1

Legal philosophy

I. The Legal System

1. What is law
- It connotes binding communal rules
- rule of conduct, just, and obligatory, formulated by legitimate power for common benefit

2. Branches of Law
-jural law (promulgated by man) may be classified into substantive or procedural law
- Criminal law, civil law, mercantile law, political law

3. Hybrid system
- common law system – case law, judicial precedence
- civil code system – Coded laws
- Sharia Law – based on islam
Philippine legal system is a combination of these three

A. Cyber libel, Proof of truth and restriction to Freedom of speech

Disini v Secretary of Justice

Summary: Several petitioners pray that the cybercrime prevention act be unconstitutional. Especially sec. 4(c)(4)
on cyberlibel and section 5 on aiding and abetting. Court ruled that cyber libel is constitutional for the original
author, but those who share, or like, or comment it cannot be liable for cyber libel. The court also ruled that aiding
and abetting is only punishable in illegal access, interception, and interference.

Cyberlibel

- Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
- Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if
it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
- 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative
or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their
functions.

- The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication
of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.40

- Cyber libel is not actually a new law since Art. 353 of the RPC already punishes it. Section 4(c)(4) of the
cybercrime prevention act.
- IT IS PUNISHED ONE DEGREE HIGHER THAN LIBEL

Proof of truth
 2

- In libel, truth may be a defense but under the condition that the accused made statement by good
motives and for justifiable ends.

RPC Art .361. Proof of truth – In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in
evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover,
that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be
acquitted.

Aiding and abetting

- It is section 5 of the cybercrime prevention act, it states that online liking, sharing and posting a
defamatory statement online would be aiding and abetting. Court ruled they are NOT LIABLE since they
are not the author and merely express opinion.
- SECTION 5 IN RELATION TO 4(C)(4) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE RESTRICTS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND IT
IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS

VIOD FOR VAGUENESS = a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application

Further, the Court DECLARES:

1. Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel as VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL with respect to the original
author of the post; but VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to others who simply receive the post
and react to it; and

2. Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as VA L I D
and CONSTITUTIONAL only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal
Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System

II. Legal and philosophical issues

A. Public and Secular Morality as Prevailing Norm of Conduct
Leus v Saint Scholasticas Westgrove
Summary = Cheryll Leus, non-teaching staff at the school was fired from her work for having a child out of wedlock
with her boyfriend. The court ruled that what is disgraceful and immoral is secular and not religious. In the issue if
she is to be given separation pay or reinstated, the court ruled that she be given separation pay because the
employer-employee relationship is already not in good terms.

Public morality
- Not based on religion
- Jurisdiction of Court is only public and secular, not religious

Prevailing norms of conduct

- are used to determine what is considered disgraceful and immoral
- Morality referred to in the law is public and secular
- If morality is religious, non-believers would be compelled to conform to religious belief
- There must be separation of church and state, non-establishment clause of religious freedom
- It is immoral not because of religious belief but because it is dangerous for human progress, and general
welfare, it is a secular purpose
- Something is “disgraceful and immoral” not because of personal bias or mores, but because of public and
secular morality

B. On Negligence, Intent, Motive, and Malice

Villareal v People
 3

Summary- Villareal died in a fraternity hazing at Ateneo

Negligence
- Voluntary act done without malice, from which an immediate personal harm, injury or material damage
results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution.
- TEST OF NEGLIGENCE: Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is
attributed foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be
pursued

Intent
- A state of mind accompanying an act, especially a forbidden act, refers to the purpose of the mind and
the persons resolve
- It is the purpose , it must refer to malicious intent

Motive
- The moving power that impels one to action for a definite result

Malice
- A Complex idea involving elements of freedom, intelligence, and intent
- In Mala in se, The intent is important, it must be malicious intent with mens rea (guilty mind)

COMMON MISCONCEPTION OF MALA IN SE / MALA PROHIBITA = RPC is all mala in se, exception- technical
malversion, Special law is all mala prohibita, exception - Plunder

C. Equal protection Compatible with reasonable classification

Villanueva v JBC
Summary – Villanueva a judge with with less than 5 year of experience applied for the RTC, his name was not
included in the list of candidates. He claimed violation of equal protection, Respondent argued he did not meet the
requirements. Court ruled that there is a reasonable classification with a judge with 5 years experience with a
judge less than 5 years.

