G.R. No. 81958 • June 30, 1988 No.

There is no question that Department

Order No. 1 applies only to “female contract
Constitutional Law | Equal protection of the
workers,” but it does not thereby make an
laws | Valid Classification
undue discrimination between the sexes. It is
FACTS: well-settled that “equality before the law”
under the Constitution does not import a
PASEI is a firm engaged principally in the
perfect identity of rights among all men and
recruitment of Filipino workers, male and
women. It admits of classifications, provided
female, for overseas placement. -DOLE
that (1) such classifications rest on substantial
issued Department Order No. 1,
distinctions; (2) they are germane to the
GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE
purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF
to existing conditions; and (4) they apply
DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC
equally to all members of the same class. The
AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS.
Court is satisfied that the classification
PASEI then went to the SC via certiorari and made—the preference for female workers—
prohibition. rests on substantial distinctions. As a matter
of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of
PASEI contentions: (1) D.O. 1 discriminates
the unhappy plight that has befallen our
against females, and it does not apply to all
female labor force abroad, especially
Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers
domestic servants, amid exploitative working
and females with similar skills; (2) It is
conditions marked by, in not a few cases,
violative of the right to travel; and (3) It
physical and personal abuse. The sordid tales
constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative
of maltreatment suffered by migrant Filipina
power.
workers, even rape and various forms of
ISSUES: torture, confirmed by testimonies of returning
workers, are compelling motives for urgent
(1)
government action. As precisely the caretaker
Whether or not D.O. 1 violates the equal of Constitutional rights, the Court is called
protection clause; upon to protect victims of exploitation. In
fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains the
(2)
government’s efforts. The same, however,
Whether or not D.O. 1 is violative of the right cannot be said of our male workers. In the
to travel; first place, there is no evidence that, except
perhaps for isolated instances, our men
(3)
abroad have been afflicted with an identical
Whether or not D.O. 1 constitutes an invalid predicament.
exercise of legislative power.
(2)
RULING:
No. The right to travel is subject, among other
(1) things, to the requirements of “public safety,”
“as may be provided by law.” Department cases where the facts so warrant, to criminal
Order No. 1 is a valid implementation of the or civil liability. If the trial is unreasonably
Labor Code, in particular, its basic policy to delayed without fault of the accused such that
“afford protection to labor,” pursuant to the he is deprived of his right to a speedy trial, he
respondent Department of Labor’s rule- is not without a remedy. He may ask for the
making authority vested in it by the Labor dismissal of the case. Should the court refuse
Code. The petitioner assumes that it is to dismiss the case, the accused can compel
unreasonable simply because of its impact on its dismissal by certiorari, prohibition or
the right to travel, but as we have stated, the mandamus, or secure his liberty by habeas
right itself is not absolute. The disputed Order corpus. Second. Petitioner misapplies Sec. 42
is a valid qualification thereto. of PD 807. A meticulous reading of the
section clearly shows that it refers to the
(3)
lifting of preventive suspension in pending
No. The Labor Code itself vests the administrative investigation, not in criminal
Department of Labor and Employment with cases, as here. What is more, Section 42
rulemaking powers in the enforcement expressly limits the period of preventive
whereof. It is true that police power is the suspension to ninety (90) days. Sec. 91 of
domain of the legislature, but it does not R.A. 6975 which states that “The Civil
mean that such an authority may not be Service Law and its implementing rules shall
lawfully delegated. The second sentence of apply to all personnel of the Department”
the same Section providing that the trial must simply means that the provisions of the Civil
be terminated within ninety (90) days from Service Law and its implementing rules and
arraignment does not qualify or limit the first regulations are applicable to members of the
sentence. The two can stand independently of Philippine National Police insofar as the
each other. The first refers to the period of provisions, rules and regulations are not
suspension. The second deals with the time inconsistent with R.A. 6975. Certainly,
frame within which the trial should be Section 42 of the Civil Service Decree which
finished. Suppose the trial is not terminated limits the preventive suspension to ninety
within ninety days from arraignment, should (90) days cannot apply to members of the
the suspension of accused be lifted? The PNP because Sec. 47 of R.A. 6995 provides
answer is certainly no. While the law uses the differently, that is, the suspension where the
mandatory word “shall” before the phrase “be penalty imposed by law exceeds six (6) years
terminated within ninety (90) days”, there is shall continue until the case is terminated. x
nothing in R.A. 6975 that suggests that the x x x The reason why members of the PNP
preventive suspension of the accused will be are treated differently from the other classes
lifted if the trial is not terminated within that of persons charged criminally or
period. Nonetheless, the Judge who fails to administratively insofar as the application of
decide the case within the period without the rule on preventive suspension is
justifiable reason may be subject to concerned is that policemen carry weapons
administrative sanctions and, in appropriate and the badge of the law which can be used
 to harass or intimidate witnesses against The government, through the Office of
them. If a suspended policeman criminally the Solicitor General, immediately filed a
charged with a serious offense is reinstated to “Consolidated Urgent Motion for
his post while his case is pending, his victim Reconsideration and/or to Lift Temporary
and the witnesses against him are obviously Restraining Order”. Petitioner Gloria
exposed to constant threat and thus easily Macapagal Arroyo also filed an “Urgent
cowed to silence by the mere fact that the Motion for Respondents to Cease and Desist
accused is in uniform and armed. The from Preventing Petitioner GMA from
imposition of preventive suspension for over Leaving the Country.” She also moved to cite
90 days under Section 47 of R.A. 6975 does the Respondent Secretary of Justice in
not violate the suspended policeman’s contempt for failure to comply with the TRO.
