appearance at the trial (Paderanga vs. CA, 247 SCRA 741).
There are many guarantees to this right but is always
subject to the undertaking one accomplishes during the
posting of bail. The undertaking enumerates the duty of an
accused and his bondsman to that effect. One of which is to
appear before the court whenever asked and this makes
traveling abroad contrary to such because of jurisdiction. The
accused will be beyond the reach of our law and that’s
something the state cannot afford as it is duty bound to
prosecute offenders.
Verily, at the heart of it is the need to balance the right to
travel of the individual and the right of the State to prosecute
offenses. As the saying goes, “one’s right ends where another’s
right begins.”

Page 11 of 58
 3. Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986

Personal Reflection:

Posting of bail is indeed a right to bail is enshrined in the

Constitution and, in recognition of its mandate, laws, rules
and regulations have been issued to implement the said right.
It is to secure the provisional liberty of an accused pending the
disposition of the case filed against him.
Jurisprudence has recognized that the right to bail is
cognate to the fundamental right to be presumed innocent.
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody
of the law. It assures the court of his or her appearance as
required under the conditions specified by the court. It may be
given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash
deposit or recognizance.
Bail may be a matter of right or judicial discretion. Under
Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, all persons are
entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of
guilt is strong.
If the accused is charged with an offense the penalty of
which is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, then
his or her entitlement to bail is based on the discretion of the
trial court. The accused may file a petition for bail to
determine whether evidence of guilt is strong. If the judge
finds that evidence of guilt is not strong, bail may be granted.
But even when such crime is punishable by those stated
above, an accused may still file for Petition for Bail. Such
would depend on the weight of the presentation of evidence of
the prosecution and it’s up to the court to appreciate the
same.
Yes, bail is a matter of right, but when one has
transgressed the law; it becomes more of a privilege being
invoked by offenders seeking the aid of the law which they
themselves violated.

Page 12 of 58
 4. Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 110120, March 16,
1994

4. Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA

G.R. No. 110120
March 16, 1994

FACTS:
The Laguna Lake Development (LLD) submitted an order
of cease and desists to stop the operation of a 8.6 hectares
open garbage dumpsite in Caloocan City due to its harmful
effects on the health, safety and welfare of the residents and
possible pollution in the waters. The LLD was created through
RA No. 4850 in order to execute the policy towards
environmental protection and sustainable development so as
to accelerate the development and balanced growth of the
Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces and towns.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not, the LLDA has the authority to order
cease and desist of the operation and whether they are quasi-
judicial agency.

HELD:
YES. Under RA 4850, The LLDA shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for
any projects and activities affecting the region. While under RA
7160 granted the municipalities the exclusive authority to
grant privileges on municipal waters. Supreme Court ruled
that the provisions of RA 7160 do not necessarily repeal the
law creating the LLDA and granting the latter wafer rights over
the Laguna De Bay. When there is a conflict between the
genera law and special statue, the latter should prevail since
its legislative intent is clearer than the general status (RA
7160). The LLDA has express powers as a regulatory and
quasi-judicial body in respect to pollution cases with authority
to issue a “cease and desist order” and on matters affecting
the construction of illegal fish pens, fish cages and other aqua-
culture structures in Laguna de Bay. The Supreme Court held
that the LLDA has the authority to order cease and desist of
the open garbage operation.

Page 13 of 58
 4. Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 110120, March 16,
1994

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

The Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB XI) has served

sixty-one (61) Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) to Mineral
Processing Operators in Brgy. Mt. Diwata and Brgy. Upper
Ulip Monkayo, Davao de Oro last September 6-10, 2021 with
the assistance of the Provincial Task Force Naboc River
(PTFNR), Department of Environment and Natural Resources-
XI and Environmental Management Bureau (EMB-XI). The
CDOs were issued for the non-compliance of the transfer of
the mineral processing to the designated Mineral Processing
Zone at Mabatas area. This said transfer is crucial to the
continued implementation of the DENR’s Naboc River
Rehabilitation Project under the administration of President
Rodrigo R. Duterte and DENR Secretary Roy A Cimatu.
The 5-day serving of CDO operation were also
participated in by DENR-XI’s Provincial and Community
Environment and Natural Resources (PENRO and CENRO) of
Davao de Oro and Monkayo respectively, Provincial LGU,
Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Office
(MDRRMO) of Monkayo, the Armed forces of the Philippines
(AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
On December 05, 2021, the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) has reissued a closure order
against a sanitary landfill facility in Urdaneta City in the
province of Pangasinan for violation of Republic Act 9275 or
the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 and RA 9003 or the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.
Environment Secretary Roy A. Cimatu said the issuance
of cease and desist order (CDO) to the Urdaneta City
engineered sanitary landfill is the DENR’s continuing
commitment to make sure that RA 9275 and RA 9003 are
strictly enforced.

Page 14 of 58
 4. Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 110120, March 16,
1994

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO A CLEAN, HEALTHY AND

involved: SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and

adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that
permits a life of dignity and well being, and he bears a solemn
responsibility to protect and improve the environment for
present and future generations.
As the environment has become a prominent issue
globally and in each country of South East Asia, so culprits as
well as causes of problems such as deforestation, soil erosion,
water storage, loss of biodiversity and pollution have been
sought. The critique of mainstream development as a primary
cause of environmental problems has been turned around by
agencies of mainstream development to see these problems as
resulting from backwardness, underdevelopment and poverty.
Environment has entered the public arena through what
might be termed the 'politics of blame'-that is, seeking out and
putting the responsibility on a particular socio-economic actor
or group of actors. Not surprisingly, such politics of blame is
open to the creation of scapegoats.
The 1987 Constitution broke ground when it proclaimed
in Section 16 of Article II (“Declaration of Principles and State
Policies”), the following landmark provision: “The State shall
protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature.” The environment occupies pride of place in the
fundamental law of the land; we, the people, must defend it
and ensure that it is truly honored.
The Philippine Supreme Court, moreover, has been a
staunch defender of our fragile ecosystem issuing the
trailblazing “Writ of Kalikasan,” creating specialized
Environmental Courts and Tribunals (ECT) and providing
Temporary Environmental Protection Orders.

Page 15 of 58
 4. Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 110120, March 16,
1994

Personal Reflection:

The formal recognition by the United Nations Human

Rights Council that the right to a healthy environment is an
essential human right has been heralded as a historic victory
for environmental protection and an important step forward
for the world’s most vulnerable people.
Despite its limitations, this new human right is certainly
not useless. It’s the first time a right to a healthy environment
has been explicitly recognized at the global level.
The right obliges states to protect against environmental
harm, to provide equal access to environmental benefits and to
ensure a minimum standard of environmental quality for
everyone to enjoy.
Arguably, this paves the way for better global standards,
bolder climate litigation, and even for more equitable sharing
of the burdens and benefits of climate change.
Developments like this would make the right more
credible and more visible, transforming it into an effective tool
for challenging states and corporations to do more on
environmental protection.
Overall, the right to a healthy environment reflects a new
urgency to push environmental issues back up the
international agenda.
Proponents are describing the pact as the most
comprehensive international text ever on environmental rights,
essential for protecting everyone and everything from the
“triple planetary emergency” of climate change, pollution and
nature loss.
The full potential of a human right to a healthy
environment remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is
that a healthy environment is essential for human health and
well-being – and that protecting people and protecting nature
are always interconnected.