Equal Protection
- Against undue favor, individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination
- But it is not absolute if there is reasonable classification

Reasonable Classification
- For there to be a reasonable classification, the classification must be: 1. Based on substantial distinctions,
2. Germaine to the purpose of law, 3. Not limited to existing conditions only, 4. Applies to all members of
the same class
- There is a substantial distinction between a judge with 5 or more years of experience with a judge less
than 5 years
- It is a standard of the JBC to have rational basis of screening applicants in light of the constitution

III. The Philippine Legal Paradigm

A. On Judicial ethics and paranormal belief in elementals
Office of the court administrator v Judge Floro
Summary: Floro applied for being a judge but had psychological problems, due to his credential, the JBC allowed
floro to have a second opinion from private psychologist. He was allowed a post at RTC. A case was filed against
him for violating cannon 2 and 3 of the judicial conduct since he said he is pro accused, making his office a sleeping
quarters, and self lauding statements on court and on business cards.

On Judicial Ethics
 4

- Cannon 2 = A Judge must avoid impropriety, Cannon 3 = Judge must perform duties honestly and with
impartiality

Paranormal belief in elementals

- Judge Floro believes in psychic visions of forseeng the future, and on dwendes, wore blue robe in court
instead of black, and conducted healing sessons in his chambers
- His beliefs have spilled over to actions, it is improper for a judge, used psychic powers to determine case
and did not use evidence presented

B. On the unborn from conception

Imbong v Ochoa
Summary: Several petitions pray that the RH Law signed by the president be unconstitutional, they make many
procedural and substantive arguments such as involuntary servitude, freedom of religion

On the Unborn from conception

- Philippine national population program based on principle of no-abortion and principle of non-coercion
- Life starts upon fertilization, upon union of egg and sperm. Conception begins at fertilization
- Framers did not intend to ban all contraceptives, non-abortive contraceptives are constitutionally
permissible.
- Fertilized ovum is not a inanimate object, it is a living human complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes

Involuntary Servitude
- Pro bono in exchange for philhealth certificate is involuntary servitude according to the respondents but
the supreme court ruled that it is not since there is no force or violence and it is only 48 hours

Religious Freedom
- Respondents claim that tax funded condoms violate religious freedom, SC ruled that one cannot refuse to
pay tax, non-establishment clause

C. Prejudicial Question
Mercado v Tan
Summary: Vicente Mercado and Consuelo Tan married on 1991. He claims he was single. But he was actually
married to Thelma Olivia at 1976. Tan filed bigamy, a month later, Mercado filed JDN vs Olivia and it was declared
null and void. Mercado claims he already submitted the JDN and the first marriage is void. Respondent claims the
declaration came only after information was filed.

Prejudicial Question
- A prejudicial question is an issue involved in a civil case which is similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the criminal action, the resolution of which determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. (Sec. 7, Rule 111, Rules of Court)
- Prevent two conflicting and different decisions in the criminal and the civil case
- In this case, Mercado was not validly using the concept of prejudicial question, he was trying to delay the
prosecution of his bigamy case.

Judicial Declaration of Nullity

- "It is now settled that the fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a
bigamy charge. As with a voidable marriage, there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a
marriage before contracting the second marriage.
- One must first get a JDN before he may validly marry again
- In the instant case, petitioner contracted a second marriage although there was yet no judicial declaration
of nullity of his first marriage. In fact, he instituted the Petition to have the first marriage declared void
only after complainant had filed a letter-complaint charging him with bigamy.
 5

- To repeat, the crime had already been consummated by then. Moreover, his view effectively encourages
delay in the prosecution of bigamy cases; an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous
marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. We
cannot allow that.

Morigo v People
Summary: Lucio Morigo and lucia barrette got married in the PH. Lucia went to Canada leaving lucio. A year later,
lucia filed for divorce in Canada which was granted. A year later. Lucio married Marra Lumbago. A year later, Lucio
filed a JDN vs Lucia on grounds of no marriage ceremony. Afterwards, he was charged with bigamy. He claims that
the JDN posted a prejudicial question. He claims he was in good faith because of the divorce decree in Canada.

