Little known SC decisions

After reviewing the significant decisions of the Supreme Court in 2023, I thought I should share little-known ones that may affect or be of interest to both lawyers and ordinary people.

FIRST, UNDER THE FAMILY CODE, children conceived or born during a marriage are presumed legitimate, even if they were conceived or born when the parents were separated and were, in fact, the biological offsprings of the wife with a man other than her legal husband.

In Ko v. Republic (April 12, 2023), the Court distinguished between legitimacy and filiation. It said that legitimacy refers to the civil status established for a person born during the subsistence of a marriage, while filiation is the state of being someone’s offspring as determined by biology and biotechnology. The presumption of legitimacy cannot be challenged by a petition of the biological father to tag his offspring as his “natural child,” because the child would be deprived of the rights owing to his/her legally presumed legitimacy (like the right to inherit from the legal father). Only the child, and in some instances the legal father or his heirs, can challenge directly (not “collaterally”) this legal status because the presumption of legitimacy is for the child’s benefit. “Even the mother is prohibited by law from declaring against the child’s legitimacy,” stressed the Court.

SECOND, THE 20-PERCENT DISCOUNT granted by law to seniors “necessarily include interment services, such as diggings for the deceased person’s grave, its concreting, and other services being done during the actual burial,” ruled the Court in Republic v. Pryce (March 8, 2023).

THIRD, THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS to conduct legislative investigations is subject to four limitations: (1) the inquiry must be “in aid of legislation,” (2) it must be conducted in accordance with the chamber’s duly published rules of procedure, (3) the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected, and (4) where there is a factual basis for contempt, the resource person’s detention should last only until the termination of the legislative inquiry (Ong v. Senate, March 28. 2023). Thus, in this case of the Pharmally resource persons, the Court held that while the Senate complied with the first two restrictions, it failed to meet the third when it cited the petitioners in contempt and ordered their arrest without giving them the opportunity to be heard. Please note, however, that only the detention of the resource persons by the Senate, not their criminal or civil liability, was decided in this case.

FOURTH, THE CYBERCRIME LAW prescribes upon online libel (i.e., libel committed through information and communications technologies) a penalty that is one degree higher than traditional libel penalized under the Revised Penal Code. In turn, under that Code, the penalty for traditional libel is prision correcional in its minimum and medium periods or (repeat, or) a fine ranging from P40,000 to P1,200,000, or both. Thus, in Soliman v. People (April 25, 2023), the Court ruled that for online libel, courts may impose the alternative penalty of fine instead of imprisonment.

FIFTH, FOREIGN BANKS MAY FORECLOSE and may acquire the mortgaged real property under the following conditions: (1) they may possess the foreclosed property only for a maximum of five years; (2) the title of the property shall not be transferred to the foreign bank; and (3) the foreign bank must transfer its right to a qualified Philippine national within the five-year period (4E Steel Builders v. Maybank Philippines, March 13, 2023).

SIXTH, ACT TEACHERS V. DUTERTE (Jan. 24, 2023) ruled that the livestream video and photographs demonstrating the absence of a quorum in the House of Representatives cannot prevail over the Congressional Journal showing the “events [that happened] on the Congressional floor on that fateful day given that no less than the Constitution itself grants the Congressional Journal its imprimatur.”

If I may add my humble opinion, the principle of separation of powers grants the three branches of government autonomy to determine their respective internal processes. Thus, the Supreme Court respects the entries in the Congressional Journal, in the same manner that the Congress respects the internal deliberations and votes cast in the Court’s decisions. So, too, both the Court and Congress respect the internal processes of the Executive Branch on how decisions of the Cabinet have been reached.

SEVENTH, PEOPLE V. ALMAYDA (June 14, 2023) held that in warrantless seizures of illegal drugs, the physical inventory and taking of photos of the seized drugs must, as a rule, be done in the place of seizure. As an exception, these may be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team provided that the police officers show in clear, consistent, and sensible affidavits that (1) it is not practicable to conduct the physical inventory and photo taking in the place of seizure, or (2) the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure.

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com