MODULE WEEK NO.

11
INITAO College
University Jampason, Initao, Misamis Oriental
Logo

College of Criminology
FP1: Values Development
1st Semester of A.Y. 2022-2023
Introduction

This module will discuss the Basic Rights. Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have
been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are
specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law.

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality,
COURSE MODULE

ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.

Rationale

Human rights are commonly understood as being those rights which are inherent in
the mere fact of being human. Human rights are a set of principles concerned with
equality and fairness. They recognize our freedom to make choices about our lives and
to develop our potential as human beings. They are about living a life free from fear,
harassment or discrimination.

Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

A. The relationship between the ethical and legal perspective of the Bill of Rights
as provided in the Constitution.
B. The Basic Rights of the citizens under the Constitution and pertinent laws.
C. The need to integrate into one's personal values, the basic rights as provided for
in the Constitution so that violation thereof can be minimized if not totally
avoided.

Activity

1. Interactive and thorough discussions on the topic.

2. Exercises to enhance the learning of the students.
3. At home Activity that will practice the knowledge that the students acquired
through concept mapping.

Discussion
Basic Rights
1
 MODULE WEEK NO.11
The basic rights of the people as provided for under the Constitution are ought to
be respected both by people in the public and private sectors. Hence, they must be
integrated as part of the people's core values. So that violation of the same could be
minimized if not totally abrogated. They are as follows:
 Right to Due Process
Under Article Ill of Bill of Rights, 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 laws (Sec. 1).
 Due Process Defined
A law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial (Darmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518).
Responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice
(Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association vs. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849).
Due process is said to be universal in application to all persons without regard
to any difference in race, color or nationality. Artificial persons are covered by the
protection but only in so far as their property is concerned (Smith Bell and Co. vs.
COURSE MODULE

Natividad, 40 Phil. 163).

The guarantee extends to aliens and includes the means of livelihood (Villegas vs.
Hice Chiong, 86 SCRA 275).
The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard Administrative
due process cannot be fully equated with due process in the strict judicial sense
(Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Go, 683 SCRA 358)
 Equal Protection
The Constitution provides that no person shall be denied the equal protection of
laws. (2nd sentence Sec.1. Art.lll)
This means all persons without discrimination shall be protected by laws. Simply
stated, this means equality before the law.
 Equality is not Numerical
Equality however in the Constitutional sense is not numerical or literal Rather, it
means that people who are similarly situated should be treated similarly under the law,
 Substantial Classification
Thus equality in the Constitutional context permits different treatment of people
with different situations provided there are substantial differences among them.
For instance, there is substantial difference between the poor and the rich
sector.
Hence, the poor should be treated similarly under the same law, while the rich
be treated differently from the poor but with the same law common for the rich.
 Purpose
The purpose of equal protection clause is to secure that every person within a
state's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned
by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state's duly
constituted authority (Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, 677 SCRA 750).

2
 MODULE WEEK NO.11
 Rights against Illegal Search
The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable (Sec. 2).
 Search Warrant
A search warrant is an order of the court ordering a police officer to search
for any personal property suspected as a fruit or tool of a crime (sec.1 Rule 126
Revised Rules of Court).
Search warrant lasted only for ten (10) days after it was issued (Sec 10, Rule
126 Revised Rules of Court).
It must be served only during the day unless it is stated that it may be served
at night (Rule 126 Sec. 9, Revised Rules of Court),
Search Warrant must be specific with the place to be searched and the things
to be seized or else, it is void for being a general warrant. (Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20
SCRA 383).
COURSE MODULE

 Probable Cause
No search warrant or warrant of arrest be issued except upon probable
cause determined personally by the judge (Sec.2 Art. III Phil. Const.).
Probable Cause means such facts and circumstance sufficient to induce a
cautious man to believe that a crime was committed and the accused is probably
guilty of the same.
Only the judge can personally determine the existence of probable cause.
 Warrantless Search
In People vs. Balingan, 241 SCRA 277, the search of the luggage after they
had tailed the bus for 15-30 minutes was held valid because of a tip received by the
Officers. So also in People vs. Lo Ho wing, 193 SCRA 122 where the Court approved a
warrantless search done on a taxicab which later yielded Shabu because of
confidential report made by an informer.
Warrant of Arrest
It is an Order of the Court commanding any Police officer to arrest or to take
into custody of the accused in order that he may be bound to answer for the crime he
committed (Sec. 1 Rule 113 Revised Rules of Court).
The accused once arrested must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail
without delay (Sec3 Rule 113 Revised Rules of Court).
An arrest may be made at any time of the day or night (Sec.6 Rule 113 Revised
Rules of Court).
Warrant of Arrest shall remain a standing warrant until the accused is arrested.

