Haban Law Office

18/09/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on August 26, 2026, unanimously declared that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution requires Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties, holding that Congress’ failure to do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

The Court directed Congress to comply with its mandatory constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity, define political dynasties, and determine the scope of the prohibition.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Court 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 granted the consolidated petitions in G.R. Nos. 263934, 272370, and 279201 for certiorari and mandamus. The petitions challenged Congress’ prolonged failure to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties.

The Court strongly urged Congress to heed its constitutional duty with utmost urgency, as it declared that the latter has “the MANDATORY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to enact the law on the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties as expressly provided for in Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution.”

It stated that the Congress “MUST HENCEFORTH AND WITH UTMOST URGENCY ENACT THE APPROPRIATE ANTI-POLITICAL DYNASTY LAW AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.”

Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution provides that “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

The Court held that this provision is not merely an aspiration but a constitutional command. The use of the word “shall” makes clear that the State has a mandatory duty both to guarantee equal access to public service and to prohibit political dynasties.

The Court also held that the phrase “as may be defined by law” does not give Congress the choice whether to prohibit political dynasties. Rather, it gives Congress the authority to define what constitutes a political dynasty and determine the scope of the prohibition.

The Court further said that Congress’ prolonged failure to enact an anti-political dynasty law constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

The Court took judicial notice of the numerous anti-political dynasty bills filed but left unacted upon since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. It also considered studies on the prevalence of political dynasties and their relationship with socioeconomic conditions in the country.

The Court noted that political dynasties have remained widespread and have extended even into the party-list system. Despite changes in the composition of Congress over the years, no comprehensive anti-political dynasty law has been enacted, implying either a lack of interest, avoidance for convenience, or service of self-interest.

Although the Constitution does not set a deadline for Congress to enact the law, the Court held that this does not allow Congress to postpone its constitutional duty indefinitely. The Court found that 39 years is beyond a reasonable period to carry out the constitutional command. Congress’ continued inaction therefore constitutes a continuing violation of its constitutional duty.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173242.

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173192.

Read Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen’s Concurring Opinion at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173197.

Read Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting Concurring Opinion at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173209.

Read Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda’s Separate Opinion at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173202.

Read Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao’s Separate Concurring Opinion at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173214.

Read Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh’s Separate Opinion at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173225

Read Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva’s Separate Concurring Opinion at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173231.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

16/09/2026

✨ 𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐄 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐃 ✨

With the assistance of Atty. JM, a criminal complaint for 𝐕𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝟐𝟕𝟎 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐏𝐂 (𝐊𝐢𝐝𝐧𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐚 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫) against our clients has been 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐃 after a thorough legal defense and presentation of the facts.

This outcome is a reminder that every accusation deserves a strong and competent defense. Hindi dahil may isinampang kaso ay nangangahulugan nang may pananagutan. Your side deserves to be heard.

Kung ikaw ay:
✔️ Nakatanggap ng subpoena mula sa Prosecutor's Office;
✔️ Nahaharap sa kasong Kidnapping, Estafa, BP 22, Cyber Libel, Theft, o iba pang criminal complaint;
✔️ Kailangan ng legal advice bago pa lumala ang sitwasyon;
Huwag maghintay. Consult a lawyer as early as possible.

👨‍⚖️ 𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐘. 𝐉𝐎𝐇𝐍 𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐊 𝐏. 𝐇𝐀𝐁𝐀𝐍 👨‍⚖️
Attorney-at-Law | Notary Public
📍 Haban Law Office
📍 Bonifacio St., Poblacion B, Tayug, Pangasinan
📞 0947-882-7839
📧 [email protected]

𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬. 𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 & 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.

⚖️ 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐄 𝐁𝐄𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓 𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐒𝐄𝐋 ⚖️

15/09/2026

10/09/2026

⚠️Trigger Warning

This content discusses s3xual abuse of a minor. Reader discretion is advised, as it may be distressing; it is presented solely for legal and educational purposes with due respect for the victim’s privacy.

SC: Use of Clear Familial Terms in Information Suffices to Qualify R@pe; Conviction Upheld as Qualified R@pe of a Minor

The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc ruled that an Information alleging that the victim is the accused’s “niece” sufficiently establishes the qualifying circumstance of [r]elationship in r@pe cases, even without expressly stating the degree of consanguinity.

The Court held that such plain and categorical description adequately informs the accused of the nature of the charge, satisfying constitutional requirements of due process. On this basis, the Court affirmed the conviction and clarified that the proper designation of the crime is Qualified R@pe of a minor, not merely statutory r@pe.