Page 16 of 58
 5. Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007

5. Silverio v. Republic
G.R. No. 174689
October 22, 2007

FACTS:
In 2002, petitioner Silverio filed a petition for the change
of his first name “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely” and his sex from
male to female in his birth certificate in the RTC of Manila, for
reason of his sex reassignment. He alleged that he is a male
transsexual, he is anatomically male but thinks and acts like a
female. Petitioner believes that after having acquired the
physical features of a female, he became entitled to the civil
registry changes sought.
The RTC ruled in his favour, saying that it is in
consonance with the principle of justice and equality.
The Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition for
certiorari in the CA, alleging that there is no law allowing
change of name by reason of sex alteration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, a change in the “name” and “sex” entries
in birth certificates are allowed by reason of sex reassignment.

RULING:
NO. A change of name is a privilege and not a right. It
may be allowed in cases where the name is ridiculous, tainted
with dishonour, or difficult to pronounce or write; a nickname is
habitually used; or if the change will avoid confusion. The
petitioner’s basis of the change of his name is that he intends
his first name compatible with the sex he thought he
transformed himself into thru surgery. Presently, there is no
law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by
reason of sex alteration.
The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All
entries, including those corresponding to his first name and
sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary. A law has to
be enacted by the legislative body laying down the guidelines
governing the change of entries in birth certificate due to sex
reassignment in order to enter the same in civil registry.

Page 17 of 58
 5. Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

On December 05, 2021, The Philippine Commission on

Women reiterates its call to end gender-based discrimination
and uphold the basic human rights of persons with diverse
sexual orientation and gender identity and expression
(SOGIE).
The incident involving a transgender woman who was
discriminated when she tried accessing a female toilet in a
Quezon City mall proves that there is a need to seriously look
into the issues that the proposed Anti-Discrimination Based
on SOGIE Law intend to address.
The proposed law will ensure that all people, regardless
of their SOGIE are able to exercise their rights to life,
education, employment, and expression without fear of
reprisal or discrimination.
The enactment of an anti-discrimination based on SOGIE
law is one of the Women’s Priority Legislative Agenda of the
PCW.
Despite significant strides in the advancement of gender
equality in the Philippines, little progress has been made in
recognizing the rights of persons of diverse sexual orientation,
gender identity, and expression (SOGIE) to be protected from
various forms of discrimination in private and public
institutions. The absence of a protective legal mechanism for
persons of diverse SOGIE leaves them vulnerable to
discriminatory practices that exclude them from full and
meaningful participation in work, education, and training
institutions and which limit their access to basic services (e.g.,
health and social services, access to justice).
Discrimination experienced by persons of diverse SOGIE
includes stereotyping and more extreme forms of stigma such
as unfair treatment and outright rejection.

Page 18 of 58
 5. Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF OPINION AND

involved: INFORMATION, AND RIGHT TO EQUALITY
BEFORE THE LAW

The Supreme Court said, ‘freedom of expression

constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic
society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are
favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or
disturb. This position gains even more force if one considers
that homosexual conduct is not illegal in this country.’
Most importantly, it emphatically ruled that, ‘the
principle of non-discrimination requires that laws of general
application relating to elections be applied equally to all
persons, regardless of sexual orientation. Although sexual
orientation is not specifically enumerated as a status or ratio
for discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR, the ICCPR
Human Rights Committee has opined that the reference to
“sex” in Article 26 should be construed to include “sexual
orientation”.
As it stands, Philippine jurisprudence disregards
religious opposition to promotion of LGBTI rights, abides by
the principle of non-discrimination, does not consider
homosexuality as illegal, and upholds expressions of
homosexuality as a protected constitutional right.
In Silverio v Republic, the SC denied the petition of
Rommel Silverio (a trans-woman) to change her name to ‘Mely’
and the entry for sex from ‘Male’ to ‘Female’ on her birth
certificate. The SC explained that the Civil Code covers
correction of entries as to acts, events or factual errors that
occur after birth. No reasonable interpretation can justify the
conclusion that it covers the correction on the ground of sex
reassignment.
Nevertheless, the decision notes in its penultimate
paragraph that “The Court recognizes that there are people
whose preferences and orientation do not fit neatly into the
commonly recognized parameters of social convention and
that, at least for them, life is indeed an ordeal.

Page 19 of 58
 5. Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007

Personal Reflection:

In the struggle for human rights recognition, the

movements of women and lesbians, gays, bisexuals and
transgenders (LGBT) are kindred spirits. Ideally, the
developments in one movement benefit the other.
However, recent women’s rights laws do not extend their
protection to LGBTs. The disjuncture lies with the clear legal
distinction secured by women as a group as against all other
groups, including LGBTs. Like its kindred spirit, the LGBT
rights movement should also establish its clear legal identity.
The need for a clear legal identity for the LGBT rights
movement is emphasized by three recent Supreme Court
decisions. Silverio vs Republic shows the strict application of
the law in favor of only those who are expressly granted with
statutory benefits. Republic v. Cagandahan carves out an
exception not specifically stated in the law because of the
presence of substantial distinctions. Finally, Ang Ladlad v.
Comelec successfully established a distinct legal identity for
LGBTs, albeit for a specific purpose only.
In the end, equal human rights treatment begins with the
recognition of each group’s substantial characteristics. The
challenge for the LGBT rights movement, therefore, is to
clearly establish itself as a distinct group under the law.
The LGBT movement has already realized this early on by
lobbying for the Anti-Discrimination Bill, but it should not
stop there. In this crucial period, the LGBT should cling to its
identity and broadcast what makes it a distinct group in the
first place. Public opinion will play an important part.
The LGBT movement should take the same leap of faith.
There is much to learn from its kindred spirit, and the first
challenge is simple yet profound. It should go find its own
perfect pair of pink stilettos, clear legal identity, and firmly
assert it in its demands for the fair and equal enforcement of
human rights.

Page 20 of 58
 6. Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

6. Republic v. Cagandahan
G.R. No. 166676
September 12, 2008

FACTS:
Respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for
Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before the RTC. She
prayed to have her first name changed from Jennifer to Jeff
and her gender from female to male. She alleged that is
suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a rare
medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male
and female characteristics. The lower court decided in her
favor. The OSG contends that the petition is fatally defective
for non-compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of
Court because the said petition did not implead the local civil
registrar.

ISSUE/S:
1) Whether or not, Cagandahan’s sex as appearing in her birth
certificate can be changed.
2) Whether or not, Cagandahan’s first name as appearing in
her birth certificate can be changed.

HELD:
1) YES. Where the person is biologically or naturally intersex
the determining factor in his gender classification would be
what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of
majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent
here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his
body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen)
there is preponderant biological support for considering him
as being male. It is at maturity that the gender of such
persons, like respondent, is fixed. Furthermore, in the absence
of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on
respondent concerning a matter so innately private as one’s
sexuality and lifestyle preferences. Hence Cagandahan’s sex
as appearing in her birth certificate can be changed.
2) YES. Respondent's change of name from Jennifer to
Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine
name. This is proper since respondent's change of name
merely recognizes his preferred gender.

Page 21 of 58
 6. Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

On May 15, 2021, Intersex Philippines, the pioneering

organization for intersex people in the Philippines, is calling
for the inclusion of "intersex" in the definition of "sex" in the
proposed anti-discrimination law that is now being tackled in
Congress.
The organization released its position ahead of the
International Day Against Homophobia, Bi-phobia,
Intersexism and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT) this May 17, a
global event that aims to raise awareness of LGBTQIA human
rights violations, and stimulate interest in LGBTQIA rights
work worldwide.
On May 11, the House Committee on Human Rights
started discussing the scope of the pro-posed "comprehensive"
anti-discrimination law. Reportedly, due to the urging of
House Minority Leader Rep. Bienvenido Abante (6th District,
Manila City), the panel agreed to exclude "intersex" in the
definition of "sex" to avoid confusing people about the assigned
sex at birth.
Various legal developments related to this have been
happening around the world, and Cagandahan believes these
should help guide the House representatives.
"In Philippines, intersex people continue to face
discrimination and stigma due to heteronormative
understanding of ‘sex’. Ending the binary normativity of the
official sex/gender registration framework is necessary to
protect the human rights of intersex people and to ensure
their inclusion," said Cagandahan, who is now lobbying for the
House to actually include intersex people to "actively consult
with intersex-led organizations and groups to ensure the law is
both comprehensive and effective.”