Difference with Mercado v Tan

- In the latter case, the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was likewise obtained after the
second marriage was already celebrated.
- It bears stressing though that in Mercado, the first marriage was actually solemnized not just once, but
twice: first before a judge where a marriage certificate was duly issued and then again six months later
before a priest in religious rites. Ostensibly, at least, the first marriage appeared to have transpired,
although later declared void ab initio.
- In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized
solemnizing officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The
mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no
judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly
valid marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial
declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.

IV. Theory of Law

1. Natural Law = The law serves a higher universal order or natural order which ca be discovered through reason
2. Positivist = highlights obedience to content and expression of law, strictly follow the law
3. Constructivist = Middle ground between natural law and positivism
4. Realism = focus on human realities
5. Critical Theory = Man is free

A. Natural law and positivist theory on human rights;history of natural law and natural rights
Republic v Sandiganbayan and ramas
Summary = PCGG made the AFP Anti-Graft Board ("AFP Board") tasked to investigate reports of unexplained
wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired. Based on its mandate, the
AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q.
Ramas. They found in the house of Elizabeth dimaano military equipment and items, and millions of cash. Court
ruled that it has no jurisdiction to investigate ramas over unexplained wealth. SC ruled that Mere position held by
a military officer does not automatically make him a "subordinate". Subordinate refers to family member/.

Philippines at this time had no constitution

- SC ruled that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration on Human rights
where in effect at this time.
- Human Rights is a natural law, THE search and seizure was illegal, human rights is binding even without
positive law
B. Lawyers oath to clients
Regala v Sandiganbayan
Summary: The PCGG FILED A COMPLAINT vs Eduardo cojuango jr, for recovery of ill gotten wealth which includes
share of stock in a certain corporation. The ACCRA Law firm was performing legal services for this certain
corporation and they became shareholder for the corporation. The PCGG amended the complaint and added the
ACCRA law lawyers as defendants. They claim they were only lawyering. PCGG said the charges vs them would be
dropped if they identify their clients and confidential documents.
 6

Confidentiality
- There are strict rules in the attorney-client relationship, The attorney cannot disclose any information
about the client without the client’s consent.
- Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would
implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice and where disclosure
would open client to civil liability,
- It exist not only during the relationship but also after its termination
- Exceptions = open client to civil liability, indict him for the very purpose he consulted with a lawyer, gov
lawyers have no case unless clients name is revealed

V. Civil law

A. Abuse of Right
California clothing, inc. v quinines
Summary: Shirley quinines, a employee of cebu pacific, went to guess and bought pants worth 2k with receipt. A
guess employee talked to her that she has not paid, Shirley said they can talk at their office. The guess employee at
cebu pacific humiliated her in front of customers then gave a letter complaint to the Director of cebu pacific. She
filed case for moral damages

Abuse of right
- Any abuse in the exercise of such right and in the performance of duty causing damage or injury to
another is actionable under the Civil Code, guess abused their right to clarify with Shirley
- Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith."x x x 32 The elements of abuse of rights are as
follows: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another
- a person must, in the exercise of legal right or duty, act in good faith. He would be liable if he instead
acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another
- the letter to her employer was aimed to tarnish respondent’s reputation in the eyes of her employer

B. Funerals
Valino v Adriano
Summary: Adriano Adriano married Rosario Adriano. They separated in fact and a year later Adriano lived in with
Valino as husband and wife. Adriano died while Rosario was in US. Valino prepared and spent on the funeral
arrangements. When Rosario learned of husbands death, she called Valino do delay internment so that hey may
visit but she declined. He was buried at the valino mausoleum at manila memorial. Rosario filed a case that the
corpse be transferred to Rosario in their family plot. Both claim it was Adrianos wish to be buried in those places.