constitutional right to equal protection of the
laws. x x x x A distinction based on real and On November 18, 2011, the Court
reasonable considerations related to a proper conducted a special en banc session to tackle
legislative purpose such as that which exists the pending incidents of the consolidated
here is neither unreasonable, capricious nor cases.]
unfounded.
II. THE ISSUES
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. Hon. Leila
M. De Lima (G.R. No. 199034) and Jose
Among the more important issues
Miguel T. Arroyo vs. Sec. Leila M. De
resolved by the Court during the special en
Lima (G.R. No. 199046), November 18,
banc session were as follows:
2011 : Dissent of Justice Sereno
1. Should the Resolution granting the prayer
DISSENTING OPINION
for a TRO be reconsidered?
2. Was there compliance with the 2nd condition
SERENO, J.:
of the TRO? If there is none, should the TRO
be suspended in the meantime?
I. THE FACTS
III. THE RULING
[Late last Tuesday, November 15,
2011, the Supreme issued an “immediately
1. [The Justices maintained their 8-
executory” Temporary Restraining Order
5 vote on the issuance of the TRO. The
(TRO) enjoining the implementation of DOJ
majority thus “require[d]” Secretary De
Department Circular No. 41 and Watchlist
Lima to “IMMEDIATELY COMPLY with the
Order and thereby allowing the petitioners
said temporary restraining order by allowing
Arroyo spouses to leave the Philippines after
petitioners to leave the country.”]
complying with the conditions in the
Resolution. The respondent Secretary of
YES, the Resolution granting the
Justice Leila De Lime however prevented the
petitioners’ prayer for a TRO should be
Arroyos from leaving.
reconsidered.
 When out of the country’s
[T]his Court cannot ignore a basic jurisdiction, by being corporeally absent
constitutional precept: the presumption of therefrom, public respondents’ legal
validity of official actions. Especially when remedies against petitioners will be subject to
the practice of issuing watch list orders, has the jurisdiction and the pleasure of the
been practiced for decades by the Department various countries where they will flee. Out of
of Justice, and many other analogous the countries that had been mentioned by
practices has been observed as well by many petitioners to be subject of her medical tour,
other governmental agencies, including this only two (2) of the countries cited have
court, through analogous restrictive practices. extradition treaties with the Philippines. It
This Court cannot turn to a blind eye what is still needs verification whether the
involved in running a government. xxx. extradition with Spain has already been
What this all means is that a full hearing must rendered effective through concurrence to the
be conducted before this Court decides to same by the Senate.
grant a TRO to petitioners, none of whom, by
their very own documents, are under any life- The moment she flies out of
threatening, emergency, medical situation. Philippine air space, our country’s ability to
enforce its laws will now be subject to the
While in the end we may ultimately wishes of a foreign government. A PhP2
strike down the issuance of Watch List Million Peso bond is crumbs for one who, if
Orders by the Department of Justice or proven, has actually obtained multiples more
uphold such orders and additionally provide from the country’s coffers. Neither will the
standards before the power to restrict travel appointment of a substitute replace the
of persons under preliminary investigation effective justice that can be enforced only
can be exercised, what is at stake this very when a State has physical custody of a person
day is a fundamental question of whether we who has been proven guilty of violation of the
should presume that officials can perform the state laws. A conviction against her may lie
functions they have been performing for ages as a formal judgment, but there may
– in order that we maintain order in the effectively be no service of sentence. That is
running of a country. Therefore, with all due of course, all premised on the theory that
respect, it is completely wrong for this Court petitioners may ultimately be convicted for
to bend over backwards to accommodate the one of the crimes for which they are charged.