Probable Cause for Warrant of Arrest

Probable cause for Warrant of Arrest refers to such facts and
circumstances that engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
and the respondents are probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial

3
 MODULE WEEK NO.11
(Burgundary Realty Corp. vs. Reyes, 687 SCRA 524).
A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation
of the parties' evidence (ibid).
The general rule is that the judge is not required when determining probable
cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest, to conduct a de novo hearing (People vs.
Dela Torre-Yadao, 685 SCRA 246).
Validity
The warrant of arrest is valid and enforceable anywhere in the Philippines until
the person is arrested.
Warrantless Arrest
This is also known as a citizen arrest.
Any police officer or even a private citizen may arrest without warrant under the
situation hereunder stated:
1. When in his presence, the person to be arrested, has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
COURSE MODULE

2. When a crime has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe, based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
3. When the person to be arrested has escaped from prison or penal
institution (sec. 4 Rule 113 Revised Rules of Court cited I People vs. Mariano, 685 SCRA
592).
Search of Person
A person lawfully arrested may be searched, without a search warrant. for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constituted as proof in
the commission of an offense (People vs. Almodiel, 680 SCRA 306).
Privacy of Communication
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the Court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law (Sec. 3).
Limitation to this Constitutional Right
This right however can be limited under the following circumstances:
1. Upon order of the Court
2. Upon public safety, the law so orders or prescribes such violation of
communication or correspondence, in the exercise of Police Power of the State.

Inadmissibility as Evidence
Any evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of communication and
correspondence including those obtained from illegal search and seizures as provided
in section 2 of this Article 111 of Bill of Rights cannot be admitted in evidence in any
proceedings or hearing whether criminal, civil or administrative case.
Freedom of Expression
4
 MODULE WEEK NO.11
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government
for redress of grievances (Sec.4, Art. III).
Scope of Expression
It includes all kinds of expressions verbal or written, signs, art, language,
movement, rallies, pickets including assembling, meetings provided the same do not
constitute any violation of laws.
Criticism against Public Officers
The rule is that the individual is given the widest latitude in criticism of an official
conduct, "criticism being a scalpel that relieves the abscesses of officialdom" (Bostos
vs. U.S., 37 Phil.731).
However in People vs. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265, it was held that newspaper
publications tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the administration of
justice in a pending suit or proceedings constitutes criminal contempt which is
summarily punishable by the courts.
COURSE MODULE

Likewise, a publication that tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court and
constitutes a clear and present danger to the administration of justice is not protected
by the guarantee of press freedom and is punishable by contempt (Re: Atty. Emiliano
Jurado, Jr.) and in In Re Sotto, 46 0.G. 2570, a senator was punished for contempt for
attacking the decision of the Supreme Court and threatened to file bill for its
reorganization.
Furthermore, in In Re: Column of Ramon Tulfo "Sangkatutak na Bobo", criticizing
the decision in Valmonte vs. De Villa, the Supreme Court held the same to be
contumacious. Saying that freedom of the press is subordinate to the decision,
authority, integrity and independence of the judiciary and the proper administration of
justice. While there is no law to restrain or punish the freest expression of
disapprobation of what is done in or by the courts; free expression must not be used as
a vehicle to satisfy one's irrational obsession demean, ridicule, degrade and even
destroy the court and their members.
In Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 1, a member of the Bar who imputed
charges of improper influence, corruption and other misdeeds to members of the
Supreme Court was suspended from the practice of law as neither the right of free
speech, nor the right to engage in political activities can be construed or extended as
to permit any such liberties to a member of the Bar.
Public Assembly Act
Under the Public Assembly Act (BP 880), a permit to hold a public assembly shall
not be necessary, where the meeting is to be held in a private place, in the campus of
a government-owned or operated educational institution, or in a freedom park.