Page 22 of 58
 6. Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO REMEDY BY COMPETENT

involved: TRIBUNAL AND RIGHT TO FAIR PUBLIC
HEARING

In a broad sense, due process is interpreted here as the

right to be treated fairly, efficiently and effectively by the
administration of justice. The rights to due process place
limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order to
guarantee fundamental fairness and justice. Due process is
interpreted here as the rules administered through courts of
justice in accordance with established and sanctioned legal
principles and procedures, and with safeguards for the
protection of individual rights. The rules applicable to the
administration of justice are extensive and refer to, inter alia,
fair trial, presumption of innocence and independence and
impartiality of the tribunal. As due process rights are
traditionally known among human right experts to centre on
the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy, the
first three elements are discussed under the heading of fair
trial, while effectiveness is discussed under the right to an
effective remedy.
The right to a fair trial does not focus on a single issue,
but rather consists of a complex set of rules and practices. The
right to a fair trial is interpreted here as the rules
administered through courts of justice in accordance with
established and sanctioned legal principles and procedures,
and with safeguards for the protection of individual rights. The
rules applicable to the administration of justice are wide and
refer to, inter alia, a fair and public hearing, the presumption
of innocence and the independence and impartiality of the
tribunal.
The importance of these rights in the protection of
human rights is underscored by the fact that the
implementation of all human rights depends upon the proper
administration of justice. Whenever a person’s rights are
interfered with, she/he can only defend herself/himself
adequately if she/he enjoys an effective recourse to due
process.

Page 23 of 58
 6. Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

Personal Reflection:

The ruling by the Supreme Court’s Second Division,

written by then Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, noted
that the rare condition had changed Cagandahan’s physiology
even while he was born with intersex characteristics, with
female parts being dominant. Cagandahan’s male
characteristics became dominant when he reached puberty.
“The current state of Philippine statutes apparently
compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a
female, but this court is not controlled by mere appearances
when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid
classification,” the court said.
The right to a fair trial is guaranteed if individuals can
have recourse to ‘a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal’, as recognized by international Conventions, such as
the ICCPR and the American Convention.
The most important component is the independence of
the judiciary, referring to, inter alia, independence from the
executive and the legislature. If such independence does not
exist, the recourse to a court is of little use.
The judge must not have any personal interest in the
case. The appearance of impartiality is of great importance;
there must be impartiality in the objective sense (which
examines whether the judge offered procedural guarantees
sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt of partiality), as well
as the subjective sense (there should not be any appearance of
impartiality).
The idea of competence has not been elaborated upon
explicitly in international Conventions or case-law. Indirectly,
however, some important elements have been included in the
case-law of international supervisory bodies. Supervisory
bodies have pointed out, for example, that the statute law
must fulfill basic conditions such as foreseeability and
accessibility. Moreover, it has been recognized that case-law
must be consistently applied in order for court decisions not to
be unforeseeable or resulting in the arbitrary deprivation of
effective protection of applicants’ rights.

Page 24 of 58
 7. Ormoc Sugar Company vs Treasurer of Ormoc City, G.R. No. L-23794,
February 17, 1968

7. Ormoc Sugar Company v. Treasurer of Ormoc City

February 17, 1968
G.R. No. L-23794

FACTS:
The Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed Ordinance
No. 4, which imposed municipal tax of one percent per export
sale to USA and other foreign countries of any and all
productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar
Company (OSC).
The latter paid under protest but challenged the
ordinance’s constitutionality on the grounds that it is violative
of equal protection clause and uniformity in taxation. The CFI
upheld the constitutionality of said ordinance, saying the
taxing power of Ormoc City was broadened by the Local
Autonomy Act to include all other forms of taxes, licenses, or
fees not excluded in its charter.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not, Ordinance No. 4 is unconstitutional for
being violative of equal protection clause.

HELD:
Ordinance No. 4 infringed the equal protection clause
because the requirements of a valid classification were not
upheld as it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and
exported by OSC and none other. Although it is true that OSC
was the only sugar central at the time the ordinance was
passed, the ordinance still, to be reasonable, should be
applicable to future conditions as well because even if later a
similar company is set up, it cannot be subject to the tax
because the ordinance expressly points only to OSC as the
entity to be levied upon.
A classification is reasonable where (1) it is based on
substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2) these
are germane to the purpose of the law; (3) the classification
applies not only to present conditions but also to future
conditions which are substantially identical to those of the
present; and (4) the classification applies only to those who
belong to the same class.

Page 25 of 58
 7. Ormoc Sugar Company vs Treasurer of Ormoc City, G.R. No. L-23794,
February 17, 1968

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

On May 6, 2020, Senate Minority Leader Franklin M.

Drilon, a former justice secretary, said that the cease and
desist order (CDO) issued by the National Telecommunications
Commission (NTC) violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution. He added that the cease and desist order against
ABS-CBN is not only a grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the NTC, it also infringes on the constitutional guarantee of
equal protection.
He further explained that it is of record and public
knowledge that NTC has allowed and is allowing franchisees to
operate even after the lapse of their franchises as long as the
bills renewing their franchises are pending before Congress.
He cited PT&T, SMART Communications, Catholic Bishops
Conference of the Philippines, TV5, Subic Broadcasting, to
name a few, which were allowed to operate despite expired
franchises.
Under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, no person
shall be deprived of property without due process of law nor
shall any person be deprived of equal protection of laws. The
equal protection of the law clause requires that all persons
similarly situated should be treated alike both as to rights and
responsibilities imposed.
Under the constitutional principle, similar subjects
should not be treated differently as to give undue favor to
some and unjustly discriminate against others, according to
Drilon. Section 23 of the Public Telecommunications Policy
Act, contains an Equality Clause which states that "any
advantage, favor privilege or immunity granted to existing
franchises shall ipso facto become part of previously granted
telecommunications franchises and shall be accorded
immediately and unconditionally to the grantees of such
franchises.
Drilon said NTC's action is in grave abuse of authority.

Page 26 of 58
 7. Ormoc Sugar Company vs Treasurer of Ormoc City, G.R. No. L-23794,
February 17, 1968

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW

involved:

On the matter of equal protection, it was stated in

Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, et al. that the guarantee
simply means that no person or class of persons shall be
denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by
other persons or other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances.
In People v. Cayat, it is an established principle of
constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of
the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable
classification. And the classification, to be reasonable, (1)
must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to
the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of
the same class.
In Ang Ladlad LGBT vs. Comelec (GR 190582), it was
stated that despite the absolutism of Article III, Section 1 of
our Constitution, which provides nor shall any person be
denied equal protection of the laws, courts have never
interpreted the provision as an absolute prohibition on
classification. Equality, said Aristotle, consists in the same
treatment of similar persons. The equal protection clause
guarantees that no person or class of persons shall be
deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by
other persons or other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances.
International School Alliance of Educators vs. Hon.
Quisumbing (GR 128845) reiterated that public policy abhors
inequality and discrimination is beyond contention. Our
Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils.
The Constitution in the Article on Social Justice and Human
Rights exhorts Congress to “give highest priority to the
enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of
all people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and
political inequalities.”