request of petitioners for a TRO to be issued That result can only add to the very long saga
ex parte without hearing the side of the of our people’s desperate attempts to try to
government. xxx. redeem its self-respect by showing to the
world that contrary to the common
xxx xxx observation of outsiders, impunity is not
xxx allowed to reign in this country. Should the
Court contribute to such possible despair by
not waiting for the oral argument on 22 2. [The Court voted 7–
November 2011 before issuing a TRO? 6[1] that there was no compliance with the
2nd condition of the TRO. But it nonetheless
The principal physician of former voted by the same 7-6 margin that there was
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Dr. no need to explicitly state the legal effect on
Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, and her surgeon, Dr. the TRO of the noncompliance by petitioners
Mario Ver, have all certified to her with the 2nd condition.
continuing recovery and her positive
prognosis, especially after 6 to 8 The November 18, 2011 Resolution
months. There has been no allegation in her instead noted the SPA executed by Gloria
pleadings that those certifications are false, Macapagal-Arroyo, appointing Atty.
nor that her doctors are incompetent. They Ferdinand Topacio as her legal, and merely
should then be believed by this Court that stated that “she shall commit to the Court
there is no medical emergency warranting an that she shall instruct her legal
immediate flight. What is waiting four (4) representative to amend par. (iii) of par. (b)
more days from today, when oral arguments above to state: “to receive summons or
are conducted, compared with the possibility documentary evidence” and forthwith submit
that there is genuine, and not just publicly- this compliance with the Court;”]
imagined intention, on the part of the
petitioners to evade legal processes. This NO, there was no compliance with
nd
Court can afford to wait until 22 November the 2 condition of the TRO; hence, YES,
2011, without prejudicing any of the the TRO should be suspended in the
constitutional rights of the petitioner, meantime.
considering the potentials that loom in the
distance and the fears that weigh on the minds The majority, by a 7-6 voting [sic],
of our people - that justice will be again be denied the minority’s proposition that a
frustrated if the simple operation of bringing resolution be issued including a phrase that
back an accused person from abroad, will the TRO is suspended pending compliance
prove to be impossible to effect, even by this with the second condition of the 15
Court. November 2011 Resolution. The majority
argued that such a clarification is
Xxx. Considering that petitioners unnecessary, because it is clear that the TRO
herein are not under any medical emergency, is conditional, and cannot be made use of
as certified by petitioner Gloria Arroyo’s own until compliance has been done. It was
doctors, can this Court not just wait for the therefore the sense of the majority that, as an
Comment and the oral arguments to be offshoot of the winning vote that there was
shortly conducted?” failure by petitioners to comply with
Condition Number 2, the TRO is implicitly
deemed suspended until there is compliance
with such condition. Everyone believed that
 it would be clear to all that a conditional TRO While this opinion was being written,
is what it is, conditional. Court Administrator and Acting Chief of the
Public Information Office (PIO) Atty. Midas
Below is the relevant excerpt from the Marquez informed the press that the
Special Power of Attorney dated 15 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was
November 2011, the failed compliance of effective, i.e., “in full force and
petitioners with Condition Number 2 in our effect.” Contrary to this interpretation, as
Resolution dated 15 November 2011: stated, it was the understanding of a majority
that the TRO is “suspended pending
That I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL compliance” with our earlier Resolution. The
ARROYO, of legal age, married, Filipino operational ineffectivity of the TRO is
with residence at 14 Badjao Street, Pansol, implied – for it is a basic principle that the
Quezon City, do hereby name, constitute and failure of petitioners to comply with one of
appoint ATTY. FERDINAND TOPACIO, the conditions in the Resolution dated 15
likewise of legal age, Filipino, with office November 2011 is a jurisdictional defect that
address at Ground floor, Skyway Twin suspends, at the least, the effectivity of the
Towers, H. Javier St., Ortigas Center, Pasig, TRO. Therefore, the TRO, until faithful
Metro Manila, as my legal representative in compliance with the terms thereof, is legally
the Philippines and to be my true and lawful ineffective. It was a human mistake,
attorney-in-fact, for my name, place and understandable on the part of the Clerk of
stead, to do and perform the following acts Court, considering the way the TRO was
and things, to wit: rushed, to have issued the same despite non-
1. To sign, verify, and file a written statement; compliance by petitioners with one of the
2. To make and present to the court an strict conditions imposed by the Court.
application in connection with any Nevertheless, good faith and all, the legal
proceedings in the suit; effect of such non-compliance is the same –
3. To produce summons or receive petitioners cannot make use thereof for
documentary evidence; failure to comply faithfully with a condition
4. To make and file compromise or a imposed by this Court for its issuance. The
confession of judgment and to refer the case Court Administrator cum Acting Chief of the
to arbitration; PIO is hereby advised to be careful not to go
5. To deposit and withdraw any money for the beyond his role in such offices, and that
purpose of any proceeding; he has no authority to interpret any of our
6. To obtain copies of documents and papers; judicial issuances, including the present
and Resolution, a function he never had from the
7. Generally to do all other lawful acts beginning.
necessary for the conduct of the said case.
(Emphasis supplied.) Furthermore, it is hereby clarified
that it is mandatory for the Clerk of Court to
ensure that there is faithful compliance with
all the conditions imposed in our 15 The right to travel is not absolute and can be
November 2011 resolution, including our restricted in the interest of public safety.
second condition, before issuing any
Employees of the court have certain
certification that the compliance with the
responsibilities and give up some rights when
TRO has been made, and only then can the
they become public servants.
TRO become effective.
Heusdens voluntarily joined the Supreme
Leave Division, Office of Administrative Court Savings and Loan Association
Services - Office of the Court (SCSLA) and agreed to follow its
Administrator vs. Heusdens requirements and regulations, including
obtaining clearance before traveling abroad.
Facts:
Heusdens should face the consequences for
Wilma Salvacion P. Heusdens, a Clerk IV of
her violation of the court's rules and
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Tagum
regulations.
City, traveled abroad without the required
travel authority.
Heusdens submitted a leave application for THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V.
foreign travel from September 11, 2009, to COMELEC
October 11, 2009, but left for abroad without [GR. No. 205758; January 21, 2015]
waiting for the result of her application. Facts:
• The Diocese of Bacolod posted two
It was later discovered that no travel authority
tarpaulins (6x10 feet each) on the front wall
was issued to her because she had not cleared
of the San
all her accountabilities, as evidenced by the
Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod (private
Supreme Court Certificate of Clearance.
property).
Heusdens admitted to traveling overseas o The first tarpaulin contains the message
without the required travel authority but “IBASURA ANG RH Law.”
claimed that she believed her application o The second tarpaulin contains the heading
would eventually be approved. “Conscience Vote,” and provides for a list of
those who are either Anti-RH (TEAM
Issue:
BUHAY), or Pro-RH (TEAM PATAY).
Whether Heusdens violated court regulations • In this case, the Diocese of Bacolod is
by traveling abroad without the required seeking to nullify the following orders for
travel authority. being unconstitutional:
o The order of Election Officer Atty.
Ruling:
Majarucon, directing them to remove the
Heusdens violated court regulations and supposed
should be admonished for her actions. over-sized tarpaulins; and
o The order issued by COMELEC, directing
Ratio:
them to immediately remove such tarpaulins,
and threatening them with the filing of an flag, sing the national anthem and recite the
election offense patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and
• The Supreme Court En Banc issued a TRO, Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd.
enjoining the COMELEC from removing the Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their
tarpaulins. children not to salute the flag, sing the
Issue/s: national anthem, and recite the patriotic
pledge for they believe that those are "acts of
WON the tarpaulin and its message are worship" or "religious devotion” which they
considered religious speech. "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or
anything except God". They feel bound by
the Bible's command to "guard ourselves
NO. The position of the Catholic religion in from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the
the Philippines as regards the RH Law does flag as an image or idol representing the State
not suffice to qualify the posting by one of its (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of the
members of a tarpaulin as religious speech local authorities in compelling the flag salute
solely on such basis. The enumeration of and pledge transcends constitutional
candidates on the face of the tarpaulin limitations on the State's power and invades
precludes any doubt as to its nature as speech the sphere of the intellect and spirit which the
with political consequences and not religious Constitution protect against official control
speech. Issue:
With religion looked upon with benevolence Whether school children who are members or
and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows a religious sect known as Jehovah's
accommodation of religion under certain Witnesses may be expelled from school (both
circumstances. Accommodations are public and private), for refusing, on account
government policies that take religion of their religious beliefs, to take part in the
specifically into account not to promote the flag ceremony which includes playing (by a
government’s favored form of religion, but to band) or singing the Philippine national
allow individuals and groups to anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and
reciting the patriotic pledge.