Where a permit is required, the written application shall be filed with the
mayor's office at least five (5) days before the scheduled meeting and shall be acted
upon within two (2) days otherwise, the permit shall be deemed granted.
Denial of the Permit
Denial of the permit may be justified only upon clear and convincing
evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public
5
 MODULE WEEK NO.11
order, safety, convenience, morals or health. Action on the application shall be
communicated within 24 hours to the applicant, who may appeal the same to the
appropriate court. The decision must be reached within 24 hours. The law enforcement
agencies to be detailed as a contingent under a responsible officers is at least 100
meters away from the assembly in case it becomes necessary to maintain order (Ruiz
Vs. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233).
Permit to Use the Place
The right to peaceful assembly must not be subject to prior restraint. But the
exercise thereof must not prejudice public interest (Dela Cruz vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 126183
& 129221, March 25, 1999).
If the public assembly is to be held in public place, a permit for the use of such
place and not for the assembly itself, may be validly required. But the power of the
local officials in this regards is merely one of regulations not of prohibitions (Premicias
vs. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71).
Subversion Act
The right is not absolute. Thus, it was held that anti-Subversion Act does not
COURSE MODULE

violate this provision because the purpose of the statute was to outlaw only those
organizations aimed at the violent overthrow of the Government and that the
government has the right to protect itself against subversion is a proposition too plain
to require elaboration (People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382).
Moreover, the right to association was not violated when political parties were
prohibited from participating in barangay election in order to ensure the non-
partisanship of candidates because political neutrality is needed to discharge the
duties of barangay officials (Occeña vs. Comelec, 127 SCRA 404).
Religious Freedom
No law shall be passed establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights
(Sec. 5).
No Official Religion
The state cannot declare an official religion for the people. The prohibition is
absolute. Also no law can be enacted prohibiting any religion or the free exercise
thereof.
The constitutional mandate in this regards is for the Government to be neutral
as not to favor or to discriminate any religion.
Aspects of Religious Freedom
The two aspects of religious freedom are:
1. Religious belief; and 2. Religious practice

Religious belief is absolute in that everyone is free to believe about the

religion he professes. This is absolute as it is purely a mental activity which the state
has no power to interfere.
Religious Practice
Religious practice is the outward manifestation of religious belief which is
manifested in an action.
6
 MODULE WEEK NO.11
Thus, religious practice falls within the power of the state to regulate.
When religious practice constitutes a crime, the act shall be prohibited and the
doer or the actor shall be punished.
Religious Test
Freedom of religion likewise mandates that no religious test shall be required for
the exercise of civil / political rights.
The reason is to ensure that never in any way religion shall interfere on matters
exclusively pertains to the government thru the religious test or in the exercise of civil
or political rights.
Religious Preference
The Supreme Court declared that freedom of religion is accorded preferred
status by the framers of the fundamental law, well aware that it is designed to protect
the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his
conscience directs to profess his beliefs and to live as he believes he ought to live
consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good (Slamic Da'wah
COURSE MODULE

Council of the Phil. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003.
Liberty of Abode
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 the law (Sec. 6).
Definition
Liberty of abode is the right of every person to have his residence anywhere
in the Philippines of his choice without interference from whatever source. This
includes the right to travel.
Limitation
The limitation is upon order of the Court. That is when the Court orders
otherwise by reason of whatever case filed with the said court against him by any
person.
Likewise, when the law so provides that a certain place may not be fit for
residence by reason of national security, public safety or public health, thus, every
person may not be allowed to have his residence in that place.

Right to Travel
The right to travel is one's right to go anywhere without interference from the
Government. This can be limited only upon the same ground such as that of the Right
of Abode.
National Security
National Security refers to the safety of the country from internal/external
threat. While public safety refers to the safety of the people in general.
Public health refers to measures adopted by the government to ensure the
health of the people in general, particularly from further contamination from any
7
 MODULE WEEK NO.11
epidemic outbreak.
Related Cases
In Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778, the deportation of 170 women of ill
repute to Davao was held unlawful.
In Caunca vs, Salazar, 82 Phi.851, it was held that a maid has the right to
transfer to another residence even if she had not yet paid the amount advanced for
her transportation from the province by an employment agency which was then
effectively detaining her because of the moral duress exerted on her.
In Marcos vs. Manglapus, 178 SCRA 760, the Supreme Court sustained the
refusal of the Government to allow the Petitioner's return to the Philippines on the
ground that it would endanger national security.
In Manotoc vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149, the Court held that the trial court may validly
refuse to grant the accused permission to travel abroad even the accused is out on
bail.
Art. 13, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Art. 12, Covenant on Civil
and Political rights, provide that everyone has the right of freedom of movement and
COURSE MODULE

residence within the border of each state (P.165 Nachura- Political Law Review).
Right to Information
The right of the people to information on matters of public concerns shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions or decisions as well as to Government research data used as
basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizens subject to such limitations
as may be provided by law (Sec. 7, Art. III).
Public Information
Information of public concern pertains to any document of the government.
The Constitution recognized the right of the people to have access on this
information.
The reason is that the people will be more encouraged to participate on matters
of public affairs.
Moreover, it will strengthen our democratic processes or way of life if the people
are well informed of government transactions or activities. Also, being the principal,
they should know what their agents (public officers) are doing.