Read the full text in the comments.

10/09/2026

Can a church opt out of the Social Security System (SSS) by claiming its ministers answer only to God?

The Salvation Army, a religious organization registered with the SSS since 1962, tried to change the status of its ministers from "compulsory employees" to "voluntary/self-employed members."

The church argued that their ministers were bound by spiritual vows and received stipends, not wages.

They claimed that forcing secular labor classifications on spiritual leaders violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The Supreme Court rejected the church's plea.

The High Court applied the classic 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫-𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭 of labor law. Because the church hierarchy selected the ministers, paid their allowances, held the power to discipline them, and heavily controlled their daily duties, a legal employer-employee relationship existed.

The Court ruled that the SSS Law is a valid exercise of the State's 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 aimed at social justice.

Ministers are human; they grow old, get sick, and need medical protection just like anyone else. Constitutional religious freedom does not exempt churches from neutral laws that protect human welfare.

Secular safety nets apply to spiritual workers.

📚 The Salvation Army v. Social Security System (G.R. No. 230095, September 15, 2021)

🖋️ Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting

10/09/2026

We are pleased to announce that Atty. John Mark P. Haban is now duly commissioned as a 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 for the following municipalities in the Province of Pangasinan:

📍 𝐓𝐚𝐲𝐮𝐠
📍 𝐒𝐚𝐧 𝐍𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐬
📍 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐝
📍 𝐒𝐚𝐧 𝐐𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧
📍 𝐔𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐧

For your notarial needs and legal document requirements, you may visit:

𝐇𝐀𝐁𝐀𝐍 𝐋𝐀𝐖 𝐎𝐅𝐅𝐈𝐂𝐄
📍 2F Cabanizas-Roderos Bldg. Bonifacio St., Tayug, Pangasinan (2nd Floor of RCBC; Beside Addessa)

We are committed to providing reliable, professional, and accessible notarial services to our clients.

𝒀𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝑹𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔. 𝑶𝒖𝒓 𝑷𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 & 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕.

10/09/2026

The (SC) has ruled that evidence of credit card hacking cannot be seized under a search warrant that authorizes only the search for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia unless they are discovered in plain view.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division acquitted an accused of violating Republic Act No. (RA) 8484, or 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1998. Section 9(e) of the law prohibits the possession of counterfeit access devices, including fake credit cards.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information that the accused was involved in illegal drug activities and computer hacking, particularly credit card fraud.

To verify the report, the NBI instructed the informant to buy methamphetamine hydrochloride (𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶) from the accused. Laboratory test later confirmed that it was indeed 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶.

The NBI obtained a search warrant for violation of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, authorizing the search for 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 and other drug-related items.

During the search of the accused’s residence, NBI agents seized several items including computers, ATM cards, laptops, a money counter, a dry seal, and a card-scheming device.

They also recovered two American Express credit cards bearing the name “V S Tan.” An American Express manager later confirmed that the cards were fake because their numbers did not match the records of the original account holder.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused based on the evidence seized in the implementation of the search warrant.

The SC reversed the conviction and explained that, as a general rule, authorities may seize only items specifically described in a search warrant. One exception is the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence they discover while lawfully present in a place.

For the 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 to apply, the officers must have a lawful reason to be in the place where the evidence is found; the discovery must be inadvertent or unintentional; and it must be immediately clear that the item may be connected to a crime.

The SC found that only the first requirement was met.

The search warrant covered only illegal drugs and related paraphernalia. It did not authorize the seizure of credit cards or other access devices.

Their discovery of the credit cards was also not made in plain view. The credit cards were inside a non-transparent bag. Their contents could not be seen until the bag was opened. Even then, the cards did not appear fake on their face. Their alleged connection to a crime became apparent only because of the NBI’s prior information and their subsequent verification by American Express.

Although the NBI agents were lawfully inside the accused’s residence, their discovery of the credit cards was not accidental. The agents already had information linking the accused to alleged credit card fraud and hacking but did not obtain a search warrant covering those offenses.

The SC thus ruled that the credit cards were unlawfully seized and could not be used as evidence against the accused. Without them, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt under RA 8484.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172645

Read the full text of the Decision athttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/273931.pdf

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

02/09/2026

The (SC) has ruled that an affidavit of desistance, or a sworn statement withdrawing a complaint, is considered “highly suspect” when made by a victim of exploitation and cannot be used as a basis to dismiss a trafficking case.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division affirmed the conviction of a woman for qualified trafficking in persons involving a minor. The SC sentenced her to life imprisonment, imposed a fine of PHP 2,000,000, and ordered her to pay PHP 600,000 in damages.