Page 27 of 58
 7. Ormoc Sugar Company vs Treasurer of Ormoc City, G.R. No. L-23794,
February 17, 1968

Personal Reflection:

The law is the same for everyone and should be applied

in the same manner to all.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to
equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this
Declaration and against any incitement to such
discrimination.
It, however, does not require the universal application of
the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it
simply requires is equality among equals as determined
according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection
clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to
be valid must pass the test of reasonableness.
The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a
guaranty of equality in the application of the laws upon all
citizens of the state. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in
order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality,
that every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a
statute. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean
indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such, but on
persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It
guarantees equality, not identity of rights.
The equal protection of the laws clause of the
Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as in
the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the
grouping of things in speculation or practice because they
agree with one another in certain particulars. A law is not
invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of
classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without
saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner
determines the matter of constitutionality. All that is required
of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means
that the classification should be based on substantial
distinctions which make for real differences, that it must be
germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited
to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to
each member of the class.

Page 28 of 58
 8. Simon v. CHR, G.R. No. 100150, January 05, 1994

8. Simon v. CHR
G.R. No. 100150
January 05, 1994

FACTS:
A “Demolition Notice,” dated 09 July 1990, signed by
Carlos Quimpo in his capacity as an Executive Officer of the
Quezon City Integrated Hawkers Management Council under
the Office of the City Mayor, was sent to, and received by, the
private respondents (being the officers and members of the
North EDSA Vendors Association, Incorporated), stating that a
grace-period of three (3) days (up to 12 July, 1990) is given
within which to vacate the questioned premises of North
EDSA. On 12 July 1990, Fermo , et al filed a letter-complaint
with the CHR against the petitioners, asking the then CHR
Chairman for a letter to be addressed to then Mayor of Quezon
City to stop the demolition of the private respondent’s stalls,
sari—sari stores, and carinderia along North Edsa.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not, the CHR has jurisdiction over to
investigate the alleged violations of the “business rights” of the
private respondents whose stalls were demolished by the
petitioners at the instance and authority given by the Mayor of
Quezon City.

HELD:
In Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on
Human Rights, the Court, speaking through Madame Justice
Carolina Griño-Aquino, explained:
“The constitutional provision directing the CHR to
‘provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the
underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or
need protection’ may not be construed to confer
jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining
order or writ of injunction for, it that were the
intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so.
‘Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law.’ It
is never derived by implication.”

Page 29 of 58
 8. Simon v. CHR, G.R. No. 100150, January 05, 1994

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

The Cebu City Legal Office (CLO) deemed the clearing

operations and demolition of at least 20 stalls at the Carbon
Market last September 13, 2021, to be legitimate and valid.
This was their response to the statement of Councilor
Jessica Resch, the city’s Sanggunian Federation (SK)
President, who delivered a privilege speech condemning the
demolitions that displaced over 20 vendors.
In a statement released to the media, City Legal Officer
Rey Gealon said that the city government was well within its
rights to conduct clearing operations in the area because the
stalls and the lot are city government property.
Resch argued that under the Urban Development and
Housing Act (UDHA), demolitions cannot be executed without
proper relocation and consent from the vendors. She claimed
that at least 16 vendors contested the demolition.
However, the CLO maintains the stall clearing cannot be
governed by the National Building Code (NBC) and the UDHA
since the structures were not dwellings of underprivileged
individuals or homeless citizens.
Since the city government possesses the rights and
powers of ownership and administration over the lands, Cebu
City can validly exercise the right to destroy structures subject
to limitations imposed by the law such as due process.
Based on the initial investigation, the CLO found that the
Market Operations Division (MOD) had informed the affected
vendors two months prior to the actual operations and the
vendors even volunteered to help clear the area.
All of this happened with the vendors’ knowledge that
they will be placed at a temporary relocation and that after
fixing the stalls, they would be able to return.

Page 30 of 58
 8. Simon v. CHR, G.R. No. 100150, January 05, 1994

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights CIVIL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

involved:

Civil, economic, and social rights (ESCR) are human

rights concerning the basic social and economic conditions
needed to live a life of dignity and freedom, relating to work
and workers' rights, social security, health, education, food,
water, housing, healthy environment, and culture.
In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), outlining
the basic civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights
that all human beings should enjoy. In 1966, ESCR were
expressed as legal rights in the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (which
together with the UDHR and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights form the so-called International Bill
of Rights), as well as through other key human rights treaties
and regional mechanisms.
Sections 9 and 10 of Article II in the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies; and Section 1 of Article III of the
Bill of Rights in the Philippine Constitution states that, “No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws,” and Section 1 of Article III of the Bill of
Rights in the Philippine Constitution states that, “No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.”
The articulation of ESCR in international law followed
long-term demands for these basic rights by people worldwide,
and reflects concern for the life of every individual, particularly
the most vulnerable, as expressed in many philosophical,
religious and other traditions.
Around the world, the ESCR framework is used to bolster
actions for justice and against oppression, and amplify
progressive alternatives to enhance the enjoyment of ESCR.

Page 31 of 58
 8. Simon v. CHR, G.R. No. 100150, January 05, 1994

Personal Reflection:

The presence of ambulant vendors in a growing city is

undoubtedly one of the most challenging problems facing our
local leaders. These vendors are perpetual problem for street
and sidewalk users.
Every citizen has civil, economic, and social rights
enshrined in the International Declaration of Human Rights
and of Article 3 of the same Declaration. If we hold on to the
doctrine or principle, or even the opinion that the City
Government cannot legislate to legalize the existence and
operation of the ambulant/sidewalk vendors plying their
goods, this tenet is not absolute.
Removing them from the market area is a gross violation
of Sections 9 and 10 of Article II in the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies; and Section 1 of Article III of the
Bill of Rights in the Philippine Constitution which states: “No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.”
It’s an inviolable right, and by removing the
ambulant/sidewalk vendors, we technically deprive them of
their livelihood -- their means to live.
Getting rid of the ambulant/sidewalk vendors breeds a
myriad of social problems from economic dislocation, robbery,
thief to social unrest, and finally, the weakening and
disintegration of the basic political unit and moral fiber of the
City which are the families involved. To blame the street
vendors for the chaos of the city, moreover, is to detract
attention from the failed and inequitable policies that have led
to urban poverty and exclusion, not least of which is the
privatization of our public spaces (see Lefebvre 1968).
Let me be clear: I’m not saying that we should let chaos
reign on the streets, or ignore vital imperatives like security or
food safety. All I’m arguing for is the need to place the
interests of the working poor on the same table as those of the
rest of the public.

Page 32 of 58
 9. Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993

9. Oposa v. Factoran
G.R. No. 101083
July 30, 1993

FACTS:
The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the
Supreme Court to order the respondent, then Secretary of
DENR, to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA)
in the country and to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs. They
alleged that the massive commercial logging in the country is
causing vast abuses on rain-forest. They further asserted that
the rights of their generation and the rights of the generations
yet unborn to a balanced and healthful ecology. Plaintiffs
further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences
of continued and deforestation are so capable of
unquestionable demonstration that the same may be
submitted as a matter of judicial notice.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not, the petitioners have a locus standi.

HELD:
YES. The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for
themselves, for others of their generation, and for the
succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to
sue in behalf of succeeding generations is based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right
to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right
considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition,
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the
country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that
their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably
accessible to the present as well as the future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the
next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes at the same time, the performance of
their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the
generations to come.