Although at the moment the Freedom Of Information (FOI) Bill is still pending
approval in Congress. But President Duterte had issued an Executive Order to this
effect. But the same covered only the transactions within the Executive Branch.
Scope of the Right
The scope is comprehensive in that it covers any matter pertaining to the
transactions of the government.
These rights include official acts of the government, research data used in the
formulation of policies, etc.
In Chavez vs. PEA and Amari, G.R.No. 133250, July 9, 2002, the court held that
the right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiation leading in the
consummation of the transaction. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if
8
 MODULE WEEK NO.11
no contract is consummated or if one is consummated, a may be too late for the public
to expose its defects. However, the rights only afford access to the records, documents
and papers, which means the opportunity to inspect and copy of them at his expense.
The exercise is also subject to reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of public
records and to minimize disruption of government operation.
Access to Information prevails over the Right to Privacy
In Miguel vs. Gordon, G.R. No.174340, Oct 17, 2006, the court said that the right
of the people to access information on matters of public concern generally prevails
over the right to the privacy of ordinary financial transactions. Since the Court said
that there is no infringement of the individual's right to privacy as the requirement to
disclose information is for a valid purpose, in this case to ensure that the government
agencies involved in regulating banking transactions adequately protect the public
who invest in foreign securities (Standard Chartered Banks vs. Senate Committee on
Banks, supra).
In Baldoza vs. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14, the Supreme Court sustained the right of
the municipal mayor to examine judicial records subject to reasonable rules and
conditions.
COURSE MODULE

Laws must be Published to be Valid

In Tañada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915 Dec. 29, 1986, the court said that laws
must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in the
shadows with their dark deep secrets. For mysterious pronouncements and rumored
rules cannot be recognized as binding unless their existence and contents are
confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full disclosure and give proper
notice to the people.
In Subido vs Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, the court said except perhaps when it is clear
that the purpose of the examination is unlawful or sheer, idle curiosity, we do not
believe it is the duty under the law of the registration officers to concern themselves
with the motives, reasons and objects of the person seeking access to the records.
Right to Form Association
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form unions, associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall
not be abridged (Sec.8).
The rights to form labor unions as well as any organizations or association with a
purpose not contrary to law is guaranteed by the constitution. This includes not joining
also.

Government Employees Cannot Hold a Strike

Take note however that this right may be limited by the exercise of the state of
its police power. Moreover any association or organization with a purpose of
overthrowing the government shall not be allowed.
Government employees even allowed to form a labor union, they are not
however allowed to hold strike in order not to prejudice public service.
Even if the provision expressly guarantees the right to form unions in public and
private sectors, members of the civil service may not declare a strike to enforce
economic demands (Alliance of Government workers vs. Ministry of Labor and
Employment, 124 SCRA 1).
9
 MODULE WEEK NO.11
In Gonzales vs. Central Azucarera de Tarlac, 139 SCRA 30, the Supreme Court
upheld the validity of RA 3350 allowing workers to dissociate from or not to join any
labor union despite a close shop agreement if they are members of any religious
organization/sect which prohibits affiliation of their members in any such labor
organization.
Likewise, in United Pepsi Cola Supervisors Union vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 122226,
March 25, 1998, it was held that Art.246 of the Labor Code which makes managerial
employees ineligible to join, assist or form a labor union, does not violate Sec.8, Art. Ill
of the Constitution; and
Finally in Re:Edillon, 84 SCRA 554, it was held that compulsory membership of
the lawyer to the Integrated Bar does not violate constitutional guarantee.
Right to Form Association Includes the right to Disaffiliate
In Volkschel Labor Union vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, 137 SCRA 42, the right of
a labor union to disaffiliate from the federation was held to be a part of the right to
association. In Central Negros Electric Cooperative vs. Secretary of Labor, 201 SCRA
584, the Supreme Court upheld the right of employees of the Electric Cooperative to
COURSE MODULE