The woman, who was the minor’s neighbor, recruited the minor to provide sexual services to a man in exchange for money. The minor received PHP 15,000 from the man for the sexual act, but the woman later took the money. The woman also bought the minor a cellphone and gave her PHP 3,000.

The minor’s mother discovered the incident and filed a complaint against the woman. The minor testified in court but later signed an affidavit of desistance to withdraw the charges.

During cross-examination, the minor admitted that she accepted PHP 30,000 to sign the affidavit prepared by the woman’s counsel. When the trial court questioned her further, the minor maintained that her earlier testimony was true.

Sustaining the woman’s conviction of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. (RA) 9208, or the 𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟯, as amended, SC held that human trafficking cases should not be dismissed based on the affidavits of desistance executed by the victims or their parents or legal guardians.

The SC explained that affidavits of desistance by victims of exploitation should be treated with caution, as they may have been made under coercion, pressure, or undue influence. This is especially true when the victims are children, who may not fully understand the consequences of withdrawing their testimony.

The SC further stressed that once a criminal case has been filed in court, the complainant can no longer decide whether the case should proceed.

The State has an interest in prosecuting the crime and is the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action. Thus, an affidavit of desistance, especially one executed while trial is ongoing, does not, by itself, justify dismissal of the case.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172431

Read the full text of the Decision at
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167240

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

02/09/2026

The (SC) has ruled that homeowners’ associations (HOAs) may impose sanctions or penalties on members who fail to pay association dues, but it cannot deprive them of their right to use common areas, including subdivision roads.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division dismissed the petition filed by the former directors and officers of La Costa Brava Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Association).

Spouses Linley and Juvy Retirado failed to pay their monthly association dues from 2016 to 2021. Consequently, the Association declared them delinquent and enforced several penalties.

Among the sanctions were banning of grass-cutting or maintenance within five meters from the property; reducing the frequency of garbage collection; prohibiting food, package, appliance, and gas deliveries to their residence; preventing taxis, tricycles, and ride-hailing vehicles from entering the subdivision to fetch them; barring guests from entering the subdivision to visit them; and imposing delivery fees on trucks and vehicles bringing supplies and materials to their construction site.

The spouses filed a complaint before the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), which ruled that the sanctions violated Republic Act No. (RA) 9904, or 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘨𝘯𝘢 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘏𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘏𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. The HSAC also permanently disqualified the officers responsible from holding any position in the Association.

The officers appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition.

The SC affirmed the HSAC’s ruling on the penalties.

Section 7(a) of RA 9904 grants homeowners two distinct rights: the right to enjoy basic community services and facilities, and the right to use common areas.

The SC clarified that HOAs may impose sanctions on delinquent members under their bylaws. However, this authority is not absolute. HOAs can restrict delinquent members from accessing or enjoying certain community services and facilities, but they cannot deny the right to use common areas like roads.

Applying this distinction, the SC held that restricting deliveries, transportation, and guests effectively violated the spouses’ right to use the subdivision roads.

The SC also rejected the officers’ claim that their violation was not grave enough to warrant permanent disqualification from holding office in the Association. The SC ruled that restricting access to subdivision roads for basic needs such as the delivery of goods and transportation caused great harm and dangerous consequences—a violation serious and grave enough to justify the permanent disqualification.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-homeowners-associations-may-sanction-delinquent-members-but-cannot-restrict-use-of-subdivision-roads/

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278137-reuben-mikhail-p-sabig-et-al-vs-court-of-appeals-18th-division-cebu-city-and-spouses-linley-and-juvy-retirado/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

27/08/2026

Q: IS AN ILLEGALLY DISMISSED OFW ENTITLED TO SALARIES FOR THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF HIS/HER EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT?

A: YES, an illegally dismissed OFW is entitled to salaries for the unexpired portion of his or her employment contract.

In Denusta v. Migrant Workers Manpower Agency, the Supreme Court explicitly held that “... an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to his or her salaries for the unexpired portion of her employment contract. x x x ...in cases of illegal dismissal, the worker shall likewise be entitled to the full reimbursement of his/her placement fee. ”

Denusta v. Migrant Workers Manpower Agency, et al., G.R. No. 264158, January 31, 2024