Page 33 of 58
 9. Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

On May 14, 2021, the Anti-Terrorism Council’s

designation of peace consultant Rey Claro Casmabre as a
terrorist has strengthened parties’ case against the Anti-
Terrorism Act at the Supreme Court, lawyers said, noting that
it has given him the legal standing that government lawyers
say petitioners lack.
In a resolution on Thursday, the ATC designated
Casambre and 18 other alleged “Central Committee members”
of the Communist Party of the Philippines as terrorists.
Asserting that the Anti-Terrorism Council’s move is
baseless and dangerous, the PILC said: "The ATC regurgitating
false assertions has been a most dangerous weapon especially
in the heat of oral arguments on the terror law. With
Casambre designated and ‘injured’ by the ATC, the terror law
petitions now have a surer footing in court with his
established legal standing to file suit."
The Office of the Solicitor General, which is defending the
ATA and the government, argued that the legal challenges
against the law should be junked due to the petitioners’ lack of
direct injury sustained from the law.
In his opening statement, Solicitor General Jose Calida
said that while petitioners invoke diverse capacities, these did
not establish their legal standing as they do not “suffer any
direct or indirect injury that will vest them with locus standi.”
He also argued that the petitioners’ supposed failure to
comply with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts may case the
dismissal of the petition.
Petitioners have lodged a facial challenge—that it is
unconstitutional on its face—against the law, citing its chilling
effect on the people’s rights.

Page 34 of 58
 9. Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO RECOGNITION AS A PERSON

involved: BEFORE THE LAW AND RIGHT TO
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and
ideas. We should all be treated in the same way. The notion of
human dignity and freedom is the very essence of the
Declaration.
We are all entitled to all human rights and we all have
the same right to use the law wherever we go. Being
recognized as a person before the law enables us to enjoy and
exercise the rights tied to our dignity. To put it simply, is “the
right to have rights”.
A person has the right to recognition as a person, not as
a man or woman. It means the law will be equal for men and
women. The right to recognition as a person makes it in no
doubt that any person is not denied his/her right, because
s/he is a male or a female. No person shall be made victim of
any gender biased law
For the law, a person is a person, a human being. Men
and women, persons belonging to the majority and persons
belonging to minorities, all are humans in the first place.
A person has the right to recognition as a person, not as
a person belonging to racial/religious/ethnic majority group or
a person belonging to racial/religious/ethnic minority group.
It means any person shall not be denied his/her right,
because s/he belongs to majority or minority group.
Furthermore, the right to recognition is enjoyed
everywhere. If a person enjoys his/her right at one place and
is denied the same somewhere else, it is a gross infringement
of fundamental human rights described in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

Page 35 of 58
 9. Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993

Personal Reflection:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 1). While
age-old questions probe into the source and substance of the
International Human Rights Law (IHRL) project, queries have
since shifted from one of material scope to temporal ambit.
With the rapid development of environmental law, the focus is
not now limited to the meaning of “dignity” or the limits of
“rights” but puts into question the potential conditio sine qua
non: birth.
At the heart of the debate lies the doctrine of
intergenerational responsibility—a present-day duty for the
benefit of forthcoming generations. The doctrine was famously
pronounced by the Philippine Supreme Court in the case of
Oposa v. Factoran
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to
the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
differently, the minors’ assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of
their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the
generation to come. Oposa recognizes that both the living
individual and the inchoate man possess the right to a
healthful ecology (i.e. the right to the environment). This post
tests the veracity of that claim.
While it is conceded that the present state of IHRL
discourse would necessarily flow towards a concern for future
generations, the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility
reaches beyond reason by purporting to protect human rights
of future generations. Though fueled by noble convictions, it is
submitted that the (misuse of the doctrine of intergenerational
responsibility qua human rights law is not only found wanting
of philosophical footing but betrays the very cause it seeks to
champion.
Despite shaky philosophical foundation, the
intergenerational right to a healthful ecology is a sui generis
human right precisely because it is different from the human
rights we have traditionally come to know.

Page 36 of 58
 10. Ebralinag v. Division Superintended, G.R. No. 95770, March 01, 1993

10. Ebralinag v. Division Superintended

G.R. No. 95770
March 01, 1993

FACTS:
All the petitioners in the original case were minor school
children, and members of the sect, Jehovah’s Witnesses
(assisted by their parents) who were expelled from their
classes by various public school authorities in Cebu for
refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite
the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 of
July 11, 1955 and by Department Order No. 8, dated July 21,
1955 issued by the Department of Education. Aimed primarily
at private educational institutions which did not observe the
flag ceremony exercises, Republic Act No. 1265 penalizes all
educational institutions for failure or refusal to observe the
flag ceremony with public censure on first offense and
cancellation of the recognition or permit on second offense.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not, the expulsion of the students for refusing
to participate in the flag ceremony in compliance with the
teaching of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” violates their Right to
freedom of religion.

HELD:
YES. The court held that a similar exemption may be
accorded to the Jehovah’s Witnesses with regard to the
observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their
religious beliefs, however “bizarre” those beliefs may seem to
others. While the highest regard must be afforded their right to
the free exercise of their religion, “this should not be taken to
mean that school authorities are powerless to discipline them”
if they should commit breaches of the peace by actions that
offend the sensibilities, both religious and patriotic, of other
persons. If they quietly stand at attention during the flag
ceremony while their classmates and teachers salute the flag,
sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, we do
not see how such conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or
pose “a grave and present danger of a serious evil to public
safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate
public interest that the State has a right and duty to prevent.

Page 37 of 58
 10. Ebralinag v. Division Superintended, G.R. No. 95770, March 01, 1993

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

On December 02, 2020, a committee in the House of

Representatives approved a bill protecting the right of the
public to freedom of religion in the Philippines.
During its meeting, the House committee on human
rights approved House Bill No. 6538 or the Philippine Magna
Carta of Freedom of Religion, filed by CIBAC Partylist
Representatives Eduardo “Bro. Eddie” Villanueva and
Domingo Rivera, which seeks to “create enabling laws that will
protect the rights of our citizens to religious freedom which, in
turn, will further bring peace and stability to our nation.”
The bill likewise states that compelling a person, by
means of force, threat, intimidation or undue influence, to
choose or not to choose a particular religious belief to
subscribe to or a particular religious group to join is
prohibited.
However, the right to freedom to religion, including its
expression, can be denied and regulated if:
The free exercise of religious freedom or conscience of a
religious group or individual results to violence and/or inflicts,
or poses to inflict, a direct physical or material harm or danger
on other people, or infringe on their own freedom of religion or
conscience;
 it is necessary to protect public safety, order,
health, property and good morals
 such limitations are prescribed by existing laws
such as prohibitions on same sex marriage,
marriage of humans to animals, and marriage to
objects
With the bill approved at the committee level, it will be
brought to the plenary for debates and approval on second
and third reading.

Page 38 of 58
 10. Ebralinag v. Division Superintended, G.R. No. 95770, March 01, 1993

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF BELIEF AND

involved: RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF OPINION AND
INFORMATION

All persons have the right to think freely, and to entertain

ideas and hold positions based on conscientious or religious or
other beliefs. Subject to certain limitations, persons also have
the right to demonstrate or manifest religious or other beliefs,
by way of worship, observance, practice and teaching.
Article 18 of the ICCPR protects the right to think freely
and to entertain ideas and hold positions based on
conscientious or religious or other beliefs. This entails
protection against brainwashing or indoctrination. The right
also protects the right to demonstrate or manifest religious or
other beliefs, whether individually or collectively, and whether
through worship, observance, practice or teaching.
The right to demonstrate or manifest religious or other
beliefs requires the Government to recognize the right of
persons to engage in religious worship, which would include
the building and use of places of worship, use and display of
ritual objects and symbols, observance of holidays and periods
of rest, performance of ceremonial acts, adherence to dietary
regulations, wearing of distinctive clothing and use of
particular languages.
While the right to hold positions based on religious or
other belief may not be restricted in any way, human rights
law recognizes that reasonable restrictions may be imposed on
the right to demonstrate or manifest religious or other beliefs.
The grounds for permissible limitations do not include
national security expressly, although of course this may be an
aspect covered of/covered by other express limitations. The
Human Rights Committee has stated that limitations must be
necessary to achieve the desired purpose, and must be
proportionate to the need on which the limitation is
predicated.

Page 39 of 58
 10. Ebralinag v. Division Superintended, G.R. No. 95770, March 01, 1993

Personal Reflection:

The rights to freedom of expression and freedom of

religion or belief are very closely related, both being
“neighbours” in Articles 19 and 18 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, respectively. Despite a common
misperception that these rights stand in opposition to one
another, both rights is essential ingredients to free and
democratic societies. It includes the right to change your
religion or beliefs at any time. You also have the right to put
your thoughts and beliefs into action. This could include your
right to wear religious clothing, the right to talk about your
beliefs or take part in religious worship.
Freedom of religion or belief is the right to hold and
manifest any religion or belief, without compulsion, including
the right to change or renounce one’s religion or belief, as well
as the right not to hold a belief or religion. Laws that seek to
limit forms of expression merely because they are based on or
affiliated with a certain religion or belief are in violation of free
expression, and of freedom of religion or belief. Often, these
laws are discriminatory by design or in their impact, targeting
the expression of minorities or marginalized groups, in
particular the expression of women. Blanket restrictions on
what an individual can or cannot wear, for example, laws
requiring women to cover their faces or laws banning the
covering of faces, violate both of these rights.
Equally, censorship that is supposedly “in the name of”
religion, such as prohibitions on blasphemy, is in violation of
these rights. While States are required to protect individuals
from discrimination and incitement to violence based on their
religion or belief, it does not give individuals a corresponding
right to have their religions or beliefs insulated against
scrutiny, insult, or ridicule.
Importantly, these rights protect a wide range of non-
religious beliefs including atheism, agnosticism, veganism and
pacifism. For a belief to be protected under this article, it must
be serious, concern important aspects of human life or
behaviour, be sincerely held, and be worthy of respect in a
democratic society.

Page 40 of 58
 11. Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 02, 1940

11. Calalang v. Williams

G.R. No. 47800
December 02, 1940

FACTS:
The National Traffic Commission resolved that animal-
drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along some major
streets such a Rizal Avenue in Manila for a period of one year
from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic.
The Secretary of Public Works approved the resolution on
August 10, 1940. The Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of
Police of Manila have enforced the rules and regulation. As a
consequence, all animal-drawn vehicles are not allowed to
pass and pick up passengers in the places above mentioned to
the detriment not only of their owners but of the riding public
as well.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not, CA No 548 constitutes as an unlawful
interference with legitimate business or trade and abridges the
right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion; and
whether or not, CA No 548 infringes upon the constitutional
precept regarding the promotion of social justice.

HELD:
NO. Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the
National Assembly in the exercise of the paramount police
power of the state. In enacting said law, therefore, the National
Assembly was prompted by considerations of public
convenience and welfare. It was inspired by a desire to relieve
congestion of traffic, a menace to public safety. Public welfare,
then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of said law, and the
state in order to promote the general welfare may interfere
with personal liberty, with property, and with business and
occupations.
NO. The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not
through a mistaken sympathy towards any given group. Social
justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism,
nor anarchy," but the humanization of laws and the
equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may
at least be approximated.

Page 41 of 58
11. Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 02, 1940

Page 42 of 58
 11. Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 02, 1940

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

On October 27, 2021, The Court of Appeals (CA) has

declared unconstitutional a series of local legislation passed by
Mandaluyong City, collectively known as the Motorcycle
Riding-in-Tandem Ordinances.
In a 26-page decision dated Sept. 28 and penned by
Associate Justice Raymond Lauigan, the appellate court’s Fifth
Division reversed and set aside the July 2020 decision of the
Mandaluyong regional trial court (RTC) Branch 212 in the case
filed by Dino de Leon for violation of Ordinance 550,S-2014;
515,S-2015; and 694,S-2018.
In reversing the Mandaluyong RTC, the CA said the
subject ordinances are “unconstitutional because they are
oppressive and go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose that the City of Mandaluyong
aspires.”
The ordinances, the court added, “arbitrarily limit the
movement and mode of transportation of male back riders
even though there is no direct link or available statistical data
presented to show that motorcycle riding criminals are males”.
The CA also said there is failure to show that there are no
other alternatives for the accomplishment of the purpose
which are less intrusive of private rights and a failure to show
that the subject ordinances are fair, not discriminatory, and
not unreasonable.
The appellate court said the ordinances are
“discriminatory both as to gender and as to the use of
motorcycles as a mode of transportation and depended on
broad generalizations”.

Page 43 of 58
 11. Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 02, 1940

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO FREE MOVEMENT IN AND OUT

involved: OF THE COUNTRY AND FREEDOM FROM
DISCRIMINATION

The Philippine Constitution recognizes the non-

impairment of the right to travel “except in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health as may be
provided for by law” (Section 6, Article III of the 1987
Constitution). Following the constitutional mandate, Filipinos,
as a general rule, cannot be restrained from exercising their
right to travel.
The human right to freedom of movement is fundamental
and universal. In addition to being present in numerous
national laws, it is protected through the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights20 and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).21 Article 12
of the ICCPR provides that “everyone lawfully within the
territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to
liberty of movement”. It further states that “everyone shall be
free to leave any country, including his own”.
The Philippine Constitution also recognizes the non-
impairment of the right to freedom from discrimination under
Article III, Section 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 of t he 1987 Philippine
Constitution which states that every person has the right to
life, security of person and privacy, right to be free from
torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, the right to be free
from discrimination and the right to freedom of expression,
and the right to organize associations. Furthermore, under
Section 11, the State values the dignity of every person and
guarantees full respect for human rights. Similarly, the
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
in Article 6 affirms that the inherent right to life of every
person shall be protected by law and that no person should be
arbitrarily deprived of life.
To borrow the words of Nelson Mandela that to deny
people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.
Truly, no one should suffer discrimination on the basis of
ethnicity, gender, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity,
gender expression, civil status and other status as established
by human rights standards.

Page 44 of 58
 11. Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 02, 1940

Personal Reflection:

Freedom of movement is one of four freedoms of the

single market (with goods, services and capital).
Freedom of movement is critical not only to the future of
the economy, which is why other countries will not
compromise on it. This is not just because firms are struggling
to find the staff they need. The right does not belong to
employers but to people.
Goods and services belong to the corporate economy of
moral persons whose rights in the marketplace are fungible
and tradable; priced in the market, they can rise or fall in
value. Freedom of movement is a right of physical persons. No
one can exchange or sell this right; it is, literally, priceless and
it puts every citizen on an equal footing. The state does not
choose who gets to benefit, and who does not. Taxes may go
up or down; a right, once lost, cannot be so easily restored.
Freedom of movement has an economic impact because it
changes an individual’s outlook on his life, giving him choices
that he alone controls. Its impact is aspirational: with the
prospect of mobility, the incentives to study harder, be more
inventive, keep learning and perform better are greater.
Freedom of movement valorizes human capital and enlarges
the opportunities to use it.
If you don’t think freedom of movement matters, just
consider what would happen if it were taken away: horizons
narrow, opportunities shrink, ambitions diminish. How then
will the economy grow?
There is a risk that freedom of movement makes it easier
for people to leave the country. Just because people can live,
work or even retire in other countries does not mean they will.
The proper response is not to limit freedom of movement for
the citizens but to make our cities even more attractive and
dynamic by investing more in infrastructure, public goods, a
quality public service, health care and education, all of which
affect productivity, which is below averages in most cities. This
has been the strategy behind growth in some countries and it
pays a high rate of return through inward investment, higher
productivity and higher incomes. Connected, networked
labour markets create effects of scale even in small countries if
they are open.