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division
Ruling:
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu
GR Nos. 95770 and
No, they cannot be expelled for this reason.
95887 March
We hold that a similar exemption may be
1, 1993
accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with
regard to the observance of the flag ceremony
Facts:
out of respect for their religious beliefs,
The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are
however "bizarre" those beliefs may seem to
elementary and high school students who
others. Nevertheless, their right not to
were expelled from their classes by public
participate in the flag ceremony does not give
school authorities for refusing to salute the
them a right to disrupt such patriotic remain employed therein as it might appear
exercises. Paraphrasing the warning cited by that the court condones her act.
this Court in Non vs. Dames II, 185 SCRA
2. Respondent admitted she started living
523, 535, while the highest regard must be
with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. more than 20 years
afforded their right to the free exercise of
ago when her husband was still alive but
their religion, "this should not be taken to
living with another woman. She likewise
mean that school authorities are powerless to
admitted having a son with Quilapio but
discipline them" if they should commit
denies any liability for alleged grossly
breaches of the peace by actions that offend
immoral conduct because, 1) She is a
the sensibilities, both religious and patriotic,
member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the
of other persons. If they quietly stand at
Watch Tower Society, 2) That the conjugal
attention during the flag ceremony while their
arrangement was in conformity with their
classmates and teachers salute the flag, sing
religious beliefs, and 3) That the conjugal
the national anthem and recite the patriotic
arrangement with Quilapio has the approval
pledge, we do not see how such conduct may
of her congregation.
possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a grave
and present danger of a serious evil to public 3. Escritor likewise claimed that she had
safety, public morals, public health or any executed a “Declaration of Pledging
other legitimate public interest that the State Faithfulness' in accordance with her religion
has a right (and duty) to prevent (German vs. which allows members of the Jehovah’s
Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 517). witnesses who have been abandoned by their
spouses to enter into marital relations. The
Declaration thus makes the resulting union
Estrada v. Escritor Digest
moral and binding within the congregation all
over the world except in countries where
Estrada v. Escritor
divorce is allowed.
A.M.No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003
Puno, J.: Held:
Facts: Escritor was therefore held not
administratively liable for grossly immoral
1. Respondent is the Court interpreter of RTC
conduct. Escritor’s conjugal arrangement
Branch 253 in Las Pinas City. The
cannot be penalized as she has made out a
complainant Estrada requested for an
case for exemption from the law based on her
investigation of respondent for living with a
fundamental right to religion. The Court
man not her husband while she was still
recognizes that state interests must be upheld
legally married and having borne a child
in order that freedoms—including religious
within this live-in arrangement. Estrada
freedom—may be enjoyed.
believed that Escritor is committing a grossly
immoral act which tarnishes the image of the In the area of religious exercise as preferred
judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to freedom, however, man stands accountable to
an authority higher than the state, and so the
state interest sought to be upheld must be so Rather than relying on religious belief, the
compelling that its violation will erode the government must act for secular purposes and
very fabric of the state that will also protect in ways that have primarily secular effects.
the freedom. In the absence of a showing that “Ang Ladlad” has sufficiently demonstrated
the state interest exists, man must be allowed its compliance with the legal requirements for
to subscribe to the Infinite. accreditation. Hence, its application as a
party-list should be granted.

CASE DIGEST: ANG LADLAD LGBT

PARTY vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 190582, EN BANC,
April 8, 2010
FACTS:
“Ang Ladlad” is an organization of people
who identify themselves as lesbians, gays,
bisexuals or trans- genders. The Comelec
dismissed the petition on moral grounds as
“the definition of the LGBT sector makes it
crystal clear that it tolerates immorality
which offends religious beliefs.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not “Ang Ladlad” party-list
application should be denied as the
organizationallegedly tolerates immorality
which offends religious beliefs.
RULING:
No. The denial of accreditation, insofar as it
justified the exclusion by using religious
dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees
against the establishment of religion;
including its constitutional rights to privacy,
freedom of speech and assembly, and equal
protection of laws, as well as constituted
violations of the Philippines’ international
obligations against discrimination based on
sexual orientation.