Provision on funerals
- Civil code states that rt. 305. The duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative
shall be in accordance with the order established for support, under Article 294. In case of descendants of
the same degree, or of brothers and sisters, the oldest shall be preferred. In case of ascendants, the
paternal shall have a better right. [Emphases supplied]

- Art. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve upon the
following persons in the order herein provided:
(1) The spouse;
(2) The descendants in the nearest degree;
(3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and
(4) The brothers and sisters. (294a)

- Rosario has the right to make funeral arrangements as long as it is lawful

 7

- Wishes of the deceased refer to the funeral rights and not to place of burial
- Valino not among those who have the right to make funeral arrangements but she acted in good faith

C. Privacy
Spouses Hing v Choachuy
Summary: Respondents put up surveillance cameras facing the petitioners property because they wanted proof
that petitioner was making a fence without permit and would was damaging the wall. Petitioners claim that the
respondents act of putting up video cameras violate their right to privacy citing article 26 of the Civil Code. They
claim it also applies to business offices and not only residences.

Business office is included to the same privacy when the public is excluded and only certain individuals are
allowed to enter
- An individual’s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not be confined to his house or
residence as it may extend to places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access
- covers places, locations, or even situations which an individual considers as private.
- reasonable expectation of privacy” test. This test determines whether a person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy and whether the expectation has been violated: (1) whether, by his conduct, the
individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that society recognizes
as reasonable.”
- The installation of these cameras, however, should not cover places where there is reasonable
expectation of privacy, unless the consent of the individual, whose right to privacy would be affected, was
obtained

Vivares v Saint Theresa college

Summary: Two graduating minor high school students from STC took pictures of themselves in underwear,
smoking and drinking alcohol. These where uploaded in FB in the account of angela tan. A teacher from the school
saw the pictures and they were identified. Pictures were made public on the account and not set to private or
fiends only. They were reported to the discipline office. They where prevented from going to graduation. The
parents filed a case of injunction and allow their kids to graduate. RTC denied Habeas data saying that there no
violation of privacy because there where no restrictions as to who may view it.

Habeas Data
- a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged
in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
- The writ, however, will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access to information
about a person. Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus between the right to privacy on
the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other.
- To "engage" in something is different from undertaking a business endeavour. To "engage" means "to
do or take part in something.

The right to informational privacy on Facebook

- To address concerns about privacy,30 but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with
different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user’s profile31 as well as information
uploaded by the user.ex. only me, friends, public.

STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy

- The picture where either public or friends only
 8

D. Tender Age Principle

Gualberto v Rafaelito
Summary: Woman took 4 y/o son from home and school and went to the province. The husband wants custody of
the child and claims that the woman is a lesbian. The husband claims that it is not good for the child to be left with
the mother

Tender-Age Presumption
- No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother unless the court finds a compelling
reason.
- Sexual preference alone does not equate to parental incompetence. There must be proof that the wife
committed these acts in the presence of her child.

E. Volenti non fit injuria

Alfialda v Hisole
Summary: He was employed as a caretaker of a animal. He got killed by the animal but it was not due to his fault or
force majeure. Wife and his kids want to claim damages for his death.

Volenti non fit injuria

- To a willing person, injury is not done
- It is part of his job to prevent the animal from hurting others, including himself
- Civil code provision cited by plaintiff only applicable if animal caused damage to 3 rd party

F. Emergency Rule
Gan v CA
Summary: To avoid collision with a car, the driver swerved but due to this, a old man was killed. He was charged
with homicide thru reckless imprudence.

Emergency rule
- one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the
best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to
adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the
emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.
- He is not liable

Mckee v IAC

G. Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio

People v Mananasala
Summary: Manasala et al committed estafa by selling opium. They sold opium to a buyer but they gave the buyer
something else. They were charged and the court ruled that they pay.

Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio

- From a dishonorable cause, action does not arise
- In the dissenting opinion, it stated that there should be no cause of action since the consideration of the
sale was illegal

H. Duty of Care
Wrigtht v Meralco
Summary: He was on a horse and intoxicated, the horse tripped on a railing since the tracks were not maintained
by the company.

Duty of Care
- Care in performing acts that could harm others
 9

- His intoxication per se is not negligence

- Immaterial if he is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care can be imputed to him

I. Breach of Duty of Care

Picart v Smith
Summary: he was driving his car then he saw a kalesa from a distance about to collide with him. He did not stop
the car nor go to the other lane. He only changed lanes when he was already about to hit the horse. The horse got
scared and tripped. The horse died and the driver injured

Breach of duty of care

- He did not stop or go to the other lane, he was negligent

Lucas v Tuano
Summary: Man with sore eyes went to Dr. Tuano, he gave steroidal medicine, it got worse and worse and he kept
returning to the doctor. He claims that the glaucoma he got was due to the medicine he got from the doctor.