withdraw their membership from the Cooperative in order to join a Labor Union.
Likewise, in Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 170132,
December 15, 2006, the court rejected the claim that the right to strike is part of the
freedom of expression and the right to peacefully assemble and petition the
Government for redress of grievances, and thus should be recognized even in the case
of Government employees.
Eminent Domain
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation (Sec
9).
The power of Eminent Domain is the power of the state to take private property
upon payment of just compensation for public purpose. The elements therefore of this
power of eminent domain are as follows: a) taking by the Government of any private
property; b) said private property shall be intended for use by the public; and c) the
owner of the subject property shall be paid with the market value of the same.
Taking
Taking means transfer of ownership and possession of the subject property from
the owner as seller to the Government as buyer. However, it may include deprivation
of the owner of the use of subject property even if there is no actual taking of the
same whereby ownership and possession thereof remains with the owner. In this case,
the owner shall be compensated proportionately to the approximated value of such
deprivation.
Thus, even if there is no actual taking of the private property but the owners of
the same is prohibited to use the said private property by the government for the
latter's purpose, then there is an exercise of eminent domain to such extent, and the
private owner must be proportionately compensated (Stearus vs. Minnesota, 179 US
223).
Where there is taking in the constitutional sense, the property owner need not
file a claim for just compensation with the Commission on Audit, he may go directly to
court to demand payment (Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360).
The owner of the property can recover possession of the property from
10
 MODULE WEEK NO.11
squatters, even if he agreed to transfer the property to the government, until the
transfer is consummated or the expropriation case is filed (Velarima vs. CA, 252 SCRA
400).
Scope of taking
In NPC vs. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1, the Court said that the exercise of the power
of eminent domain does not always result in the taking or appropriation of title to the
expropriated property without loss of title or possession. In this case, while it is true
that the Plaintiff is only after a right of way easement, it nevertheless perpetually
deprives defendant of their proprietary rights as manifested by the imposition by the
plaintiff upon the defendants that below said transmission lines, no plants higher than
three meters is allowed. Besides, the high tension current conveyed by the
transmissions lines posses continuing danger to life and limb.
Moreover, the imposition of an easement of a three meter strip on plaintiff's
property was considered taking (Ayala de Roxas vs. City of Manila, 9 Phil. 215); and the
municipal ordinance prohibiting a building which impair the view of the plaza from the
highway was likewise considered taking (People vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 33). In both
cases it was held that the owners thereof were entitled to payment of just
COURSE MODULE

compensation.
Public Purpose
Public purpose means for the use of the public as distinguished from private
use. It means welfare of the public in general. However, it does not mean a greater
number of people as beneficiaries. Indeed, even only few are the actual beneficiaries
but the public in general is indirectly benefited, the same satisfies the public character
of its use so long as the taking of the subject property is directly related to the function
of governance.
Scope of Public Use
As a requirement for eminent domain, "public use" is the general concept of
meeting public need or public exigency. It is not confined to actual use by the public in
its traditional sense. The idea that public use is strictly limited to clear cases of use by
the public has now been held to be synonymous with public interest, public benefit,
public welfare and public convenience (Reyes NHA, G.R. No.147511, January 20, 2008).
Thus, public use as a requirement for a valid exercise of eminent domain has
become flexible and evolving. It is accurate then that at present, whatever may be
beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use
(Estate of Salud Jiminez vs. PEZA, G.R. No. 137285 January 16, 2001).
For the meaning of public use has also been broadened to cover uses which while
not directly available to the public, redounded to their indirect advantage or benefit
(Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220).
Thus, it was held also that while it may be true that greater benefit may be
derived by Iglesia ni Cristo members than most others, such advantage was merely
incidental and secondary in nature and that only few would actually benefit from the
expropriation of the property does not necessarily diminish the essence and character
of public use (Manosca vs. CA, 252 SCRA 412).

Exercise

11
 MODULE WEEK NO.11

Assessment

Reflection
Now that you have completed your module for this week. Write a reflection about what
you have learned. Your reflections should include:
(1) your opinion about the lesson
(2) personal experience
(3) evidence to back up your thoughts and/or opinion (APA citation).
Things you can reflect on include the readings for this week, videos, and the
discussions. The purpose of this reflection is to ensure you are processing your
thoughts on the course content. This will enhance your learning and knowledge.
Resources and Additional Resources
Textbook:
• Penaflor, L.A & Penaflor, K.O (2017). First Edition. Values Education:
COURSE MODULE

Legal and Ethical

Perspective
Additional Resources:
 Rodolfa, Aquino, Dellova, Tiongco (2018). Leadership & Personality
Development for Tourism and Hospitality Professionals. Mindshapers
Co., Inc.
 Labuguen, F.C., Ramos, A.I., Placer, R.B., Vidal, C.J.E., Moralde, R.P.E.,
& Rendorio, E.V. (2012). Understanding the National Service Training
Program. Malabon City, Philippines: Mutya Publishing House.
 Internet Sources

12