Page 45 of 58
 11. Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 02, 1940

The trick is to enhance the positive effects of

agglomeration and control and reduce the negative ones at the
same time.

Page 46 of 58
 12. DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989

12. DECS v. San Diego

G.R. No. 89572
December 21, 1989

FACTS:
Roberto Rey San Diego, a graduate of the University of
the East with a degree of B.S. Zoology, had taken and flunked
4 National Medical Admission Tests and was applying to take
another test. NMAT Rule provides that a student shall be
allowed only three (3) chances to take the test.
After three successive failures, a student shall not be
allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth time.
The Regional Trial Court held that the petitioner had
been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education
through an arbitrary exercise of the police power.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, the respondent has been deprived of his
right to quality education.

HELD:
NO. NMAT is a measure intended to limit the admission
to medical schools to those who have initially proved their
competence and preparation for a medical education. The
regulation of practice of medicine is a reasonable method of
protecting the health and safety of the public.
This regulation includes the power to regulate admission
to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine. NMAT is
a means of achieving the country’s objective of “upgrading the
selection of applicants into medical schools” and of “improving
the quality of medical education in the country” It is the
responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession
is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may
unwarily entrust their lives and health.
The right to quality education is not absolute. The
Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to choose
a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable,
and equitable admission and academic requirement.

Page 47 of 58
 12. DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

On August 4, 2009, India enacted the Right to Education

Act that describes the modalities of the importance of free and
compulsory education for children between the age of 6 years
and 14 years in India. When the Act came into effect on April
1, 2010, the country became one of 135 nations to make
education a fundamental right of every child.
This Act was a watershed moment for Indian education
because universal elementary education was enshrined as a
fundamental right in its Constitution. Some of its key features
included laying down parameters for teacher qualification,
infrastructure and teacher-pupil ratio.
It also banned corporal punishment in any form. A
controversial and significant part of the Act was Article 12
1(C), which requires non-minority private-unaided schools to
reserve 25% of their seats for the socially and economically
disadvantaged. While the Act has been considered vital
legislation, it falls severely short on several aspects. It merits a
thorough relook, especially in a post-Covid-19 scenario.
According to the Annual Status of Education Report
2016, the percentage of children in rural government schools
in Class 5 who can read at Class 2 level or better is only at
50.3%, with massive differences across states. Similarly, the
percentage of children in rural government schools in Class 5
who could recognize two-digit numbers was just 30.5%.
Scholars have noted that although the RTE Act has
brought hope to schoolchildren, there is a striking inequality
in elementary education both in quality and quantity, thereby
causing disparities in its access across location, economic
category, social group and gender, most importantly through
socio-religious exclusion.
However, the RTE Act needs to be amended to include
online learning, which also has potential ramifications for the
right to the internet to be made a fundamental right.
Moreover, the Union and state governments both need to
identify that private schools are here to stay. A significant
reform in regulating private schools for governance and
infrastructure, and bringing about uniform quality indicators
so that parents can make a more informed choice is something
that is urgently required.

Page 48 of 58
 12. DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO EDUCATION

involved:

Education is a powerful and important tool for promoting

tolerance and strengthening respect for human rights and
diversity, through understanding and awareness (Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR). The importance of
human rights education has been emphasised by the United
Nations (UN) for over twenty years.
The right to education is recognized in international law
as a fundamental human right. International human rights
law lays down core provisions regarding the right to education.
The legal bases are established by various international
mechanisms such as the 1948 Universal Declaration on
Human Rights (Article 26), the 1960 UNESCO Convention
against Discrimination in Education, the 1966 International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 13),
as well as other instruments covering specific components of
the right to education.
The right to education is established by two means:
normative international instruments and political
commitments by governments. A solid international framework
of conventions and treaties exist to protect the right to
education and States that sign up to them agree to respect,
protect and fulfill this right.
The Philippines, as a party to these international treaties
that declare the right to education as a fundamental human
right, is bound by the core obligations incumbent upon every
member State.
The following are some provisions of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution which conform to these international obligations:
"Article XIV, Section 2 (2): Xxx elementary education is
compulsory for all children of school age; Article XIV, Section
1: The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens
to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate
steps to make such education accessible to all; and Article
XIV, Section 2 (3): [The State shall] Establish and maintain a
system of scholarship grants, student loan programs,
subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to
deserving students in both public and private schools,
especially to the under-privileged."

Page 49 of 58
 12. DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989

Personal Reflection:

International laws and treaties only bind States, and not

private entities or non-State actors. Thus, the right to
education, as a fundamental human right under international
law, is demandable against the State and not against private
entities in the absence of State intervention.
While providing that education is the primary
responsibility of the State, international human rights law also
recognizes that education may be provided by non-State actors
such as religious institutions, non-government organizations,
foundations and even proprietary entities. Indeed, when
education is delivered in these non-State actors, it cannot be
demandable. In our jurisdiction, relevant to this is the
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the landmark case of
Ateneo vs. Capulong that, in recognition of its academic
freedom, the admission to a private institution of higher
learning is discretionary upon a school, the same being a
privilege on the part of the student rather than a right.
In international law, at the core of the primary
responsibility of the State to ensure the right of access to
education is to make sure that programs are on a
nondiscriminatory basis. Hence, our own Constitution, under
Article XIV, Section 2, (3) has the following State mandate:
Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants,
student loan programs, subsidies, and other incentives which
shall be available to deserving students in both public and
private schools, especially to the under-privileged. Emphasis
should be on deserving students in both public and private
schools when the government provides student assistance
programs.
As part of the discussion of the Right to Education in the
international arena, international laws also promote “Freedom
in Education” that must be guaranteed by the State. It is also
referred to as “free parental choice of education.”
Article 5(b) of the Convention against Discrimination in
Education provides "the personal freedom of any person to
choose between state-organized and private education refers to
parents’ freedom to ensure their children’s moral and religious
education in conformity with their own convictions."
Here, the State is said to have a negative obligation to not
interfere in this choice of the parents.

Page 50 of 58
 13. Edillon Case, A.C. 1928, December 19, 1980

13. Edillon Case

A.C. 1928
December 19, 1980

FACTS:
This is an administrative case against Edillon who
refuses to pay his IBP membership dues assailing the
provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of
par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to
the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and
suspension for failure to pay the same. He contends that the
stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional
rights of being compelled to be a member of the IBP in order to
practice his profession and thus deprives his rights to liberty
and property and thereby null and void.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, the assailed provisions constitute a
deprivation of liberty and property of the respondent.

HELD:
NO. The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which
every lawyer must be a member of a distinguished from bar
associations in which membership is merely optional and
voluntary. All lawyers are subject to comply with the rules
prescribed for the governance of the Bar including payment of
reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules
of Court only compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not
in violation of his constitutional free to associate. Bar
integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. He is free to attend or not the meeting of his
Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election
as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected
is the payment of annual dues.
The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of
Rules of Court (Article 139-A) and of the By-Laws of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines complained of are neither
unconstitutional nor illegal.
The Supreme Court disbarred the respondent and his
name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.

Page 51 of 58
 13. Edillon Case, A.C. 1928, December 19, 1980

Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

Page 52 of 58
 13. Edillon Case, A.C. 1928, December 19, 1980

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT AGAINST DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

involved: AND TO OWN PROPERTY

The right to liberty can be traced back to the English

Magna Charta (1215) and the United States Declaration of the
Rights of Man and Citizen (1789). The right was further
developed and its scope of application widened after the
French Revolution, in the French Declaration of Rights (1789)
where the right to liberty was guaranteed to all nationals in
the constitutions of national states.
At the international level, the right to liberty and security
of the person found its first legal formulation in Article 9 of the
Universal Declaration. But it has since been further elaborated
upon by a number of international human rights instruments
at the international and the regional level.
With regards to the right to own property, “No one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” So declares article 17
of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Property
can include things like land, houses, objects you own, shares,
licenses, leases, patents, money, pensions and certain types of
welfare benefits. A public authority cannot take away your
property, or place restrictions on its use, without very good
reason.
The right to property is one of the more controversial and
complex human rights. It is complex, because no other human
right is subject to more qualifications and limitations and,
consequently, no other right has resulted in more complex
case-law of, for instance, the supervisory bodies of the ECHR.
It is complex also because it is generally regarded as a civil
right, and by some even as an integrity right. Moreover, the
right to property has major implications for several important
social and economic rights such as the right to work, the right
to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, the right to
education and the right to adequate housing.
The right to own property is also crucial to the economic
development necessary to ensure that human beings can
supply themselves with food and otherwise support
themselves. As such, it is a strategic human right, a right that
protects other rights.

Page 53 of 58
 13. Edillon Case, A.C. 1928, December 19, 1980

Personal Reflection:

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The concept of property and possessions includes
tangible things like land and money but also includes
contractual rights; shares; leases; claims for compensation;
intellectual property rights; statutory rights to benefits among
other things.
The genuine, effective exercise of this right does not only
depend on the State’s duty not to interfere, but it may also
require positive measures to protect property to be taken. This
is particularly the case where there is a direct link between the
measures a property owner may legitimately expect from the
authorities and the effective enjoyment of his or her
possessions.
Any interference with this right must be subject to
conditions provided for by law and must achieve a fair balance
between the general public interest and the protection of an
individual’s property rights.
What is considered to be in the public interest is often
left to the Government to decide, but any interference must
strike a fair balance between the demands of the general
interests of the community and the requirements of the
individual’s fundamental rights. A lack of appropriate
compensation would be likely to be considered
disproportionate.
However, without the right to liberty, this right to
property is but a sandcastle against the waves of anarchy and
chaos. Broadly speaking, liberty is the ability to do as one
pleases, or a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by
grant (i.e. privilege). It is a synonym for the word freedom. In
modern politics, liberty is the state of being free within society
from control or oppressive restrictions imposed by authority
on one's way of life, behaviour, or political views.
Thus, the right to personal liberty is one of the most
fundamental human rights as it affects the vital elements of
an individual’s physical freedom.

Page 54 of 58
 14. Alanis v. CA, G.R. No. 216425, November 11, 2020

14. Alanis v. CA
G.R. No. 216425
November 11, 2020

FACTS:
Petitioner alleged that he was born to Mario Alanis y
Cimafranca and Jarmila Imelda Ballaho y Al-Raschid, and
that the name on his birth certificate was "Anacleto Ballaho
Alanis III."
Petitioner wished to remove his father's surname "Alanis
III," and instead use his mother's maiden name "Ballaho," and
change his first name from "Anacleto" to "Abdulhamid"as this
was what he has been using since childhood and indicated in
his school records.
Petitioner's parents have separated when he was 5 years
old, and have been living separately, and the petitioner's
mother has single-handedly raised him and his siblings.
Petitioner has presented pieces of evidence, such as
photographs of his yearbooks, school diploma and school
paper editorial staff.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not, legitimate children have the right to use
their mothers' surnames as their surnames;

HELD:
YES. Contrary to the State policy, the trial court treated
the surnames of petitioner's mother and father unequally. The
Regional Trial Court's application of Article 364 of the Civil
Code is incorrect.
"ARTICLE 364. Legitimate and legitimated children shall
principally use the surname of the father."
Indeed, the provision states that legitimate children shall
"principally" use the surname of the father, but "principally"
does not mean "exclusively." This gives ample room to
incorporate into Article 364 the State policy of ensuring the
fundamental equality of women and men before the law, and
no discernible reason to ignore it.
Reading Article 364 of the Civil Code together with the
State's declared policy to ensure the fundamental equality of

Page 55 of 58
 14. Alanis v. CA, G.R. No. 216425, November 11, 2020

women and men before the law, a legitimate child is entitled to

use the surname of either parent as a last name.
Current Event/s in Relation to the Case:

Page 56 of 58
 14. Alanis v. CA, G.R. No. 216425, November 11, 2020

In Relation to the Concept of Human Rights:

Rights RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM

involved: DISCRIMINATION

In the 15-decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic

Leonen, the SC ruled consider to incorporate into Article 364
of the Civil Code the State policy of ensuring the fundamental
equality of women and men before the law, and no discernible
reason to ignore it.”
The High Court also reiterated that the spirit and
mandate of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Republic Act
7192 or the Women in Development and National Building
Act, and Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 the Constitution —
which all require the State to “take the appropriate measures
to ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before
the law.”
From the foregoing mandate, the SC instructed courts —
just like all other government departments and agencies — to
ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before the
law.
As set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no
distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory
to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust,
non-self-governing or under any other limitation of
sovereignty.
Discrimination occurs when you are treated less
favourably than another person in a similar situation and this
treatment cannot be objectively and reasonably justified.
Discrimination can also occur if you are disadvantaged by
The Human Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on
a wide range of grounds including ‘sex, race, colour, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
association with a national minority, property, birth or other
status’. The case law relating to this right has shown that the
term ‘other status’ includes sexual orientation, illegitimacy,
marital status, trade union membership, transsexual status
and imprisonment.
Page 57 of 58
 14. Alanis v. CA, G.R. No. 216425, November 11, 2020

Personal Reflection:

The tradition of women and children taking the surname

of the husband/father is one that’s deeply ingrained in the
mainstream of many cultures, including our own. On the
woman’s part, Western media has long portrayed it as
romantic, as the symbol of a woman starting a new life, and
even in some of the most egalitarian nations, such as Norway,
it remains the norm.
Yet, why is it that it’s only the woman who is expected to
change her name to show love, or commitment? Why does she
bear the onus of sacrifice of a part of her identity in order to
create a new family?
The simple fact is that a woman taking the surname of
her husband while the husband’s name remains unchanged is
a remnant from less enlightened times, when women were
practically property of their husbands. Naturally, in such
cases the surnames of the children would flow from the
father’s as well. Again, when this is an action that is chosen,
when it is a conscious decision, it can be a testament of love.
But it can only be a conscious choice if it is clear that this is
not the only choice, that women have a right to retain their
own names and that the children may take the surnames of
their mothers rather than their fathers.
That’s why the decision in the Alanis III case is so
important, because it shows that positive action and explicit
statements are necessary to make the status quo more
malleable, and more equitable. The decision reiterated that
“[t]he fundamental equality of women and men before the law
shall be ensured by the State” and that the provision in Article
II, Section 14 of the Constitution that the State “shall ensure
the fundamental equality before the law of women and men”
requires that the government must be proactive in ensuring
gender equality.
The decision is an important first step towards equalizing
the mindset concerning the choice of surnames in the country,
an important step in shaking up a status quo that assumes
male as a default, or implicitly supports male privilege.
Women’s rights are not so entrenched in society that we can
afford to be less than vigilant, and there will always be those
voices clamoring for “a return to ‘simpler’ times”, even when
that simplicity comes at the cost of women’s agency and
dignity.

Page 58 of 58