Medical Malpractice
- To find a physician negligent, there must be: (1) Duty, (2) Breach, (3) Injury, (4) Proximate cause
- There was no preponderance of evidence, i.e. expert testimony to say that the medicine was the cause.

VI. Legal Positivism

Cruz v DENR
Summary: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens
and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (R.A. 8371), otherwise
known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following
provisions of the IPRA and its Implementing Rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of
the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in
violation of the regalian doctrine

White Light v Manila

Summary: Manila signed a ordinance banning admission to motels and inns in a short time basis they did this to
curb illegal activities. The hotel owners claim that this ordinance is unconstitutional. Rule: We thus recognize that
the petitioners have a right to assert the constitutional rights of their clients to patronize their establishments for a
"wash-rate" time frame. Overbreath=2. A statute is overbroad where it operates to inhibit the exercise of
individual freedoms guaranteed by the constitution

The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for
an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact
and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive
requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3)
must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and
consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable

VII. Law and Morality

Chua-qua v clave
Summary: A teacher, 30 y/o and a student, 16y/o met at the school, fell in love, and got married. The parents of
the student filed a case against the teacher for gross immoral conduct and using her status to her advantage.

Rule
 10

- no direct evidence to show that immoral acts were committed. it follows that the alleged violation of the
Code of Ethics governing school teachers would have no basis. Private respondent utterly failed to show
that petitioner took advantage of her position to court her student.

Abiagar v Paz
Summary: The client met a lawyer and they fell in love and he said that although he is married it was a forced
marriage. She met the wife and said that their marriage was valid

Rule
- She should have made discreet inquiries as to who was the woman respondent was married to and
verified his claim whether he was forced into the marriage. Or, perhaps, she could simply have asked
Congressman Bagatsing about respondent's personal status. except that she voluntarily submitted to
sexual intimacy with respondent without entertaining any illusion or hope of sublimating the illicit
relations by legal union.

Figueroa v Barranco
Summary: A bar passer said that once he passes the bar, he will marry her. They had a child but when he passed,
he did not marry her and married someone else. She filed a case. His defense was that he was a person who was
active in civic orgs.

Rule
- His engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry suggests a doubtful
moral character on his part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.
- A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled
or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree." 6 It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.

VIII. Political Law

Article XII, Sec.7, 1987 Constitution
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

Cheeseman v IAC
Summary: Wife of foreigner sold a property without his consent

Rule
- Foreigners cannot own lands in the Philippines

Halili v CA
Summary: A foreigner died leaving his properties to his son and wife, who are American citizens

B. Historical and Cultural Heritage

Art xii, Sec , 1987 Constitution
KOR V DCMI
Summary: DCMI condominium unit behind the rizal park, The knights of rizal argue that construction must not
continue since it destroys the view of the rizal park

Historical and cultural heritage

- There is one fact that is crystal clear in this case. There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre
de Manila due to its effect on the background "view, vista, sightline, or setting" of the Rizal Monument.
- these standards can never be applied outside the boundaries of Rizal Park.
 11

C. Filipino first policy

Section 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced
goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.

Manila prince v gsis

Summary: there was a bidding of the shares of the manila hotel. A Philippine and Indonesian firm were the
bidders. The Philippine firm matched the price of other firm but GSIS did not accept the check and made the
Indonesian firm the winner.

Rule:
- IT Is a self executing provision
- We must give preference to Philippine labor

D. Academic freedom of institutions of higher learning

Garcia v FAC
Summary: A woman was barred from re enrolling to a school, which is a seminary for the priesthood.

Rule
- Her study was only a privilege, not a right since it was a seminary and she was a woman

Lupangco v CA
Summary: PRC issued a resolution that those taking the accountancy licensure exams not be allowed to attend
review class and receive notes 3 days before each exam.

Rule
- It is a violation of their liberty

IX. Criminal law

A. Right to life
Echegaray v SOJ
Summary: