Consolidated Conti 1 Digests May 15 2011

Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.
5
Page No.1
GOVE!"E!#
Elements of the State
DE $%E &!D DE '&C#O
GOVE!"E!#(
Co )im C*am v. Val+e, #an )e*
(194!
Co Km Cham has a cv case n CFI Mana
nsttuted under the Repubc of the
Phppnes durng the perod of |apanese
occupaton. |udge Dzon aeges that the
case shoudnt be contnued because:
1. The PEC and RP under
|apanese mtary
occupaton were not de facto
governments.
2. McArthurs procamaton
nvadated a
|udca proceedngs and |udgments of
Phppne Courts under the PEC and the
RP.
3. Lower courts have no |ursdcton to
contnue pendng |udca proceedngs wth
the absence of an enabng aw to grant
such authorty.
A wrt of mandamus was ssued to the
|udge orderng hm to take cognzance and
render fna |udgment of the case. "he
f#rst #ss$e nvoved was whether or not the
PEC and the RP were de facto
governments. And the SC hed that they
were by expoundng on the dfferent knds
of de facto governments (whch are sted
beow) and pontng out that a acts and
proceedngs of the PEC/RP (whch was
cassfed as a de facto government of the
second form) are good and vad.
1. Government that USURPS by
FORCE or BY
THE VOICE OF THE MA|ORITY the rghtfu
ega government.
2. Government of PARAMOUNT
FORCE.
3. Government estabshed by
the natve
nhabtants who rse n INSURRECTION
aganst the parent state.
The se%on& #ss$e revoved around
McArthurs procamaton. It dd not have
the effect of nvadatng and nufyng a
|udca proceedngs and |udgments of
Phppne Courts under the PEC and the
RP by vrtue of the prncpe of POSTLIMINY
n nternatona aw.
Postmnum s a prncpe n nternatona
aw whch consders vad, except n a very
few cases, the acts done by an nvader,
whch for one reason or another t s wthn
hs competence to do so, notwthstandng
the fact that the terrtory whch has been
occuped by hm comes agan n the power
of ts egtmate government or
soveregnty.
The last #ss$e was the queston of whether
or not an enabng aw was requred. It
snt. Conquest or coonzaton s mpotent
to amend aws. Laws reman unchanged
unt the new soveregn by a egsatve act
creates such change.
In e- (aturnino .ermu+e,
(19'6!
A awyer questons Artce 18 of proposed
1986 Consttuton regardng who the
provson refers to when t says Presdent
and Vce Presdent. The court dsmsses t
outrght for ack of |ursdcton and a cause
of acton.
Pettoner's aegaton of ambguty or
vagueness of the aforequoted provson s
manfesty gratutous, t beng a matter of
pubc record and common pubc
knowedge that the Consttutona
Commsson refers theren to ncumbent
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.2
Presdent Corazon C. Aquno and Vce-
Presdent Savador H. Laure, and to no
other persons
Pettoners have no personaty to sue and
ther pettons state no cause of acton. For
the egtmacy of the Aquno government
s not a |ustcabe matter. It beongs to
the ream of potcs where ony the peope
of the Phppnes are the |udge. And the
peope have made the |udgment; they
have accepted the government of
Presdent Corazon C. Aquno whch s n
effectve contro of the entre country so
that t s not merey a de facto
government but n fact and aw a de |ure
government. Moreover, the communty of
natons has recognzed the egtmacy of
the present government. A the eeven
members of ths Court, as reorganzed,
have sworn to uphod the fundamenta aw
of the Repubc under her government.
In re- Letter o/ &sso0iate $usti0e
e1nate Puno
Ths s an admnstratve matter n the SC.
Puno was eevated n the senorty
rankngs of the CA from no. 12 to no. 5.
Ths, however, caused |aveana and
Campos to fe a moton for
reconsderaton. Puno countered by sayng
that Aquno had pedged that "no rght
provded under the 1973 Consttuton sha
be absent from the Freedom Consttuton"
and thus by vrtue of Secton 2 E.O. 33,
Puno can cam senorty. Ths was
debunked by the SC on the ground that a
revouton changes everythng because t
went n defance of the then exstng 1973
Consttuton. The core ssue at hand was
precsey WON the exstng ega order was
overthrown by the revoutonary
government. It was. The tte resstance
met by the new government, contro of
the state, appontment of key offcers n
the admnstraton, departure of offcas of
the prevous regme, and the revamp of
the mtary and |udcary sgnaed the
pont where the ega system had ceased
to be obeyed by the Fpno peope.
Estra+a v. Desierto
(2001!
Erap aeges that he s st the Presdent,
abet on-eave, where as Arroyo merey
cams to be Presdent. He sought to en|on
the respondent Ombudsman from
conductng any crmna compants
aganst hs offce unt after the term of hs
presdency was over and ony f egay
warranted. The f#rst #ss$e rased by the
respondents s that the case s a potca
queston and therefore outsde the
|ursdcton of the SC. To determne
whether or not the queston s potca,
the court ooks to the most authortatve
gudene n determnng such ssues:
|ustce Brennans words n the 1962 case
of Baker v. Carr. The Phppnes eadng
case s Tanada v. Cuenco, where ths
Court, through former Chef |ustce
Roberto Concepcon, hed that potca
questons refer:
"to those questons whch, under the
Consttuton, are to be decded by the
peope n ther soveregn capacty, or n
regard to whch fu dscretonary authorty
has been deegated to the egsatve or
executve branch of the government. It s
concerned wth ssues dependent upon
the wsdom, not egaty of a partcuar
measure."
The court hed that the Arroyo
government was not a revoutonary
government as compared to ts Aquno
counterpart. EDSA I nvoved extra-
consttutona exercse of peope power
revouton (and s thus a potca queston
and not sub|ect to |udca revew) whereas
Page No.(
EDSA II provoked the resgnaton of the
sttng presdent whch resuted n the
successon of the vce presdent (whch s
ntra-consttutona and thus |ustcabe).
EDSA I overthrew the whoe government.
EDSA II sought to petton the government
for redress of grevances whch ony
affected the offce of the Presdent.
CO!(#I#%E!# &!D "I!I(#&!#
'%!C#IO!(
&CC'& v. C%GCO
ACCFA s beng sued by CUGCO because
of aeged voatons of a coectve
barganng agreement, dscrmnaton
aganst members, and refusa to bargan.
The CIR favored the companants but
ACCFA pettoned to the SC questonng
WON the CIR has |ursdcton over the case
dependng on WON ACCFA exercsed
governmenta or propretary functons.
The court rued that the mpementaton of
the and reform program of the
government accordng to Repubc Act No.
3844 s most certany a governmenta,
not a propretary, functon. The CIR has no
|ursdcton but nevertheess the coectve
barganng agreements must be enforced.
The ACA s a government offce or agency
engaged n governmenta, not propretary
functons. These functons may not be
strcty what Presdent Wson descrbed as
"consttuent" (as dstngushed from
"mnstrant"),4 such as those reatng to
the mantenance of peace and the
preventon of crme, those reguatng
property and property rghts, those
reatng to the admnstraton of |ustce
and the determnaton of potca dutes of
ctzens, and those reatng to natona
defense and foregn reatons. Under ths
tradtona cassfcaton, such consttuent
functons are exercsed by the State as
attrbutes of soveregnty, and not merey
to promote the wefare, progress and
prosperty of the peope - these etter
functons beng mnstrant he exercse of
whch s optona on the part of the
government.
The growng compextes of modern
socety, however, have rendered ths
tradtona cassfcaton of the functons of
government qute unreastc, not to say
obsoete. The areas whch used to be eft
to prvate enterprse and ntatve and
whch the government was caed upon to
enter optonay, and ony "because t was
better equpped to admnster for the
pubc wefare than s any prvate
ndvdua or group of ndvduas,"5
contnue to ose ther we-defned
boundares and to be absorbed wthn
actvtes that the government must
undertake n ts soveregn capacty f t s
to meet the ncreasng soca chaenges of
the tmes. Here as amost everywhere ese
the tendency s undoubtedy towards a
greater socazaton of economc forces.
Here of course ths deveopment was
envsoned, ndeed adopted as a natona
pocy, by the Consttuton tsef n ts
decaraton of prncpe concernng the
promoton of soca |ustce.
P&E!( P&#I&E
Gov. o/ P*il. Islan+s v. "onte +e
Pie+a+
(1916!
Contrbutons were coected durng the
Spansh Regme for the reef of the
vctms of an earthquake. Part of the
money was never dstrbuted and was
nstead deposted wth the defendant
bank. In an acton for ts recovery ater
fed by the government, the defendant
questoned the competence of the pantff
(PI government), contendng that the sut
coud be nsttuted ony by the ntended
benefcares themseves or by the hers of
the vctms. The ssue of concern here s
Page No.4
WON the PI has the rght to fe a case n
behaf of ts ctzens. It does n ts capacty
as the guardan or )arens )atr#ae of the
peope.
(OVEEIG!#2
Co )im C*an v. Val+e, #an )e* (194!
There was no change of soveregnty
durng the perod of |apanese occupaton.
Possess#on of so*ere#gnt+ remaned wth
the Amercans whe the e,er%#se of the
a%ts of so*ere#gnt+ beonged to the
begerent nvaders.
"a0ariola v. &sun0ion
(1992!
In a cv case of the CFI Leyte, |udge
Asuncon rued a partton of ots of one
deceased Francsco Reyes among
Macaroa (soe chd of Francscos frst
wfe) and the chdren from hs second
marrage. A year ater, the |udge bought
one of the ots he setted from a certan
Gaapon. Macaroa charges Asuncon wth
a compant of commttng "acts
unbecomng a |udge." The man ssues are
twofod: the frst s WON he voated
Artce 1491 (5) of the CC; and second s
WON he voated Artce 14 (1) & (5) of the
Code of Commerce.
The prohbton of the artce n the frst
ssue has aready been decded n recent
cases by reasonng of: ". . . for the
prohbton to operate, the sae or
assgnment of the property must take
pace durng the pendency of the tgaton
nvovng the property"
1
Thus, no voaton
of sad provson took pace. As for the
second regardng the voaton of the Code
of Commerce provson:
1
The Drector of Lands vs. Ababa, et a., |1979|;
Rosaro vda. de Lag vs. Court of Appeas, |1978|
Potca Law has been defned as that
branch of pubc aw whch deas wth the
organzaton and operaton of the
governmenta organs of the State and
defne the reatons of the state wth the
nhabtants of ts terrtory (Peope vs.
Perfecto). It may be recaed that potca
aw embraces consttutona aw, aw of
pubc corporatons, admnstratve aw
ncudng the aw on pubc offcers and
eectons. Specfcay, Artce 14 of the
Code of Commerce partakes more of the
nature of an admnstratve aw because t
reguates the conduct of certan pubc
offcers and empoyees wth respect to
engagng n busness; hence, potca n
essence.
Upon the transfer of soveregnty from
Span to the Unted States and ater on
from the Unted States to the Repubc of
the Phppnes, Artce 14 of the Spansh
Code of Commerce must be deemed to
have been abrogated because where
there s change of soveregnty, the
potca aws of the former soveregn,
whether compatbe or not wth those of
the new soveregn, are automatcay
abrogated, uness they are expressy re-
enacted by affrmatve act of the new
soveregn.
Thus, We hed n Roa vs. Coector of
Customs that:
"'By we-setted pubc aw, upon the
cesson of terrtory by one naton to
another, ether foowng a conquest or
otherwse, . . . those aws whch are
potca n ther nature and pertan to the
prerogatves of the former government
mmedatey cease upon the transfer of
soveregnty.'
2

"Whe muncpa aws of the newy
acqured terrtory not n confct wth the
aws of the new soveregn contnue n
2
Opnon, Atty. Gen., |uy 10, 1899
Page No.
force wthout the express assent or
affrmatve act of the conqueror, the
potca aws do not.
3
Lkewse, n Peope vs. Perfecto, ths Court
stated that: "It s a genera prncpe of the
pubc aw that on acquston of terrtory
the prevous potca reatons of the
ceded regon are totay abrogated."
There appears no enabng or affrmatve
act that contnued the effectvty of the
aforestated provson of the Code of
Commerce after the change of
soveregnty from Span to the Unted
States and then to the Repubc of the
Phppnes. Consequenty, Artce 14 of the
Code of Commerce has no ega and
bndng effect and cannot appy to the
respondent, then |udge of the Court of
Frst Instance, now Assocate |ustce of the
Court of Appeas.
u//1 v. C*ie/ o/ (ta//
(1946!
Ruffy, a provnca commander of the
Phppne Constabuary, nstead of
surrenderng to the |apanese forces,
dsbanded hs company, retreated to the
mountans and ed a guera unt. Leut.
Co. |urado, recognzed by the Unted
States Armed Forces, was sent to repace
Ruffy but was san by the atter and hs
companons. The same peope who ked
the repacng offcer cam that they were
not sub|ect to mtary aw at the tme
when the offense was commtted. -$t the
r$le s$s)en&#ng )ol#t#%al la.s onl+ affe%ts
the %#*#l#an #nha/#tants of the o%%$)#e&
terr#tor+ an& #s not #nten&e& to /#n& the
enem#es #n arms. Thus, members of the
armed forces contnued to be covered by
the Natona Defense Act, the Artces of
War, and other aws reatng to the armed
forces even durng the |apanese
occupaton. By the acceptance of the
3
Haeck's Int. Law, chap. 34, par. 14
pettoners appontments as offcers n the
Phppne Army they became amenabe to
the Artces of War.
Peralta v. Dire0tor o/ Prisons
(194!
Pettoner, a member of the Metropotan
Constabuary, was prosecuted for the
crme of robbery as defned by the
Natona Assemby of the so-caed
Repubc of the Phppnes. He was found
guty and sentenced to serve tme by the
Court of Speca and Excusve Crmna
|ursdcton created n sec. 1 of Ordnance
no. 7 promugated by the Presdent of the
Repubc. The petton for habeas corpus s
based on the ground that the Courts
exstence was vod ab nto because t
was created as a potca nstrumentaty
under the command of the |apanese
Impera Army; that the provsons of sad
ordnance voate hs consttutona rghts;
that the penates provded for are much
more severe than the RPC. SoGen s of
the opnon that the petton shoud be
granted because the Ordnance mentoned
n creatng sad court s "tnged wth
potca compexon", that the procedure
does not afford a far tra and voates
consttutona rght of accused persons
under a egtmate Consttuton. The court
s of the opnon that:
0s to the *al#&#t+ of the %reat#on of the
Co$rt of S)e%#al an& E,%l$s#*e Cr#m#nal
1$r#s&#%t#on /+ 2r&#nan%e No. 7, the ony
factor to be consdered s the authorty of
the egsatve power whch promugated
sad aw or ordnance. It s we estabshed
n Internatona Law that "The crmna
|ursdcton estabshed by the nvader n
the occuped terrtory fnds ts source
nether n the aws of the conquerng or
conquered state, - t s drawn entrey
from the aw marta as defned n the
usages of natons. The authorty thus
derved can be asserted ether through
Page No.6
speca trbunas, whose authorty and
procedure s defned n the mtary code
of the conquerng state, or through the
ordnary courts and authortes of the
occuped dstrct." (Tayor, Internatona
Pubc Law, p. 598.)
The so-caed Repubc of the Phppnes,
beng a governmenta nstrumentaty of
the begerent occupant, had therefore
the power or was competent to create the
Court of Speca and Excusve Crmna
|ursdcton. No queston may arse as to
whether or not a court s of a potca
compexon, for t s mere governmenta
agency charged wth the duty of appyng
the aw to cases fang wthn ts
|ursdcton. Its |udgments and sentences
may be of a potca compexon or not
dependng upon the nature or character of
the aw so apped. There s no room for
doubt, therefore, as to the vadty of the
creaton of the court n queston.
"he *al#&#t+ of the senten%e rendered by
the Court of Speca and Excusve Crmna
|ursdcton whch mposes fe
mprsonment upon the heren pettoner,
depends upon the competence or power
of the begerent occupant to promugate
Act No. 65 whch punshes the crme of
whch sad pettoner was convcted.
It appears cear that t was wthn the
power and competence of the begerent
occupant to promugate, through the
Natona Assemby of the so-caed
Repubc of the Phppnes, Act No. 65 of
the sad Assemby, whch penazes the
crmes of robbery and other offenses by
mprsonment rangng from the maxmum
perod of the mprsonment prescrbed by
the aws and ordnances promugated by
the Presdent of the so-caed Repubc as
mnmum, to fe mprsonment or death as
maxmum. Athough these crmes are
defned n the Revsed Pena Code, they
were atered and penazed by sad Act No.
65 wth dfferent and heaver penates, as
new crmes and offenses demanded by
mtary necessty, ncdent to a state of
war, and necessary for the contro of the
country by the begerent occupant, the
protecton and safety of the army of
occupaton, ts support and effcency, and
the success of ts operatons.
The ast queston s the ega effect of the
reoccupaton of the Phppnes and
restoraton of the Commonweath
Government; that s, whether or not, by
the prncpe of postmny, the )$n#t#*e
senten%e .h#%h )et#t#oner #s no. ser*#ng
fell thro$gh or %ease& to /e *al#& from
that t#me.
We have aready hed n our recent
decson n the case of Co Km Cham vs.
Vadez Tan Keh and Dzon, supra, that a
|udgment of potca compexon of the
courts durng the |apanese regme, ceased
to be vad upon reoccupaton of the
sands by vrtue of the prncpe or rght of
postmnum. Appyng that doctrne to the
present case, the sentence whch
convcted the pettoner of a crme of a
potca compexon must be consdered
as havng ceased to be vad pso facto
upon the reoccupaton or beraton of the
Phppnes by Genera Dougas MacArthur.
&l0antara v. Dire0tor o/ Prisons
Pettoner was convcted of the crme of
ega dscharge of frearms. The CA
modfed the sentence from arresto mayor
to prson correccona. Pettoner
questons the vadty of the CA on the soe
ground that the court was a creaton of
the so-caed Repubc of the Phppnes
durng the |apanese mtary occupaton. In
Co Km Cham v. Vadez Tan Keh and
Dzon, the court rued that the RP and the
PEC were governments de facto and that
|udca acts were good and vad and
remaned good and vad after the
Page No.7
restoraton of the Commonweath
Government. The CA that exstng durng
|apanese occupaton was the CA after the
restoraton. And even f the CA was a new
court, ts |udgments woud st reman
good and vad provded that they do not
have a potca compexon.
A puntve or pena sentence s sad to be
of a potca compexon when t penazes
ether a new act not defned n the
muncpa aws, or acts aready penazed
by the atter as a crme aganst the
egtmate government, but taken out of
the terrtora aw and penazed as new
offenses commtted aganst the
begerent occupant, ncdent to a state of
war and necessary for the contro of the
occuped terrtory and the protecton of
the army of the occuper. They are acts
penazed for pubc rather than prvate
reasons, acts whch tend, drecty or
ndrecty, to ad or favor the enemy and
are drected aganst the wefare, safety
and securty of the begerent occupant.
As exampes, the crmes aganst natona
securty, such as treason, esponage, etc.,
and aganst pubc order, such as
rebeon, sedton, etc., were crmes
aganst the Commonweath or Unted
States Government under the Revsed
Pena Code, whch were made crmes
aganst the begerent occupant.
(#&#E I""%!I#2
C3&&C#EI4&#IO! O' (%I#
.egosa v. C*airman5 P*il. Vet. &sso0.
(1970!
A veteran, Begosa, sufferng from
permanent dsabty was beng dened
what has been granted hm specfcay by
egsatve enactment (whch certany s
superor to any reguaton that may be
promugated by the Phppne Veterans
Admnstraton). Athough the respondent
reented, the amount reeased was far ess
than what the veteran was egay entted
to. He appeaed. The doctrne of state
mmunty cannot be nvoked by the PVA.
Where tgaton may have adverse
consequences on the pubc treasury,
whether n the dsbursements of funds or
oss of property, the pubc offca beng
tred cannot be hed abe by vrtue of
state mmunty. However, where the sut
aganst such a government offca had to
be nsttuted because of hs faure to
compy wth the duty mposed by statute
appropratng funds for the beneft of the
pantff, then the doctrne of state
mmunty cannot be apped.
epu6li0 v. 'eli0iano
(19'7!
Fecano aegedy owns a parce of and
through hs possesson of nformacon
possesora. But ths same and, by vrtue
of Procamaton No. 90 of Presdent Ramon
Magsaysay, became reserved for
settement purposes. Fecano seeks to
prove that hs ownershp of the and as
evdenced by hs nformacon s vad and
makes a cam to recover sad property.
However, the court rued that the state dd
not gve ts consent to be sued and thus
mmune from the compant. Athough the
procamaton stated that t sha be
"sub|ect to prvate rghts f any there be",
ths cannot be construed as an express
waver of mmunty.
Waver of mmunty, beng a derogaton of
soveregnty, w not be nferred ghty,
but must be construed n str#%t#ss#m# 3$r#s
4
.
4
STRICTISSIMI |URIS. The most strct rght or aw. In
genera, when a person receves an advantage, as
the grant of a cense, he s bound to conform
receves an advantage, as the grant of a cense, he
s bound to conform strcty to the exercse of the
rghts gven hm by t, and n case of a strcty to the
exercse of the rghts gven hm by t, and n case of
a dspute, t w be strcty construed.
Page No.'
Moreover, the Procamaton s not a
egsatve act. The consent of the State to
be sued must emanate from statutory
authorty. Waver of State mmunty can
ony be made by an act of the egsatve
body.
&#IO!&LE 'O I""%!I#2
(an+ers v. Veri+iano
(19''!
Ross and Wyer, gameroom attendards,
are sung Sanders and Moreau (superors
of the attendants) for beous mputatons
commtted by the atter whch eventuay
cost them ther |obs. However, the court
rued that the auded acts were offca
and not persona and that the acts
pettoners are caed to account were
performed n the dscharge of ther offca
dutes.
Gven the offca character of the above-
descrbed etters, we have to concude
that the pettoners were, egay speakng,
beng sued as offcers of the Unted States
government. As they have acted on behaf
of that government, and wthn the scope
of ther authorty, t s that government,
and not the pettoners personay, that s
responsbe for ther acts.
The doctrne of state mmunty s
appcabe not ony to our own
government but aso to foregn states who
are sub|ect to the |ursdcton of our
courts.
The practca |ustfcaton for the doctrne,
as Homes put t, s that "there can be no
ega rght aganst the authorty whch
makes the aw on whch the rght
depends." In the case of foregn states,
the rue s derved from the prncpe of
the soveregn equaty of states whch
wsey admonshes that )ar #n )arem non
ha/et #m)er#$m
and that a contrary

atttude woud "unduy vex the peace of
natons." Our adherence to ths precept s
formay expressed n Artce II, Secton 2,
of our Consttuton, where we reterate
from our prevous charters that the
Phppnes "adopts the generay accepted
prncpes of nternatona aw as part of
the aw of the and."
The acts of pettoners are protected by
the presumpton of good fath, whch has
not been overturned by the prvate
respondents. Mstakes concededy
commtted by such pubc offcers are not
actonabe as ong as t s not shown that
they were motvated by mace or gross
neggence amountng to bad fath.
Exceptons to the doctrne of state
mmunty as enumerated n the case are:
Offcer s sued to compe hm to do an act
requred by aw |such as restranng a
Cabnet member from enforcng a aw
camed to be unconsttutona|.
When the government voated ts own
aws.
When an offcer acted wthout or n excess
of authorty n forcby takng prvate
property wthout payng |ust
compensaton thereof, though the
property was converted for the pubc
good.
%nite+ (tates v. Guinto
(1990!
Three man cases deang wth the
doctrne of state mmunty are
5
A states are soveregn equas and cannot assert
|ursdcton over one another.
Page No.9
consodated n ths case wth the fourth
beng remanded due to a ack of
nformaton.
(1) Respondents fe for a case of
canceaton of a barbershop
concessonare. The State heren can be
sued because barbershop concessonares
are commerca n nature and the state
enterng nto such a propretary contract
mpcty gave ts consent to be sued.
(2) A cook was found guty of pourng
urne n soup and was subsequenty
reeved from duty. He fes a compant
aganst the cub manager who nvokes
state mmunty. The State can be sued
snce restaurant operaton s a commerca
affar, however, t does not necessary
mean that the state s abe.
(3) Lus Bautsta was caught n a buy-bust
operaton; he was then subsequenty
reeved from duty. He now sues wth the
compant of ega dsmssa. The
respondent State cannot be sued because
t performed acts wthn ts offca
capacty.
There s no queston that the Unted
States of Amerca, ke any other state, w
be deemed to have mpedy waved ts
non-suabty f t has entered nto a
contract n ts propretary or prvate
capacty. It s ony when the contract
nvoves ts soveregn or governmenta
capacty that no such waver may be
mped.
Even wthout such affrmaton |n Art. 16,
Sec. 3 of 1987 Consttuton|, we woud st
be bound by the generay accepted
prncpes of nternatona aw under the
doctrne of ncorporaton. Under ths
doctrne, as accepted by the ma|orty of
states, such prncpes are deemed
ncorporated n the aw of every cvzed
state as a condton and consequence of
ts membershp n the socety of natons.
Upon ts admsson to such socety, the
state s automatcay obgated to compy
wth these prncpes n ts reatons wth
other states.
XXX
The doctrne s sometmes dersvey
caed "the roya prerogatve of
dshonesty" because of the prvege t
grants the state to defeat any egtmate
cam aganst t by smpy nvokng ts non-
suabty. That s hardy far, at east n
democratc socetes, for the state s not
an unfeeng tyrant unmoved by the vad
cams of ts ctzens. In fact, the doctrne
s not absoute and does not say the state
may not be sued under any crcumstance.
On the contrary, the rue says that the
state may not be sued wthout ts consent,
whch ceary mports that t may be sued
f t consents.
The consent of the state to be sued may
be manfested expressy or mpedy.
Express consent may be emboded n a
genera aw or a speca aw. Consent s
mped when the state enters nto a
contract or t tsef commences tgaton.
The genera aw wavng the mmunty of
the state from sut s found n Act No.
3083, under whch the Phppne
government "consents and submts to be
sued upon any moneyed cam nvovng
abty arsng from contract, express or
mped, whch coud serve as a bass of
cv acton between prvate partes." In
Merrtt v. Government of the Phppne
Isands, a speca aw was passed to
enabe a person to sue the government for
an aeged tort. When the government
enters nto a contract, t s deemed to
have descended to the eve of the other
contractng party and dvested of ts
soveregn mmunty from sut wth ts
mped consent. Waver s aso mped
Page No.10
when the government fes a compant,
thus openng tsef to a countercam.
The above rues are sub|ect to
quafcaton. Express consent s effected
ony by the w of the egsature through
the medum of a duy enacted statute. 18
We have hed that not a contracts
entered nto by the government w
operate as a waver of ts non-suabty;
dstncton must be made between ts
soveregn and propretary acts. As for the
fng of a compant by the government,
suabty w resut ony where the
government s camng affrmatve reef
from the defendant.
#*e 3ol1 (ee v. osario
(1994!
The Hoy See, represented by the Papa
Nunco, sod certan parces of and to two
buyers. However, because the pettoners
were unabe to evct the squatters, a
dspute arose as to who hed the
responsbty of cearng the sad parces
of and of squatters. Respondents fed a
compant for the annument of the sae of
the and but the DFA fed a moton to
ntervene camng that t had a ega
nterest n the outcome of the case as
regards the dpomatc mmunty of
pettoner.
The burden of the petton s that
respondent tra court has no |ursdcton
over pettoner, beng a foregn state
en|oyng soveregn mmunty. On the other
hand, prvate respondent nssts that the
doctrne of non-suabty s not anymore
absoute and that pettoner has dvested
tsef of such a coak when, of ts own free
w, t entered nto a commerca
transacton for the sae of a parce of and
ocated n the Phppnes.
Prvate respondents opnon s untenabe.
Asde from the prvege of soveregn
mmunty estabshed by the DFA, the Hoy
See s nonetheess mmune from sut
because the transacton entered nto was
not for proft or for gan. It merey wanted
to dspose off the same because the
squatters vng there made t amost
mpossbe for pettoner to use t for the
purpose of the donaton (constructon of
Papa Nuncos resdence). The fact that
squatters have occuped and are st
occupyng the ot, and that they
stubborny refuse to eave the premses,
has been admtted by prvate respondent
n ts compant.
There are two confctng concepts of
soveregn mmunty, each wdey hed and
frmy estabshed. Accordng to the
cassca or absoute theory, a soveregn
cannot, wthout ts consent, be made a
respondent n the courts of another
soveregn. Accordng to the newer or
restrctve theory, the mmunty of the
soveregn s recognzed ony wth regard
to pubc acts or acts 3$re #m)er## of a
state, but not wth regard to prvate acts
or acts 3$re gest#on#s (Unted States of
Amerca v. Ruz)
In the absence of egsaton defnng what
actvtes and transactons sha be
consdered "commerca" and as
consttutng acts |ure gestons, we have to
come out wth our own gudenes,
tentatve they may be.
Certany, the mere enterng nto a
contract by a foregn state wth a prvate
party cannot be the utmate test. Such an
act can ony be the start of the nqury.
The ogca queston s whether the foregn
state s engaged n the actvty n the
reguar course of busness. If the foregn
Page No.11
state s not engaged reguary n a
busness or trade, the partcuar act or
transacton must then be tested by ts
nature. If the act s n pursut of a
soveregn actvty, or an ncdent thereof,
then t s an act |ure mper, especay
when t s not undertaken for gan or
proft.
In the case at bench, f pettoner has
bought and sod ands n the ordnary
course of a rea estate busness, surey the
sad transacton can be categorzed as an
act 3$re gest#on#s. However, pettoner has
&en#e& that the a%4$#s#t#on an&
s$/se4$ent &#s)osal of 5ot -0 .ere ma&e
for )rof#t /$t %la#me& that #t a%4$#re& sa#&
)ro)ert+ for the s#te of #ts m#ss#on or the
0)ostol#% N$n%#at$re #n the Ph#l#))#nes.
Prvate respondent faed to dspute sad
cam.
7&IVE O' I""%!I#2
(a1son v. (ingson
(197(!
Sngson fed a money cam aganst the
Hghways Audtor Genera pettonng the
atter to be compeed to pay the baance
due to Sngson. Sayson faed to pay the
correspondng baance to Sngson after
dscoverng that the equpment beng sod
by Sngson was overprced.
To state the facts s to make cear the
sodty of the stand taken by the Repubc.
The ower court was unmndfu of the
fundamenta doctrne of non-suabty. So
t was stressed n the petton of the then
Soctor Genera Makasar. Thus: "It s
apparent that respondent Sngson's cause
of acton s a money cam aganst the
government, for the payment of the
aeged baance of the cost of spare parts
supped by hm to the Bureau of Pubc
Hghways. Assumng momentary the
vadty of such cam, athough as w be
shown hereunder, the cam s vod for the
cause or consderaton s contrary to aw,
moras or pubc pocy, mandamus s not
the remedy to enforce the coecton of
such cam aganst the State..., but an
ordnary acton for specfc performance...
Actuay, the sut dsgused as one for
mandamus to compe the Audtors to
approve the vouchers for payment, s a
sut aganst the State, whch cannot
prosper or be entertaned by the Court
except wth the consent of the State
epu6li0 v. Purisima
(1977!
Yeow Be Freght Lnes brought a sut
aganst the Rce and Corn Admnstraton
for an aeged breach of contract. Rce and
Corn moved to dsmss the sut by usng
the doctrne of state mmunty.
Respondent |udge dsmssed the moton to
dsmss. The SC hed that the courts do
not have |ursdcton to pass upon the
merts of the cams aganst any offce or
entty actng as part of the machnery of
the natona government.
Express waver of mmunty cannot be
made by a mere counse of the
government but must be effected through
a duy-enacted statute. Nether does such
answer come under the mped forms of
consent as earer dscussed.
&miga6le v. Cuen0a
(1972!
The government used a porton of the and
owned by Amgabe for the constructon of
the Mango and Gorordo Avenues wthout
pror negotaton/expropraton. Amgabe
sues Cuenca n hs capacty as
Commssoner of Pubc Hghways seekng
payment for the approprated and. The
court rued n favor of the state by vrtue
of appyng state mmunty. However, the
SC set asde the ower courts decson on
Page No.12
the bass that "mmunty from sut cannot
serve as an nstrument for penetratng an
n|ustce on a ctzen."
"inisterio v. Cit1 o/ Ce6u
(1971!
Pettoners seek |ust compensaton for a
regstered ot aegng that the
government took physca and matera
possesson of t and used t for the
wdenng of Gorodo Ave. n Cebu Cty. CFI
dsmssed the case on the ground of
mmunty of the state to be sued wthout
ts consent.
The SC hed that: where the government
takes away property from a prvate
andowner for pubc use wthout gong
through the ega process of expropraton
or negotated sae, the aggreved party
may propery mantan a sut aganst the
government wthout thereby voatng the
doctrne of governmenta mmunty from
sut wthout ts consent. The SC there sad:
". . . If the consttutona mandate that the
owner be compensated for property taken
for pubc use were to be respected, as t
shoud, then a sut of ths character shoud
not be summary dsmssed. The doctrne
of governmenta mmunty from sut
cannot serve as an nstrument for
perpetratng an n|ustce on a ctzen. Had
the government foowed the procedure
ndcated by the governng aw at the
tme, a compant woud have been fed
by t, and ony upon payment of the
compensaton fxed by the |udgment, or
after tender to the party entted to such
payment of the amount fxed, may t have
the rght to enter n and upon the and so
condemned, to approprate the same to
the pubc use defned n the |udgment.' If
there were an observance of procedura
reguarty, pettoners woud not be n the
sad pant they are now. It s unthnkabe
then that precsey because there was a
faure to abde by what the aw requres,
the government woud stand to beneft. It
s |ust as mportant, f not more so, that
there be fdety to ega norms on the part
of offcadom f the rue of aw were to be
mantaned. It s not too much to say that
when the government takes any property
for pubc use, whch s condtoned upon
the payment of |ust compensaton, to be
|udcay ascertaned, t makes manfest
that t submts to the |ursdcton of a
court. There s no thought then that the
doctrne of mmunty from sut coud st
be appropratey nvoked."
(antiago v. epu6li0
(197'!
Santago fed an acton n the CFI namng
as defendant the Government of the
Repubc of the Phppnes represented by
the Drector of the Bureau of Pant
Industry (BPI). Hs pea was for the
revocaton of a deed of donaton executed
by hm and hs spouse n 1971, wth the
BPI as the donee. Pettoner aeges that
the donee faed to compy the terms of
the donaton. Pettoner then s ed to
concude that he was exempt from
compance wth such an expct
consttutona command, whch prohbts a
sut aganst the Repubc wthout ts
consent. "he #ss$e s WON the RP gave ts
consent when t accepted the terms of
donaton gven by Santago, thereby
aowng tsef to be sued based on the
hgh dctates of equty and |ustce.
In the case at bar, the Repubc, as donee,
gave ts mped consent to perform the
condtons of the donaton. In such a case
as ths, the court hed that the donor, wth
the Repubc as donee, s entted to go to
court n case of an aeged breach of the
condtons of such donaton. He (the
donor) has the rght to be heard. Under
the crcumstances, the fundamenta
postuate of non-sutabty cannot stand n
the way. The government beng the
Page No.1(
benefcary manfests ts adherence to the
hghest ethca standards, whch can ony
be gnored at the rsk of osng the
confdence of the peope.
Lim v. .rownell
(1960!
Lm s camng ownershp over certan ots
of and that were recamed by the US
government and subsequenty, turned
over to the RP. Lm cams these ands
orgnay beong to hs deceased mother
but were egay possessed by |apanese
troops. The US was abe to take
possesson of sad ands after the war by
vrtue of the Tradng wth the Enemy Act.
The mmunty of the state from sut,
however, cannot be nvoked where the
acton, as n the present case, s nsttuted
by a person who s nether an enemy or
ay of an enemy for the purpose of
estabshng hs rght, tte or nterest n
vested property, and of recoverng hs
ownershp and possesson. Congressona
consent to such sut has expressy been
gven by the Unted States.
%nite+ (tates v. ui,
(19'!
Respondent was abe to wn a bd for a
pro|ect for the repar of the
wharves/shorene of the Subc Bay Area.
Pettoner asked for a quotaton but ater
on dened the respondent the pro|ect
statng that the respondent was not
quafed. The atter fes sut for awardng
the pro|ect to hm and for damages as
we.
The restrctve appcaton of State
mmunty s proper ony when the
proceedngs arse out of commerca
transactons of the foregn soveregn, ts
commerca actvtes or economc affars.
Stated dfferenty, a State may be sad to
have descended to the eve of an
ndvdua and can thus be deemed to
have tacty gven ts consent to be sued
ony when t enters nto busness
contracts. It does not appy where the
contract reates to the exercse of ts
soveregn functons. In ths case the
pro|ects are an ntegra part of the nava
base whch s devoted to the defense of
both the Unted States and the Phppnes,
ndsputaby a functon of the government
of the hghest order; they are not utzed
for nor dedcated to commerca or
busness purposes.
epu6li0 v. Villasor
(197(!
Respondent |udge Vasor s aeged to
have acted n excess of |ursdcton |or|
wth grave abuse of dscreton amountng
to ack of |ursdcton n grantng the
ssuance of an aas wrt of executon
aganst the propertes of the Armed Forces
of the Phppnes, and thus, the Aas Wrt
of Executon and notces of garnshment
ssued pursuant thereto are nu and vod.
What was done by respondent |udge s not
n conformty wth the dctates of the
Consttuton.
It s a fundamenta postuate of
consttutonasm fowng from the |urstc
concept of soveregnty that the state as
we as ts government s mmune from
sut uness t gves ts consent. It s ready
understandabe why t must be so. In the
cassc formuaton of Homes: "A
soveregn s exempt from sut, not
because of any forma concepton or
obsoete theory, but on the ogca and
practca ground that there can be no ega
rght as aganst the authorty that makes
the aw on whch the rght depends."
Socoogca |ursprudence suppes an
answer not dssmar. So t was ndcated
n a recent decson, Provdence
Page No.14
Washngton Insurance Co. v. Repubc of
the Phppnes, wth ts affrmaton that
"a contnued adherence to the doctrne of
non-suabty s not to be depored for as
aganst the nconvenence that may be
caused prvate partes, the oss of
governmenta effcency and the obstace
to the performance of ts mutfarous
functons are far greater f such a
fundamenta prncpe were abandoned
and the avaabty of |udca remedy
were not thus restrcted. Wth the we
known propensty on the part of our
peope to go to court, at the east
provocaton, the oss of tme and energy
requred to defend aganst aw suts, n the
absence of such a basc prncpe that
consttutes such an effectve obstace,
coud very we be magned."
|ustce Macom: "A rue, whch has never
been serousy questoned, s that money
n the hands of pubc offcers, athough t
may be due government empoyees, s not
abe to the credtors of these empoyees
n the process of garnshment. One reason
s, that the State, by vrtue of ts
soveregnty, may not be sued n ts own
courts except by express authorzaton by
the Legsature, and to sub|ect ts offcers
to garnshment woud be to permt
ndrecty what s prohbted drecty.
Another reason s that moneys sought to
be garnshed, as ong as they reman n
the hands of the dsbursng offcer of the
Government, beong to the atter,
athough the defendant n garnshment
may be entted to a specfc porton
thereof. And st another reason whch
covers both of the foregong s that every
consderaton of pubc pocy forbds t."
(%I#( &G&I!(# GOVE!"E!#
&GE!CIE(
P*il. !ational ailwa1s v. I&C
(199(!
Bawag Bus and an express tran coded
resutng to death and damages. Bawag
sues PNR; but PNR rases the defense that
t was the bus drver who was neggent
and the doctrne of state mmunty
exempts them from sut. IAC rued n favor
of Bawag, hence ths appea.
Athough PNR s a government formed
department, PNR engages n a purey
commerca acton. PNR was created not
to dscharge a governmenta functon but
to operate a transport servce whch s
essentay a busness concern. When the
government enters n a commerca
busness, t abandons ts soveregn
capacty and s to be treated ke any
other prvate corporaton.
!ational Irrigation &+ministration v.
'ontanilla
(1991!
The NIA group was on ts way to a
campste. In a hurry to reach ther
destnaton, they ran over someone and
dd not even stop to check what
happened. It turned out to be the son of
heren respondents who subsequenty
fed sut. NIA avers that they were an
agency of the government and therefore
not abe for the acts of the drver who
was a speca agent. The SC rued,
however, that the NIA s a government
agency wth |urdca personaty that s
separate and dstnct from the
government. Therefore t s not mmune
from sut. Besdes, the NIAs charter
specfcay aows the NIA to sue and be
sued.
(%I#&.ILI#2 V. LI&.ILI#2
"erritt v. Gov. o/ t*e P*il Islan+s
(1916!
Pantff Merrtt on a motorcyce coded
wth an ambuance whch dd not warn of
Page No.1
ts mpendng approach. As the neggence
whch caused the coson s a tort
commtted by an agent or empoyee of the
Government, the nqury at once arses
whether the Government s egay abe
for the damages resutng therefrom. The
government, by no ess than an Act,
authorzed Merrtt to brng sut n the CFI
Mana n order to fx the responsbty for
the coson between hs motorcyce and
the ambuance of the Genera Hospta.
Dd the government smpy wave ts
mmunty from sut or dd t aso concede
ts abty to the pantff?
Paragraph 5 of artce 1903 of the Cv
Code reads: "The state s abe n ths
sense when t acts through a speca
agent, but not when the damage shoud
have been caused by the offca to whom
propery t pertaned to do the act
performed, n whch case the provsons of
the precedng artce sha be appcabe."
It s, therefore, evdent that the State (the
Government of the Phppne Isands) s
ony abe, accordng to the above quoted
decsons of the Supreme Court of Span,
for the acts of ts agents, offcers and
empoyees when they act as speca
agents wthn the meanng of paragraph 5
of artce 1903, supra, and that the
chauffeur of the ambuance of the Genera
Hospta was not such an agent.
Page No.16
GOVE!"E!# (#%C#%E
&"E!D"E!#( &!D EVI(IO!(
8
Gon,ales v. CO"ELEC
November 9, 1967, Concepcion, C.J.
Facts:
The House of Representatves passed a
b whch aowed for proposas n
Resouton 1 (ncreasng max number of
representatves from 120-180) and
Resouton 3 ( authorzng Senators and
Representatves to be deegates n a
consttutona conventon) to be passed.
Ths was subsequenty approved by the
Presdent as R.A. 4913 whch provded for
amendments to be made sub|ect to the
peopes approva at the genera eectons
of Nov. 1967.
Gonzaes, a taxpayer, fed a cass sut and
prayed that: (1) COMELEC restran from
performng acts that woud resut n the
hodng of the pebscte for ratfcaton;
and (2) decare the Act unconsttutona.
PHILCONSA (Phppne Consttuton
Assocaton), on the other hand, prayed
that the decson n ths case be deferred
unt an dentca case pendng (whch was
expected soon) was decded on. COMELEC
dsmssed the petton whch nstgated the
assocatons fng of a revew by
certorar. SoGen mantans that the SC
has no |ursdcton upon the ground that
the same s "merey potca" as hed n
Ma/anag *s. 5o)e6 V#to.
It was urged by the pettoners that sad
resoutons are nu and vod because:
1. The Members of Congress, whch
approved the proposed amendments, as
we as the resouton cang a conventon
6
No dgests for the frst two sectons of ths chapter:
Separaton of Powers and the Non-Deegaton
Doctrne
to propose amendments, are, at best, &e
fa%to Congressmen;
2. Congress may adopt e#ther one of two
aternatves propose - amendments or
ca a conventon therefore but may not
ava of both - that s to say, propose
amendment an& ca a conventon - at
the same tme;
3. The eecton, n whch proposas for
amendment to the Consttuton sha be
submtted for ratfcaton, must be a
s)e%#al eecton, not a general eecton, n
whch offcers of the natona and oca
governments - such as the eectons
schedued to be hed on November 14,
1967 - w be chosen; and
4. The sprt of the Consttuton demands
that the eecton, n whch proposas for
amendment sha be submtted to the
peope for ratfcaton, must be hed under
such condtons - whch, aegedy, do not
exst - as to gve the peope a reasonabe
opportunty to have a far grasp of the
nature and mpcatons of sad
amendments.
Senator Arturo Toentno ob|ected to the
PHILCONSA petton on the foowng
grounds: a) that the Court has no
|ursdcton ether to grant the reef
sought n the petton, or to pass upon the
egaty of the composton of the House of
Representatves; b) that the petton, f
granted, woud, n effect, render n
operatona the egsatve department;
and c) that "the faure of Congress to
enact a vad reapportonment aw . . .
does not have the ega effect of renderng
ega the House of Representatves
eected thereafter, nor of renderng ts
acts nu and vod."
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the SC has |ursdcton.
Page No.17
Yes. "The |udca department s the ony
consttutona organ whch can be caed
upon to determne the proper aocaton of
powers between the severa departments
and among the ntegra or consttuent
unts thereof." - Dr. |ose P. Laure, 0ngara
*. Ele%toral Comm#ss#on.

The force of the precedent n Ma/anag *s.
5o)e6 V#to decarng the ssue to be
"merey potca" has been weakened by
S$anes *s. Ch#ef 0%%o$ntant of the
Senate, Aveno vs. Cuenco, Taada vs.
Cuenco, and Ma%#as *s. Comm#ss#on on
Ele%t#ons. In the frst, we hed that the
offcers and empoyees of the Senate
Eectora Trbuna are under ts supervson
and contro, not of that of the Senate
Presdent, as camed by the atter; n the
second, ths Court proceeded to determne
the number of Senators necessary for a
4$or$m n the Senate; n the thrd, we
nufed the eecton, by Senators
beongng to the party havng the argest
number of votes n sad chamber,
purportng to act on behaf of the party
havng the second argest number of votes
theren, of two (2) Senators beongng to
the frst party, as members, for the second
party, of the, Senate Eectora Trbuna;
and n the fourth, we decared
unconsttutona an act of Congress
purportng to apporton the representatve
dstrcts for the House of Representatves,
upon the ground that the apportonment
had not been made as may be possbe
accordng to the number of nhabtants of
each provnce. Thus we re|ected the
theory, advanced n these four (4) cases,
that the ssues theren rased were
potca questons the determnaton of
whch s beyond |udca revew.
In short, the ssue whether or not a
Resouton of Congress - actng as a
consttuent assemby - voates the
Consttuton essentay |ustcabe, not
potca, and, hence, sub|ect to |udca
revew, and, to the extent that ths vew
may be nconsstent wth the stand taken
n Ma/anag *s. 5o)e6 V#to, the atter
shoud be deemed modfed accordngy.
The Members of the Court are unanmous
on ths pont.
(2) WON R.A. 4913 s unconsttutona.
No, t s consttutona. Even though t s
urged that the Congress became
unconsttutona because the
Apportonment Act was deemed ega
(act was not made accordng to the
number of nhabtants of the dfferent
provnces of the Phppnes), ths
argument snt tenabe. Faure to make
the apportonment does not dssove
Congress or makes t ega.
On the argument that the actng congress
was unconsttutona because t faed to
apporton tsef wthn three years, ths s
untenabe. The fact that Congress s
under ega obgaton to make sad
apportonment does not |ustfy, however,
the concuson that faure to compy wth
such obgaton rendered Congress ega
or unconsttutona, or that ts Members
have become &e fa%to offcers.
On the argument of the pettoners that
Congress may ony amend or ca a
conventon but not do both, the SC rued
that ths was a queston of wsdom and
not authorty and hence was a potca
queston.
On the choce between a speca eecton
and a genera eecton, a ma|orty of the
SC, but not enough to consttute a
quafed ma|orty needed to decare a aw
unconsttutona, was of the vew that the
sprt of the Consttuton demanded that
"eecton" be read as "speca eecton" n
order that the transcendenta mportance
of a consttona amendment coud
command the undvded attenton of the
Page No.1'
eectorate. The mnorty but prevang
vew, however, sad:
"Ths, certany, s a stuaton to be hoped
for. It s a goa the attanment of whch
shoud be promoted. The dea condtons
are, however, one thng. The queston
whether the Consttuton forbds the
submsson of proposas for amendment to
the peope except under such condtons,
s another thng. Much as the wrter and
those who concur n ths opnon admre
the contrary vew, they fnd themseves
unabe to subscrbe thereto wthout, n
effect, readng nto the Consttuton what
they beeve s not wrtten thereon and
can not fary be deduced from the etter
thereof, snce the sprt of the aw shoud
not be a matter of sheer specuaton. "
On the ssue of nsuffcency of the
pubcty and tme for dscusson afforded
by the mechansm of ratfcaton provded
by the egsature, agan the mnorty but
prevang opnon sad:
"We do not beeve t has been
satsfactory shown that Congress has
exceeded the mts thereof n enactng
Repubc Act No. 4913. Presumaby, t
coud have done somethng better to
enghten the peope on the sub|ect-
matter thereof. But, then, no aw s
perfect. No product of human endeavor s
beyond mprovement. Otherwse, no
egsaton woud be consttutona and
vad."
7
#olentino v. CO"ELEC
!ctober 16, 1971, "arredo, J.
Facts:
7
Despte ths decson of the SC whch ceared the
way for the pebscte, the pebscte nevertheess,
overwhemngy, re|ected Resoutons 1 and 3. -
Mars.
After the Consttona Conventon of 1971
came nto beng and after ts eecton of
deegates, the conventon, on Sept. 28,
1971, approved ts frst forma proposa to
amend the Consttuton by Organc
Resouton No. 1 (Lowerng the Votng Age
to 18 n Artce V). Arturo M. Toentno fed
a petton for prohbton to restran
COMELEC from hodng a pebscte on
November 8 at whch the proposed
amendment coud be ratfed by the
peope.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON ony Congress can ca a
pebscte for ratfcaton of amendments.
The SC chose not to answer the queston
on whether or not the power to ca a
pebscte was excusvey egsatve. "In
the vew the Court takes of the present
case, t does not perceve absoute
necessty to resove that queston, grave
and mportant as t may be Truth to te,
the ack of unanmty or even of a
consensus among the members of the
Court n respect to ths ssue creates the
need for more study and deberaton, and
as tme s of the essence n ths case, for
obvous reasons, November 8, 1971, the
date set by the Conventon for the
pebscte t s cang, beng ngh, We w
refran from makng any pronouncement
or expressng Our vews on ths queston
unt a more approprate case comes to
Us. After a, the bass of ths decson s as
mportant and decsve as any can be."
ARTICLE XV AMENDMENTS
SECTION 1. The Congress n |ont sesson
assembed, by a vote of three-fourths of
a the Members of the Senate and of the
House of Representatves votng
separatey may propose amendments to
ths Consttuton or ca a conventon for
the purpose. Such amendments sha be
vad as part of ths Consttuton when
Page No.19
approved by a ma|orty of the votes cast
at an eecton at whch the amendments
are submtted to the peope for ther
ratfcaton.
(2) WON Sec. 1 Artce XV s voated by
the act of the Conventon n cang for a
pebscte on the soe amendment
contaned n Organc Resouton No. 1 and
s thus unconsttutona.
Yes. "The Court hods that there s |a
voaton|, and t s the condton and
mtaton that a the amendments to be
proposed by the same Conventon must
be submtted to the peope n a snge
"eecton" or pebscte. It beng
ndsputabe that the amendment now
proposed to be submtted to a pebscte s
ony the frst amendment the Conventon
w propose We hod that the pebscte
beng caed for the purpose of submttng
the same for ratfcaton of the peope on
November 8, 1971 s not authorzed by
Secton 1 of Artce XV of the Consttuton,
hence a acts of the Conventon and the
respondent COMELEC n that drecton are
nu and vod."
Barredo reasoned out hs grammatca
argument by sayng that parta
amendments do not refect a study of the
whoe Consttuton n ts entrety whch s
necessary n order to amend a fragment
or porton of ts parts. Thus, a snge
eecton of these amendments ensures
that a the proposed and accepted
amendments are compatbe wth the
entre Consttuton and not |ust wthn the
provsons scope.
"We are not denyng any rght of the
peope to vote on the proposed
amendment; We are ony hodng that
under Secton 1, Artce XV of the
Consttuton, the same shoud be
submtted to them not separatey from but
together wth a the other amendments to
be proposed by ths present Conventon."
O00ena v. CO"ELEC
#pril $, 19%1, Fernando, C.J.
Facts:
Occena and Gonzaes fed an acton of
prohbton aganst the vadty of three
Batasang Pambansa Resoutons
proposng consttutona amendments,
thereby mpyng the asserton that the
1973 Consttuton s not the fundamenta
aw, regardess of the recent |aveana
rung.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the 1973 Consttuton s the
fundamenta aw of the and.
Yes. It s too ate to deny the appcabty
of the 1973 Consttuton. Ths was aready
decded on by a 6-4 vote n |aveana v.
Executve Secretary. "There s no further
obstace to the new consttuton beng
consdered n force and effect."
(2) WON the Batasang Pambansa has the
power to propose amendments:
Yes t does. The exstence of the power of
the 7nter#m Batasang Pambansa s
ndubtabe. The appcabe provson n
the 1976 Amendments s qute expct.
Insofar as pertnent t reads thus: "The
7nter#m Batasang Pambansa sha have the
same powers and ts Members sha have
the same functons, responsbtes, rghts,
prveges, and dsquafcatons as the
#nter#m Natona Assemby and the reguar
Natona Assemby and the Members
Page No.20
thereof." One of such powers s precsey
that of proposng amendments.
Pettoners woud argue that the
amendments proposed are so extensve
as to consttute a revson. "At any rate,
whether the Consttuton s merey
amended n part or revsed or totay
changed woud become mmatera the
moment the same s ratfed by the
soveregn peope."
Regardng the ssue of votes necessary to
propose amendments as we as the
standard for proper submsson,
pettoners have not made out a case that
cas for a |udgment n ther favor. The
anguage of the Consttuton suppes the
answer to the above questons. The
7nter#m Batasang Pambansa, sttng as a
consttuent body, can propose
amendments. In that capacty, ony a
ma|orty vote s needed. It woud be an
ndefensbe proposton to assert that the
three-fourth votes requred when t sts as
a egsatve body appes as we when t
has been convened as the agency through
whch amendments coud be proposed.
#ee*an9ee5 $. (Dissenting)-
1. Under the prevang doctrne of
"olent#no *s. Comele% that the proposed
amendments to be vad must come from
the consttutona agency vested wth the
consttuent power to do so, .e. n the
Interm Natona Assemby provded n the
Transtory Artce XVII whch woud then
have to be convened and not from the
executve power as vested n the
Presdent (Prme Mnster) from whom
such consttuent power has been wthhed.
2. As restated by me n the 1977 case of
8#&algo, under the controng doctrne of
"olent#no, the October 1976 consttutona
amendments whch created the Interm
Batasang Pambansa n eu of the Interm
Natona Assemby were nvad snce as
rued by the Court theren, consttutona
provsons on amendments "deang wth
the procedure or manner of amendng the
fundamenta aw are bndng upon the
Conventon and the other departments of
the government (and) are no ess bndng
upon the peope" and "the very Idea of
deparcng from the fundamenta aw s
anachronstc n the ream of
consttutonasm and repugnant to the
essence of the rue of aw." The proposed
amendments at bar havng been adopted
by the Interm Batasang Pambansa as the
frut of the nvad October, 1976
amendments must necessary suffer from
the same congenta nfrmty.
3. Prescndng from the foregong and
assumng the vadty of the proposed
amendments, I reterate my stand n
San#&a& that the doctrne of far and
proper submsson frs enuncated by a
smpe ma|orty of sx |ustces (of an
eeven member Court pror to the 1973
Consttuton whch ncreased the offca
composton of the Court to ffteen) n
9on6ales *s. Comele% and subsequenty
offcay adopted by the requred
consttutona two-thrds ma|orty vote of
the Court (of eght votes, then) n
"olent#no s fuy appcabe n the case at
bar. The three resoutons proposng
compex, compcated and radca
amendments of our very structure of
government were consdered and
approved by the Interm Batasang
Pambansa sttng as a consttuent
assemby on February 27, 1981. It set the
date of the pebscte for thrty-nne days
ater on Apr 7, 1981 whch s totay
nadequate and far short of the nnety-day
perod fxed by the Consttuton for
submtta to the peope to "suffcenty
nform them of the amendments to be
voted upon, to conscentousy deberate
thereon and to express ther w n a
genune manner."
Page No.21
4. "The mnmum requrements that must
be met n order that there can be a proper
submsson to the peope of a proposed
consttutona amendment" as stated by
retred |ustce Conrado V. Sanchez n hs
separate opnon n 9on6ales bears
repeatng as foows: "... we take the vew
that the words 'submtted to the peope
for ther ratfcaton,' f construed n the
ght of the nature of the Consttuton - a
fundamenta charter that s egsaton
drect from the peope, an expresson of
ther soveregn w - s that t can ony be
amended by the peope expressng
themseves accordng to the procedure
ordaned by the Consttuton. Therefore,
amendments must be fary ad before the
peope for ther bessng or spurnng. The
peope are not to be mere rubber stamps.
They are not to vote bndy. They must be
afforded ampe opportunty to mu over
the orgna provsons, compare them wth
the proposed amendments, and try to
reach a concuson as the dctates of ther
conscence suggest, free from the ncubus
of extraneous or possby nsdous
nfuences. We beeve the word
'submtted' can ony mean that the
government, wthn ts maxmum
capabtes, shoud stran every short to
nform every ctzen of the provsons to be
amended, and the proposed amendments
and the meanng, nature and effects
thereof. ... What the Consttuton n effect
drects s that the government, n
submttng an amendment for ratfcaton,
shoud put every nstrumentaty or
agency wthn ts structura framework to
enghten the peope, educate them wth
respect to ther act of ratfcaton or
re|ecton. For, as we have earer stated,
one thng s submsson and another s
ratfcaton. There must be far submsson,
ntegent consent or re|ecton. If wth a
these safeguards the peope st approve
the amendments no matter how
pre|udca t s to them, then so be t. For
the peope decree ther own fate."
|ustce Sanchez theren ended the passage
wth an apt ctaton that "... The great men
who buded the structure of our state n
ths respect had the menta vson of a
good Consttuton voced by |udge Cooey,
who has sad 'A good Consttuton shoud
be beyond the reach of temporary
exctement and popuar caprce or
passon. It s needed for stabty and
steadness; t must yed to the thought of
the peope; not to the whm of the peope,
or the thought evoved n exctement, or
hot bood, but the sober second thought,
whch aone f the government s to be
safe, can be aowed effcacy ... Changes
n government are to be feard uness
beneft s certan.' As Montagn says: 'A
great mutaton shake and dsorder a state.
Good does not necessary succeed ev;
another ev may succeed and a worse."'
&lmario v. &l6a
1an$ar+ 2, 19'4, 9$t#erre6, 1r., 1.
Facts:
The Fpno eectorate w go to the pos
to approve or re|ect amendments to the
Consttuton proposed by resoutons of
the Batasang Pambansa. Pettoners seek
to deay the date of ratfcaton/re|ecton n
order to gve ampe tme to study the
ramfcatons of the two questons stated
n Oueston No. 3 and No. 4 .
Page No.22
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON Ouestons No. 3 and No. 4 have
been propery submtted to the peope.
Yes. The Consttuton provdes, under Sec.
2, Art. 16, a perod of three months for an
nformaton campagn regardng the
ntended amendments. The suffcency of
the perod durng whch amendments are
submtted to the peope before they vote
to ether affrm or re|ect depends on the
compexty and ntrcacy of the questons
presented. The pettoners have faed to
show that the addton of the one word
"grant" to Secton 11, Artce XIV or that
the addton of two paragraphs ncudng
one on urban and reform to Secton 12 of
Artce XIV resut n amendments of such
nature that when the peope go to the
pos on |anuary 27, 1984 they cannot
arrve at an ntegent |udgment on ther
acceptabty or non-acceptabty.
More mportant, however, s that the
necessty, expedency, and wsdom of the
proposed amendments are beyond the
power of the courts to ad|udcate.
Precsey, whether or not "grant" of pubc
and and "urban and reform" are unwse
or mprovdent or whether or not the
proposed amendments are unnecessary s
a matter whch ony the peope can
decde. The questons are presented for
ther determnaton. Assumng that a
member or some members of ths Court
may fnd undesrabe any addtona mode
of dsposng of pubc and or an urban
and reform program, the remedy s to
vote "NO" n the pebscte but not to
substtute hs or ther averson to the
proposed amendments by denyng to the
mons of voters an opportunty to
express ther own kes or dskes. The
ssue before us has nothng to do wth the
wsdom of the proposed amendments,
ther desrabty, or the danger of the
power beng abused. The ssue s whether
or not the voters are aware of the wsdom,
the desrabty, or the dangers of abuse.
The pettoners have faed to make out a
case that the average voter does not know
the meanng of "grant" of pubc and or of
"urban and reform."
The doctrne of far and proper submsson
to the peope of proposed consttutona
amendments as enuncated by the Court
n Toentno vs. Comeec (41 SCRA 702,
729) mandates that "n order that a
pebscte for the ratfcaton of an
amendment to the Consttuton may be
vady hed, t must provde the voter not
ony suffcent tme, but ampe bass for an
ntegent apprasa of the nature of the
amendment per se as we as ts reaton
to the other parts of the Consttuton wth
whch t has to form a harmonous whoe."
There must be far submsson and
ntegent consent or re|ecton.
As the ate |ustce Conrado V. Sanchez
stressed n hs separate opnon n the
earer case of Gonzaes vs. Comeec,
concurred n by the ate Chef |ustce Fred
Ruz Castro and |ustce Caxto Zadvar,
(21 SCRA 774, 817), the peope must be
"suffcenty nformed of the amendments
to be voted upon, to conscentousy
deberate thereon, to express ther w n
a genune manner."
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.2(
'%!D&"E!#&L PI!CIPLE(
&!D
(#&#E POLICIE(
Lim v. E:e0utive (e0retar1
;
2002, :e 5eon, 1r. 1
Two years after the VFA was approved n 1999, the terrorst attacks
9/11 prompted Amerca to decare an nternatona terrorst
campagn. Pres. GMA pedged the countrys support to the
endeavor.
On |anuary 2002, members of the USAF (Unted States Armed
Forces) arrved n Mndanao to, aong wth the AFP, take part n the
"Bakatan 02-1" exercses. The next month, the Senate, after
conductng a hearng on the mtary exercse, approved the Draft
Terms of Reference upon presentaton by then VP Gungona.
Pettoners Lm and Ersando fed ths petton for certorar and
prohbton attackng the consttutonaty of the |ont exercse. They
fed sut as ctzens, awyers and taxpayers. Two party-st
ntervenors, SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG MANGAGAWA, aver that
some of ther members are resdents of Zamboanga and Suu and
thus are drecty affected by operatons conducted n Mndanao.
They argue (a) that the Abu-Sayyaf bandts do not consttute an
externa armed force and thus, the Phppnes s not sub|ect to
armed externa attack contempated n the MDT (mutua defense
treaty) of 1951 to warrant US mtary assstance. They aso cam
that the VFA sgned n 1999 does not authorze US soders to
engage n combat operatons n Phppne terrtory, not even to fre
back f fred upon.
8
A ot of dssentng opnons. Too azy. W get back to them when I have tme.
Issues/Held/atio:
(1) WON pettoners have ega standng.
No. They cannot fe sut as taxpayers because the mtary exercse
does not nvove Congress taxng or spendng powers. Beng
awyers does not nvest them wth personaty to ntate the case
and they have faed to demonstrate the requste of sufferng
proxmate n|ury. Issues rased premature and based on a fear of
future voatons of the Terms of Reference.
(2) WON the "Bakatan" exercses voate the Consttuton.
No. Pettoners cam that t voates the Renuncaton Cause of the
Consttuton (The Phppnes renounces war as an nstrument of
natona pocy) but nether the MDT nor the VFA aow foregn
troops to engage n an offensve war on Phppne terrtory. The
VFA permts the USAF to engage, on an mpermanent bass, n
"actvtes". The word was used to gve eeway n negotaton by
both partes. In ths manner, the US may so|ourn n the Phppnes
for purposes other than mtary. Combat-reated actvtes, as
opposed to combat, are authorzed by the MDT and the VFA.
Athough nternatona aws are adhered to, as expressed by the
Indoctrnaton Cause, t does not mpy prmacy of nternatona aw
over natona aw. The Consttuton espouses a vew that has
marked antpathy towards foregn mtary presence n the country.
The Court, f t sees that the treaty runs counter to Congress or
goes aganst the fundamenta aw, can nufy such an agreement.
But n the case at bar, the queston s WON Amercan troops are
engaged n combat aongsde Fpno soders under the guse of
aeged tranng and exercse. The Court cannot answer ths
queston because t acks suffcent nformaton. Newspapers or
eectronc reports per se cannot be consdered apt support for
pettoners aegatons. Facts must be estabshed accordng to the
rues of evdence. WON Pres. GMA s engaged n doubespeak
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.24
nvoves a queston of fact. the queston s thus not ft for a speca
cv acton for certorar.
Petton s thereby dsmssed.
Las0o5 et. al. v. %!'!E
;e/. 2(, 199, <$#ason, 1.
Facts:
Lasco, et. a were dsmssed from the Unted Natons Revovng
Fund for Natura Resources Exporaton (UNRFNRE), whch s a
speca fund and subsdary organ of the Unted Natons. The
UNRFNRE s nvoved n a |ont pro|ect of the Phppne Government
and the Unted Natons for exporaton work n Dnagat Isand. They
fed sut wth the Labor Arbter for ega dsmssa and damages.
Respondent UNRFNRE fed a moton to dsmss camng the Labor
Arbter had no |ursdcton because the respondent en|oyed
dpomatc mmunty (ctng the 1946 Conventon on the Prveges
and Immuntes of the Unted Natons).
9

Labor Arbter subsequenty dsmssed the cam made by the
pettoner. Wth ther moton for reconsderaton dened, they
proceeded to appea wth NLRC whch affrmed the Labor Arbters
decson. Wthout seekng a reconsderaton of the resouton, they
fed an nstant petton for certorar n the SC.
Pettoners argued that the acts of mnng exporaton and
expotaton are outsde the offca functons of an nternatona
agency protected by dpomatc mmunty. Even assumng that
9
In support thereof, prvate respondent attached a etter from the Department of
Foregn Affars dated August 26, 1991, whch acknowedged ts mmunty from sut.
The etter confrmed that prvate respondent, beng a speca fund admnstered by
the Unted Natons, was covered by the 1946 Conventon on the Prveges and
Immuntes of the Unted Natons of whch the Phppne Government was an orgna
sgnatory (Roo, p. 21).
prvate respondent was entted to dpomatc mmunty, pettoners
nssted that prvate respondent waved t when t engaged n
exporaton work and entered nto a contract of empoyment wth
pettoners.
Pettoners, kewse, nvoked the consttutona mandate that the
State sha afford fu protecton to abor and promote fu
empoyment and equaty of empoyment opportuntes for a (1987
Consttuton, Art. XIII, Sec. 3).
The Offce of the Soctor Genera s of the vew that prvate
respondent s covered by the mante of dpomatc mmunty.
Prvate respondent s a specfed agency of the Unted Natons.
Under Artce 105 of the Charter of the Unted Natons.
10
10
"1. The Organzaton sha en|oy n the terrtory of ts Members such prveges
and mmuntes as are necessary for the fufment of ts purposes.
"2. Representatves of the Members of the Unted Natons and offcas of the
Organzaton sha smary en|oy such prveges and mmuntes as are necessary
for the ndependent exercse of ther functons n connecton wth the Organzaton."
Coroary to the cted artce s the Conventon on the Prveges and Immuntes of
the Specazed Agences of the Unted Natons, to whch the Phppnes was a
sgnatory (Vo. 1, Phppne Treaty Seres, p. 621.) We quote Sectons 4 and 5 of
Artce III thereof:
"Sec. 4. The specazed agences, ther property and assets, wherever ocated
and by whomsoever hed, sha en|oy mmunty from every form of ega process
except nsofar as n any partcuar case they have expressy waved ther mmunty.
It s, however, understood that no waver of mmunty sha extend to any measure
of executon mphass supped).
"Sec. 5. The premses of the specazed agences sha be nvoabe. The property
and assets of the specazed agences, wherever ocated and by whomsoever hed,
sha be mmune from search, requston, confscaton, expropraton and any other
Issues/Held/ation:
WON the respondent s mmune by vrtue of ts dpomatc status.
As a matter of state pocy as expressed n the Consttuton, the
Phppne Government adopts the generay accepted prncpes of
nternatona aw (1987 Consttuton, Art. II, Sec. 2). Beng a
member of the Unted Natons and a party to the Conventon on the
Prveges and Immuntes of the Specazed Agences of the Unted
Natons, the Phppne Government adheres to the doctrne of
mmunty granted to the Unted Natons and ts specazed
agences. Both treates have the force and effect of aw.
Our courts can ony assume |ursdcton over prvate respondent f t
expressy waved ts mmunty, whch s not so n the case at bench
(Conventon on the Prveges and Immuntes of the Specazed
Agences of the Unted Natons, Art. III, Sec. 4).
Prvate respondent s not engaged n a commerca venture n the
Phppnes. Its presence here s by vrtue of a |ont pro|ect entered
nto by the Phppne Government and Unted Natons for mnera
exporaton n Dnagat Isand. Its msson s not to expot our
natura resources and gan pecunary thereby but to hep mprove
the quaty of fe of the peope, ncudng that of pettoners.
Ths s not to say that pettoners have no recourse. Secton 31 of
the Conventon on the Prveges and Immuntes of the Specazed
Agences of the Unted Natons states that "each specazed
agency sha make a provson for approprate modes of settement
of: (a) dsputes arsng out of contracts or other dsputes of prvate
character to whch the specazed agency s a party."
"e<o// v. Dire0tor O/ Prisons
form of nterference, whether by executve, admnstratve, |udca or egsatve
acton".
191 (1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
Nature:
a 2
nd
pettton for habeas corpus by Bors Me|off (a Russan who
was brought to the country from Shangha as a secret operatve by
the |apanese)
Facts:
Me|off was arrested as a |apanese spy upon Ph beraton by the
US Counter Integence Corps; he was handed to the
Commonweath for dsposton accordng to Commonweath Act No.
682. The Peopes Court ater reeased hm.
The Deportaton Board found that he had no trave documents and
was thus an ega aen.
The Board of Commssoners of Immgraton decared that he
entered the country egay n 1944 and was ordered deported
mmedatey
Has been n detenton ever snce (faed attempts to deport hm)
whe authortes try to make new trave arrangements
The Court hed that temporary detenton s a necessary step n the
process of expuson of undesrabe aens and sad detenton for a
reasonabe ength of tme s a Government rght
No perod was fxed wthn whch mmgraton
authortes woud carry out the deportaton
"Reasonabe tme" depends on the
crcumstances
Issue/Held/
WON Me|off shoud be dscharged from custody
Wrt w ssue commandng pettoners reease w/ terms: sha be
paced under surveance; w put up a bond as surety
atio:
Non-enemy Foregn natonas aganst whom no charge has been
made other than the expry of ther permsson to stay may not be
ndefntey kept n detenton
Protecton aganst deprvaton of berty wthout due process s not
mted to Fpnos (extends to everyone except enemy aens)
11
Art 2, Sec. 3 - the Phs adopts the generay accepted prncpes of
nternatona aw as part of the aw of the Naton
Phs was part of UN Genera Assemby that approved Unversa
Decaraton of Human Rghts.
Sad Decaraton outned:
A human bengs are born free and equa n rghts
Everyone s entted to the freedoms set forth n ths
Decaraton w/o makng any dstnctons
Everyone has the rght to an effectve remedy by competent
trbunas for acts voatng fundamenta rghts granted to
hm by the Const or aw
No one s&all be sub'ect to arbitrar( arrest, detention
or e)ile
Phppne aw on mmgraton was coped from US aw, thus the
reasonng n Stanszewsk v. Watkns appes (wrt of habeas corpus
was sustaned. Pettoner was reeased w/ condton to nform
mmgraton offcas of hs whereabouts every month unt he can
be propery deported)
Further, pettoner has no pendng charges aganst hm and the
prospects of brngng any aganst hm are sm and remote.
)uro+a v. $alan+oni
(1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
11
Note: Pettoners entry n to the Phs was not unawfu as was brought n by a de
facto begerent |ap govt (decrees were aw)
Nature:
Petton to decare EO No. 68
12
nvad/ petton to prohbt
proceedng wth the case
Facts:
Kuroda was formery a Lt. Genera of the |apanese Army and
Commandng Genera of the |apanese forces n the Phs. he s now
charged before a mtary commsson convened by the Chef of
Staff of the Armed Forces of the Phppnes wth havng faed to
dscharge hs dutes
13
Kuroda now pettons SC to estabsh the egaty of EO No. 68
because (a) t voates oca aws and consttuton and (b) because
the Phs. s not a sgnatory of the Hague Conventon on Rues and
reguatons coverng Land Warfare
Issues/Held/atio:
(1) WON EO No. 68 s vad
Yes. SC says t s vad and consttutona
Art. 2, Sec. 3 of Const - Phs. renounces war as an nstrument of
natona pocy and adopts the generay accepted prncpes of
nternatona aw as part of the naton
The Hague Conventon and Geneva Conventons form part of and
are whoy based on the generay accepted prncpes of
nternatona aw.
12
EO No. 68 - estabshed a Natona War Crmes Offce prescrbng rue and
reguaton governng the tra of accused war crmnas.
13
ettng those n hs command to commt atroctes and other hgh crmes aganst
cvans and prsoners n voaton of the aws and customs of war
Snce both US and |apan sgned them, ther prncpes form part of
our aw even f Phs. was not a sgnatory
Phs. was under the soveregnty of the US at the tme the crmes
were commtted so we are equay bound to uphod the prncpe
Rghts and obgatons were not erased by assumpton of
soveregnty
Internatona |ursprudence estabshed that a persons who have
been guty of pannng or stagng a war, commttng atrocous
crmes and offenses, etc are to be hed accountabe
14
(2) WON respondents Hussey and Port can partcpate n
prosecutng pettoners case
Yes. It s not voatve of Const because the Mtary Commsson s
a speca mtary trbuna governed by a speca aw and not by
ROC whch govern cv courts. Nothng n EO. 68 whch says that
partcpatng awyers have to be quafed n the Phs. Common n
mtary trbunas that counses are usuay mtary persona
Sprt of comty esp. snce US s a party n nterest
E2 No. 6' #s *al#&. M#l#tar+ %omm#ss#on %an )ro%ee&.
)oo9oorit0*9in v. (oli0itor General
(1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
14
EO No. 68 s n conformty wth ths
Nature:
Appea from a decson of ower court denyng petton for
naturazaton of Eremes Kookoortchkn
Facts:
Kookoo apped for ctzenshp under Commonweath Act 473 as
amended by Act 535
Estabshed at the hearng that he was a natve born Russan and
grew up n Russa under the czars. When Boshevks took over, he
fed the country and found hs way to Mana n 1923
Permanenty estabshed resdence n Camarnes Sur on May 1925
Remaned a resdent except from 1942-1945
because he became an underground guera
offcer. After the beraton, he went back to
Camarnes
Has resded n Phs. for about 25 years
Marred to a Fpna wth whom he has a son
Works as a shop superntendent wth about 80 Pnoys under hm.
Gets ncome
Can speak Engsh and Bco daect. Intermnges wth Pnoys. Has
good mora character and beeves n the Ph Consttuton
Appcant coud have been chummy wth the |apanese but nstead,
chose to fght n guera movement
Athough a Russan by brth, he dscams aegance to the present
Communst govt of Russa. He s thus STATELESS and a REFUGEE of
ths country
Issues/Held/atio:
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.2'
(1) WON decaraton of ntenton to become a Fpno ctzen s
nvad and nsuffcent as a bass for the petton for naturazaton
Sec. 5 of Revsed Naturazaton Law - No decaraton sha be vad
unt entry for permanent resdence has been estabshed and a
certfcate showng the date, pace and manner of arrva has been
ssued
. Ony a reconsttuted decaraton was
presented as the records of the Bureau of
|ustce were destroyed durng the batte for
the beraton of Mana
. Even f reconsttuted, decaraton s st vad
coz proven by other competent evdence
(2) WON Kookoo estabshed a ega resdence n the Phs and WON
he can speak and wrte n Ph. Languages
Testmones on the record show that he was a ega resdent for a
contnuous perod of not ess than 10years as requred by Sec. 2 of
Commonweath Act No. 473
Lower court found that he coud speak and wrte Engsh and Bco.
Besdes, no specfc standard has been set on the use of the
prncpa Ph. Languages
(3) WON Kookoo s reay stateess and WON he s dsquafed from
ctzenshp
Lower court s uphed n pronouncng Kookoo stateess.
Appeees testmony s uncontradcted and t s a we known fact
that modern dctatorshps have scattered stateess refugees a
over the word.
Kookoo owes and fees no aegance to Russa
0))eale& &e%#s#on #s 0;;7>ME:.
1
15
|acke: Kookoo s Pnoy!
2amas*ita v. (t1er
(1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
Nature:
Petton for habeas corpus and prohbton aganst Lt. Gen. Styer
(Commandng Genera of the US Army Forces)
Facts:
Yamashta was the commandng genera of the 14
th
army group of
the |apanese army n the Phs and s now charged before the
Amercan mtary commsson for commttng henous acts aganst
Amercans and Pnoys
Was orgnay cassfed as prsoner of war but was ater changed to
war crmna
Yamashta now wants to be changed back to prsoner of war and
that the mtary commsson be prohbted from further tryng hm
Issues/Held/atio:
WON Yamashta may seek wrt of habeas corpus
Nope. Petton DENIED.
Untenabe. He doesnt seek dscharge from confnement, |ust
restoraton to od status as POW
. Degree of confnement s a matter of mtary
measure, beyond |ursdcton of cv court
. Mtary Commsson has been vady
consttuted and has |ursdcton over
pettoner (coz Yamashta fe nto the hands
of the US army)
Under Par. 356 of the Rues of the Land Warfare, a Mtary
Commsson for the tra and punshment of war crmnas must be
desgnated by the begerent (the begerents representatve n
ths case s Styer)
Accordng to the Reguatons Governng the Tra of War Crmnas
n the Pacfc, the tra of persons, unts and organzatons accused
as war crmnas w be the Mtary Commssons to be convened
by or under the authorty of the Commander n Chef, US Army
Forces.
Artces of War Nos. 12 and 15 recognzed the mtary Commsson
apponted by mtary command as an approprate trbuna for the
tra and punshment of offenses aganst the aw of the war not
ordnary tred by court marta.
16
Further, t s aeged that Span (|apans protectng power) as not
gven due notce before tra was begun aganst pettoner, contrary
to provson of Geneva conventon.
17
16
Yamashta s charged wth permttng atroctes ke rape of young grs, massacre
of noncombatants, destructon of property - offenses descrbed n Par. 347 of the
Rues of Land Warfare
17
Nothng n Conventon sayng that notce s a prerequste to the |ursdcton of
mtary commssons apponted by vctorous begerent. Span has aso severed
dpomatc reaton wth |apan
I.P v. 4amora
0$g$st 1, 2000, ?a)$nan, 1.
Facts:
IBP aeged that Erap, n orderng the mtary depoyed n Mana,
commtted grave abuse of dscreton because: (a) no emergency
exsted, and thus no mtary depoyment was warranted; and (b)
through Letters of Instructon formuated by the head of the
natona poce, the |ont exercse of Task Force Tuungan (as
vsbty patros) conducted by the marnes and the PNP was a
voaton of cvan supremacy because the task of aw enforcement
was cvan n nature.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the IBP has standng.
No. They faed to present a specfc and substanta nterest n the
resouton of the case. "Uphodng the rue of aw and the
consttuton" s not suffcent to cothe t wth standng. Ths s too
genera an nterest whch s shared by other groups and the whoe
ctzenry.
(2) WON the Presdents decson s sub|ect to |udca revew.
Yes. When the Presdent cas out the mtary to prevent or
suppress awess voence, the Court cannot queston the wsdom or
substtute ts own. However, t can st conduct an examnaton on
whether such a decson was exercsed wthn permssbe
consttutona mts or whether or not t was exercsed consttutng
grave abuse of dscreton.
In eu of such a decson made by the Presdent, t s ncumbent for
the pettoners to show that the decson was wthout factua bass.
No evdence of such nature was adduced.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(0
(3) WON grave abuse of dscreton was commtted n cang out the
mtary when no emergency exsted.
In the words of the ate |ustce Irene Cortes n Marcos v. Mangapus:
"More partcuary, ths case cas for the exercse of the Presdents
powers as protector of the peace. |Rosster, The Amercan
Presdency|. The power of the Presdent to keep the peace s not
mted merey to exercsng the commander-n-chef powers n
tmes of emergency or to eadng the State aganst externa and
nterna threats to ts exstence. The Presdent s not ony cothed
wth extraordnary powers n tmes of emergency, but s aso tasked
wth attendng to the day-to-day probems of mantanng peace
and order and ensurng domestc tranquty n tmes when no
foregn foe appears on the horzon. Wde dscreton, wthn the
bounds of aw, n fufng presdenta dutes n tmes of peace s
not n any way dmnshed by the reatve want of an emergency
specfed n the commander-n-chef provson. For n makng the
Presdent commander-n-chef the enumeraton of powers that
foow cannot be sad to excude the Presdents exercsng as
Commander-n-Chef powers short of the cang of the armed
forces, or suspendng the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus or
decarng marta aw, n order to keep the peace, and mantan
pubc order and securty."
(4) WON n depoyng the marnes, the Presdent voated the
cvan supremacy cause.
IBP contends that wth the sad agreement, the cvan task of aw
enforcement s mtarzed and s thus n voaton of Sec. 3, Artce II
of the Consttuton.
Court rues that there s no breach. The |ont exercse merey
consttutes a permssbe use of mtary assets for cvan aw
enforcement; mtary partcpaton n the conduct of |ont vsbty
patros s appropratey crcumscrbed as evdenced by the LOI.
Furthermore, eadershp s vested n the PNP, a cvan nsttuton,
and ther assgned roe specfcay gves them the responsbty of
drectng and managng the depoyment of the marnes.
There s no ncurson of the mtary because the marnes werent
ncorporated or ensted as members of the PNP - the marnes, n
effect, merey provded assstance n these vsbty patros; hence,
such depoyment does not destroy the cvan character of the PNP.
As evdenced by the ong hstory of mtary and cvan agences
workng n tandem wth each other, the |ont vsbty patros
nstead of showng the aeged derogaton of cvan supremacy,
shows mutua support and cooperaton n the depoyment of the
marnes.
Puno5 (eparate-
He contends that the executve branchs decson to coud ts
actvtes under the potca queston doctrne w not suffce.
"en+o,a5 Dissenting5 Con0urring-
There beng no actua controversy manfest yet, the case shoud
not be heard, but he concurs wth the dsmssa of the petton
because of the ack of standng.
Pimentel v. E:e0utive (e0retar1
Facts:
The Rome Statute was sgned by the Phppnes through the DFA.
Its provsons, however, requred that t be sub|ect to ratfcaton,
acceptance and approva of the sgnatory states. Pmente, as
senator, fes a petton for mandamus camng that the ratfcaton
of a treaty (under domestc and nternatona aw) s a functon of
the Senate, hence, the Executve Dept. has a duty to transmt the
sgned statute to the Senate for ratfcaton.
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON the ExecSec and DFA have a mnstera duty to transmt to
the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute.
No. As chef archtect of foregn pocy, Presdent s the countrys
mouthpece wth respect to nternatona affars. In the ream of
treaty makng, Presdent has the soe authorty to negotate wth
other states; ratfcaton s under hs/her authorty. The
Consttuton, however, provdes a mtaton to such power to ratfy
by vestng n the Senate, the power to concur wth the Presdents
decson. It does not the agency deegated to ratfy but the agency
to concur or not wth sad decson. The duty beng n the provnce
of the Presdents offca dutes, the court cannot compe the
Executve branch by means of mandamus because t s beyond ts
|ursdcton.
.a1an v. E:e0utive (e0retar1
2%to/er 10, 2000, -$ena, 1.
Facts:
The VFA, after beng ratfed and concurred wth, was put nto effect
on |une 1, 1999. Pettoners contend that such an agreement s n
voaton of Artce XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Consttuton. Respondents
cam that the appcabe provson s Artce VII Sec 21. snce the
VFA s not a basng arrangement but an agreement whch nvoves
temporary vsts engaged n |ont mtary exercses.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON pettoners have standng.
No. As concerned ctzens, taxpayers, and egsators, they fa to
show that they have sustaned or n danger of sustanng any drect
n|ury as a resut of the enforcement of the VFA. As taxpayers, the
VFA doesnt nvove the exercse by Congress n taxng/spendng
powers.
(2) WON the appcabe provson s that stated by the pettoners or
that stated by respondents.
When the respondent says that temporary vsts doesnt make t a
basng arrangement and thus nvadates the appcabty of Artce
XIII Sec. 25, the Court consders ths untenabe snce the
Consttuton does not make a dstncton between transent and
permanent bases. When the respondent avers that sad Artce
shoudnt be controng because no bases are nvoved but merey
troops and factes, the Court fnds t rreevant because the
provsons prohbton nvoves ether one of the ndependent
stuatons.
"It s our consdered vew that both consttutona provsons, far
from contradctng each other, actuay share some common
ground. These consttutona provsons both embody phrases n the
negatve and thus, are deemed prohbtory n mandate and
character. In partcuar, Secton 21 opens wth the cause "No
treaty x x x," and Secton 25 contans the phrase "sha not be
aowed." Addtonay, n both nstances, the concurrence of the
Senate s ndspensabe to render the treaty or nternatona
agreement vad and effectve."
"The fundamenta aw s crystane that the concurrence of the
Senate s mandatory to compy wth the strct consttutona
requrements" regardess of what provson s deemed appcabe.
The ony thng to consder now s whether a the requrements of
Artce XVIII Sec. 25 have been comped wth:
(a) t must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty must be duy concurred
n by the Senate and, when so requred by congress, ratfed by a
ma|orty of the votes cast by the peope n a natona referendum;
and (c) recognzed as a treaty by the other contractng state.
Pettoners say that there must be concurrence by the US Senate as
we as umnated by (c). Respondents cam that the ony thng
necessary s US recognton of the treaty whch was gven when the
US Ambassador stated the VFA was bndng.
The Court says : "To requre the other contractng state, the Unted
States of Amerca n ths case, to submt the VFA to the Unted
States Senate for concurrence pursuant to ts Consttuton, s to
accord strct meanng to the phrase."
"We-entrenched s the prncpe that the words used n the
Consttuton are to be gven ther ordnary meanng except where
technca terms are empoyed, n whch case the sgnfcance thus
attached to them prevas. Its anguage shoud be understood n the
sense they have n common use."
(ilva v. C&
Facts:
Marred busnessman Sva cohabted wth an unmarred actress
Gonzaes wthout beneft of a marrage. Athough they had two
chdren, they eventuay parted ways. Gonzaes refused to aow
Sva to be wth the chdren on weekends. Sva fed a petton for
custoda rghts before the RTC. Petton was opposed by the
mother of the chdren on the ground that Sva was a womanzer
and a gamber and such behavor woud have detrmenta effects
on the chdren. The RTC granted vstaton rghts whch Gonzaes
st contended despte her marryng a Dutch natona and
emgratng to Hoand wth the chdren. The CA rued n favor of
Gonzaes because t saw that the rotaton of custody woud not be
conducve to the wefare of the chdren.
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON vstatons rght shoud be granted.
Yes. The Consttuton doesnt specfcay mandate the "natura and
prmary rghts of parents" to those who have egtmate
reatonshps wth ther chdren. And such vstatons, contrary to
the CAs rung, woud not affect the chdren to such an extent that
t woud be detrmenta to ther upbrngng.
3ernan+e, v. Court o/ &ppeals
Facts:
Marred for 11 years, wfe, former teacher of the husband n
coege, fes petton for annument on the ground of psychoogca
ncapacty for faure to support the famy and contrbute to the
management of the househod. She aeges that he spent most of
hs tme drnkng wth hs frends and that because of hs
extramarta reatons, he nfected her wth an STD - testament to
whch was confnement of both partes n a hospta for treatment.
RTC dsmssed the petton sayng: "The Court can underscore the
fact that the crcumstances mentoned by the pettoner n support
of her cam that respondent was "psychoogcay ncapactated" to
marry her are among the grounds cted by the aw as vad reasons
for the grant of ega separaton (Artce 55 of the Famy Code) -
not as grounds for a decaraton of nuty of marrages or
annument thereof." CA affrmed the decson of the RTC ctng
Santos v. CA: "It s cear n the above aw and |ursprudence that
the psychoogca ncapacty of a spouse, as a ground for
decaraton of nuty of marrage, must exst at the tme of the
ceebraton of marrage. More so, chronc sexua nfdety,
abandonment, gambng and use of prohbted drugs are not
grounds per se, of psychoogca ncapacty of a spouse."
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON the nstant case wth the crcumstances presented can serve
as a ground for psychoogca ncapacty.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.((
No. In the nstant case, other than her sef-servng decaratons,
pettoner faed to estabsh the fact that at the tme they were
marred, prvate respondent was sufferng from a psychoogca
defect whch n fact deprved hm of the abty to assume the
essenta dutes of marrage and ts concomtant responsbtes.
As the Court of Appeas ponted out, no evdence was presented to
show that prvate respondent was not cognzant of the basc
marta obgatons.
P#=# v. !LC
Facts:
A womans (Grace de Guzman) empoyment was termnated by
PT&T because of aeged conceament of cv status and
defacaton of company funds. De Guzman argues that the rea
reason she was fred was because she contracted the marred
durng empoyment whch s aganst company pocy. She admts,
however, that when she apped to work she ndcated she was
snge when, n fact, she was aready marred. She was remnded by
correspondence of the companys pocy of not acceptng marred
women as empoyees. She subscrbed to the defense that she
wasnt aware of such a pocy and thus, had no ntent to hde the
fact that she was aready marred. The abor arbter decded that
she was dscrmnated aganst because of havng contracted
marrage whe empoyed wth the company. PT&T appeaed to the
NLRC but the atter uphed the decson of the abor arbter
modfyng the decson by sayng the womans dshonest nature
warrants a 3-month suspenson from work.
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON PT&Ts pocy of not acceptng or consderng as dsquafed
from work any woman worker who contracts a marrage, s
dscrmnatory and thus contrary to the Consttuton?
Yes. Athough PT&T asserts that t dsmssed Grace because of her
dshonesty; records, not to menton the etter remndng her of her
companys pocy, say otherwse; provng that she was termnated
because of her cv status. Furthermore, t was the pocy tsef
whch was the cause of Graces secretve conduct (he who s the
cause of the cause s the cause of the ev caused.) PT&Ts
aegatons of msappropraton s nsncere and sef-servng.
C"#C v. &l0ala5 (e0. DE!
1$ne 1(, 1997, Men&o6a, 1.
Facts:
CMTCs tmber concesson was approved by Marcos after t was
prevousy canceed; however, sad concesson, operatng on TLA
no. 106, was under another concesson (TLA no. 360) operated by
FLDC - after ssuance by Mnstry of Natona Resources. TLA no.
360 was gven prmacy over the TLA no. 106 aegedy because of
Marcos sster who was behnd FLDC. Two years ater, however, on
|une 1986, Mnstry head suspended TLA no. 360 and canceed the
cense of FLDC (because n spte of prevous suspenson order,
oggng st contnued). CMTC, earnng of the canceaton, sought
to revadate TLA no. 106 by wrtng a etter to the sad government
agency.
DENR decared TLA no. 106 as no onger havng force and effect,
the petton beng barred because of atches: CMTC dd not
mmedatey fe an opposton when FLDC was awarded the sad
concesson and because t had wated for two years before fng
such a petton. In an appea to the Offce of the Presdent and after
ts second moton for reconsderaton, CMTC cams that t had
wrtten a etter dated on the day to oppose FLDCs grant of TLA.
The Offce of the Presdent, however, agan dened the petton on
the bass of a "new pocy of consderaton on forest conservaton
and protecton."
CMTC appeas to the SC sayng that there were no atches and that
the new pubc consderaton averred to by the Offce of the
Presdent dened the CMTC due process. There beng no tota og
ban n the country (Congress st needng to make an
announcement regardng the ssue), any notce to ths effect "must
be stated n good form, not mped"; and that n any case, any new
pocy consderaton shoud be prospectve n appcaton and
cannot affect pettoners vested rghts n ts TLA no. 106.
*ain Issue/ Held/atio:
WON the new pocy of forest conservaton and protecton coud
affect the prevous TLAs mentoned.
As evdenced by reports, t woud seem that CMTC was one of those
whose TLAs were termnated n 1983, a year before ts concesson
was awarded to FLDC. Snce pettoner faed to protest the grant of
concesson wthn a "reasonabe tme", acton s barred by atches.
"because executve evauaton of tmber censes and ther
consequent canceaton n the process of formuatng poces wth
regard to the utzaton of tmber ands s a prerogatve of the
executve department and n the absence of evdence showng
grave abuse of dscreton courts w not nterfere wth the exercse
of that dscreton."
Pubc respondents heren, upon whose shouders rests the task of
mpementng the pocy to deveop and conserve the country's
natura resources, have ndcated an ongong department
evauaton of a tmber cense agreements entered nto, and
permts or censes ssued, under the prevous dspensaton. . . .
The ongong admnstratve reassessment s apparenty n response
to the renewed and growng goba concern over the despoaton of
forest ands and the utter dsregard of ther cruca roe n
sustanng a baanced ecoogca system. The egtmacy of such
concern can hardy be dsputed, most especay n ths country. . . .
Thus, whe the admnstraton grappes wth the compex and
mutfarous probems caused by unbrded expotaton of these
resources, the |udcary w stand cear. . . . More so where, as n
the present case, the nterests of a prvate oggng company are
ptted aganst that of the pubc at arge on the pressng pubc
pocy ssue of forest conservaton. . . . Tmber censes, permts and
cense agreements are the prncpa nstruments by whch the
State reguates the utzaton and dsposton of forest resources to
the end that pubc wefare s promoted. And t can hardy be
gansad that they merey evdence a prvege granted by the State
to quafed enttes, and do not vest n the atter a permanent or
rrevocabe rght to the partcuar concesson area and the forest
products theren. They may be vady amended, modfed, repaced
or rescnded by the Chef Executve when natona nterests so
requre. Thus, they are not deemed contracts wthn the purvew of
the due process of aw cause.
Guingona v. Carague
0)r#l 22, 1991, 9an%a+%o, 1.
Facts:
The 1990 budget conssted of P98.4B n automatc appropraton
(86.8 gong to debt servce) and P155.3 from the Genera
Appropratons Act or a tota of P233.5B; ony P27B was aotted for
DECS. Pettoners, as members of the Senate, queston the
consttutonaty of the automatc appropraton for debt servce n
the sad budget as provded for by Presdenta Decrees 81, 117,
and 1967.
Pettoners aege that the aotted budget runs contrary to Sec.
5(5), Art. XIV of the Consttuton. And as provded by Art. 7 of the
Cv Code, when statutes run contrary to the Consttuton, t sha
be vod.
They further contend that the Presdenta Decrees are no onger
operatve snce they became f$n%t$s of#%#o after Presdent Marcos
was ousted. Wth a new congress repacng the one man-
egsature, new egsaton regardng appropraton shoud be
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(
passed. Current appropraton, operatng on no aws therefore,
woud be unenforceabe.
Moreover, they content that assumng arguendo that the sad
decrees dd not expre wth the ouster of Marcos, after adopton of
the 1987 Consttuton, sad decrees were nconsstent wth Sec. 24,
Artce VI of the Consttuton whch stated that:
Sec. 24. A appropraton, revenue or tarff bs, bs authorzng
ncrease of the pubc debt, bs of oca appcaton, and prvate
bs sha orgnate excusvey n the House of Representatves, but
the Senate may propose or concur wth amendments.
whereby bs have to be approved by the Presdent, 10 then a aw
must be passed by Congress to authorze sad automatc
appropraton. Further, pettoners state sad decrees voate
Secton 29(1) of Artce VI of the Consttuton whch provdes as
foows
Sec. 29(1). No money sha be pad out of the Treasury except n
pursuance of an appropraton made by aw.
They assert that there must be defnteness, certanty and
exactness n an appropraton, 11 otherwse t s an undue
deegaton of egsatve power to the Presdent who determnes n
advance the amount approprated for the debt servce.
SoGen argues, on the other hand, that automatc appropraton
provdes fexbty: ". . . Frst, for exampe, t enabes the
Government to take advantage of a favorabe turn of market
condtons by redeemng hgh nterest securtes and borrowng at
ower rates, or to shft from short-term to ong-term nstruments, or
to enter nto arrangements that coud ghten our outstandng debt
burden debt-to-equty, debt-to-asset, debt-to-debt or other such
schemes. Second, the automatc appropraton obvates the serous
dffcutes n debt servcng arsng from any devaton from what
has been prevousy programmed. The annua debt servce
estmates, whch are usuay made one year n advance, are based
on a mathematca set or matrx or, n ayman's parance, `basket'
of foregn exchange and nterest rate assumpton's whch may
sgnfcanty dffer from actua rates not even n proporton to
changes on the bass of the assumptons. Absent an automatc
appropraton cause, the Phppne Government has to awat and
depend upon Congressona acton, whch by the tme ths comes,
may no onger be responsve to the ntended condtons whch n
the meantme may have aready drastcay changed. In the
meantme, aso, deayed payments and arrearages may have
supervened, ony to worsen our debt servce-to-tota expendture
rato n the budget due to penates and/or demand for mmedate-
payment even before due dates.
Ceary, the cam that payment of the oans and ndebtedness s
condtoned upon the contnuance of the person of Presdent
Marcos and hs egsatve power goes aganst the ntent and
purpose of the aw. The purpose s foreseen to subsst wth or
wthout the person of Marcos."
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON appropraton of P86.8B for debt servce as compared to
ts appropraton of P27.7B for educaton n voaton of Sec. 5(5),
Artce XIV of the Consttuton.
The State sha assgn the hghest budgetary prorty to educaton
and ensure that teachng w attract and retan ts rghtfu share of
the best avaabe taents through adequate remuneraton and
other means of |ob satsfacton and fufment.
The Court dsagrees that Congress hands are hamstrung by the
provson provded. There are other mperatves of natona nterest
that t must attend to; the amount aotted to educaton, 27.8B, s
the hghest n a department budgets thereby compyng wth the
mandate of havng the hghest prorty as stated above. The
enormous natona debt, ncurred by the prevous admnstraton,
however, st needs to be pad. Not ony for the sake of honor but
because the natona economy s tsef at stake. Thus, f Congress
aotted more for debt servce such an appropraton cannot be
consdered by ths Court as unconsttutona.
(2) WON the Presdenta Decrees are st operatve, and f they
are, do they voate Sec. 29 (1), Artce VI of the Consttutona.
Yes, they are st operatve. The transtory provson provded n
Sec. 3, Artce XVIII of the Consttuton recognzes that:
A exstng aws, decrees, executve orders, procamatons, etters
of nstructons and other executve ssuances not nconsstent wth
the Consttuton sha reman operatve unt amended, repeaed or
revoked.
Ths transtory provson of the Consttuton has precsey been
adopted by ts framers to preserve the soca order so that
egsaton by the then Presdent Marcos may be recognzed. Such
aws are to reman n force and effect uness they are nconsstent
wth the Consttuton or are otherwse amended, repeaed or
revoked.
We-known s the rue that repea or amendment by mpcaton s
frowned upon. Equay fundamenta s the prncpe that
constructon of the Consttuton and aw s generay apped
prospectvey and not retrospectvey uness t s so ceary stated.
(3) WON there was undue deegaton of egsatve power by
automatc appropraton.
No. The egsatve ntenton n R.A. No. 4860, as amended, Secton
31 of P.D. No. 1177 and P.D. No. 1967 s that the amount needed
shoud be automatcay set asde n order to enabe the Repubc of
the Phppnes to pay the prncpa, nterest, taxes and other
norma bankng charges on the oans, credts or ndebtedness
ncurred as guaranteed by t when they sha become due wthout
the need to enact a separate aw appropratng funds therefore as
the need arses. The purpose of these aws s to enabe the
government to make prompt payment and/or advances for a oans
to protect and mantan the credt standng of the country.
Athough the sub|ect presdenta decrees do not state specfc
amounts to be pad, necesstated by the very nature of the probem
beng, addressed, the amounts nevertheess are made certan by
the egsatve parameters provded n the decrees. The Executve s
not of unmted dscreton as to the amounts to be dsbursed for
debt servcng. The mandate s to pay ony the prncpa, nterest,
taxes and other norma bankng charges on the oans, credts or
ndebtedness, or on the bonds, debentures or securty or other
evdences of ndebtedness sod n nternatona markets ncurred by
vrtue of the aw, as and when they sha become due. No
uncertanty arses n executve mpementaton as the mt w be
the exact amounts as shown by the books of the Treasury.
Cru,5 Dissenting-
He sees that an essenta requrement for vad appropraton s that
the sum authorzed for reease shoud be determnate or
determnabe. The Presdenta Decrees do not satsfy ths
requrement. As to the ponencas reference to "egsatve
parameters provded by aw", Cruz says no such reguatory
boundares exst.
Pa+illa5 Dissenting-
He agrees wth Cruz but furthers the argument by sayng that Sec.
29(1)Artce VI mpes that a aw enacted by Congress (and
approved by the Presdent) appropratng a partcuar sum or sums
must be made before payment from the Treasury can be made.
Laws shoud be construed n ght of current aws and not those
made by a one-man egsatve branch.
Besdes, these decrees ssued by Presdent Marcos reatve to debt
servce were taored for the perods covered by sad decrees.
Today t s Congress that shoud determne and approve the proper
appropratons for debt servcng, as ths s a matter of pocy that,
n my opnon, pertans to the egsatve department, as the pocy-
determnng body of the Government.
Paras, :#ssent#ng@ Any aw that undermnes our economy and
therefore our securty s per se unconsttutona.
#ana+a v. &ngara
Ma+ 2, 1997, Pangan#/an, 1.
Facts:
The Phppnes, by ratfcaton of the Presdent and concurrence of
the Senate became a member of the WTO. Pettoners argue that
the etter, sprt and ntent of the Consttuton mandatng
"economc natonasm" are voated by the "party provsons" and
"natona treatment" causes scattered n the agreement, annexes
and other parts of the treaty. These aegedy pace foregn
natonas on equa footng as Fpnos n contraventon of the
Consttutons Fpno-frst pocy. Man provsons whch are
supposedy voated by the WTO agreement are the foowng:
(1) Art II, Sec. 19 - Sef-reant, ndependent economy.
(2) Art. XII Sec. 10 - Capta owned by Fpnos; grants, prveges,
concessons for natona economy gves preference to quafed
Fpnos.
(3) Art. XII Sec. 12 - Preferenta use of Fpno abor, matera and
goods.
These provsons are aegedy desecrated n the areas of
nvestment measures, trade seected aspects of IPR, and n the
Genera Agreement on Trade n Servces.
The SoGen, on the other hand, argues (a) that the charter
provsons are not sef-executng and are mere genera poces; (b)
that the provsons shoudnt be read n soaton but n con|uncton
wth Art. XII Sec. 1 and 13, whch when read propery as a whoe,
ensures that the WTO agreement doesnt voate the Consttuton;
and (c) that WTO contans suffcent provsons to protect
deveopng countres ke the Phppnes from the harshness of
trade berazaton.
By prayng for the nufcaton of the Phppne ratfcaton of the
WTO Agreement, pettoners are nvokng ths Court's
consttutonay mposed duty "to determne whether or not there
has been grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of
|ursdcton" on the part of the Senate n gvng ts concurrence
theren va Senate Resouton No. 97.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the petton presents a |ustcabe controversy?
In seekng to nufy an act of the Phppne Senate on the ground
that t contravenes the Consttuton, the petton no doubt rases a
|ustcabe controversy. Where an acton of the egsatve branch s
serousy aeged to have nfrnged the Consttuton, t becomes not
ony the rght but n fact the duty of the |udcary to sette the
dspute. "The queston thus posed s |udca rather than potca.
The duty (to ad|udcate) remans to assure that the supremacy of
the Consttuton s uphed."
(2) WON the WTO agreement and ts three annexes contravene the
respectve provsons n the Consttuton.
:e%larat#on of Pr#n%#)les Not Self-E,e%$t#ng
By ts very tte, Artce II of the Consttuton s a "decaraton of
prncpes and state poces." The counterpart of ths artce n the
1935 Consttuton 21 s caed the "basc potca creed of the
naton" by Dean Vcente Snco. These prncpes n Artce II are not
ntended to be sef-executng prncpes ready for enforcement
through the courts. They are used by the |udcary as ads or as
gudes n the exercse of ts power of |udca revew, and by the
egsature n ts enactment of aws. As hed n the eadng case of
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.('
?#los/a+an, 7n%or)orate& *s. Morato, the prncpes and state
poces enumerated n Artce II and some sectons of Artce XII are
not "sef-executng provsons, the dsregard of whch can gve rse
to a cause of acton n the courts. They do not embody |udcay
enforceabe consttutona rghts but gudenes for egsaton."
E%onom#% Nat#onal#sm Sho$l& -e >ea& .#th 2ther Const#t$t#onal
Man&ates to atta#n -alan%e& :e*elo)ment of
E%onom+
As ponted out by the Soctor Genera, Sec. 1 ays down the basc
goas of natona economc deveopment, as foows: (1) A more
equtabe dstrbuton of opportuntes, ncome and weath; (2) A
sustaned ncrease n the amount of goods and servces provded
by the naton for the beneft of the peope; and (3) An expandng
productvty as the key to rasng the quaty of fe for a especay
the underprveged.
Wth these goas n context, the Consttuton then ordans the deas
of economc natonasm (1) by expressng preference n favor of
quafed Fpnos "n the grant of rghts, prveges and concessons
coverng the natona economy and patrmony" and n the use of
"Fpno abor, domestc materas and ocay-produced goods"; (2)
by mandatng the State to "adopt measures that hep make them
compettve; and (3) by requrng the State to "deveop a sef-reant
and ndependent natona economy effectvey controed by
Fpnos." In smar anguage, the Consttuton takes nto account
the reates of the outsde word as t requres the pursut of "a
trade pocy that serves the genera wefare and utzes a forms
and arrangements of exchange on the bass of equaty and
recprocty"; and speaks of ndustres "whch are compettve n
both domestc and foregn markets" as we as of the protecton of
"Fpno enterprses aganst unfar foregn competton and trade
practces."
It s true that n the recent case of Man#la Pr#n%e 8otel *s.
9o*ernment Ser*#%e 7ns$ran%e S+stem, et al., ths Court hed that
"Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Consttuton s a
mandatory, postve command whch s compete n tsef and whch
needs no further gudenes or mpementng aws or rues for ts
enforcement. From ts very words the provson does not requre
any egsaton to put t n operaton. It s per se |udcay
enforceabe." However, as the consttutona provson tsef states,
t s enforceabe ony n regard to "the grants of rghts, prveges
and concessons coverng natona economy and patrmony" and
not to every aspect of trade and commerce. It refers to exceptons
rather than the rue. The ssue here s not whether ths paragraph
of Sec. 10 of Art. XII s sef-executng or not. Rather, the ssue s
whether, as a rue, there are enough baancng provsons n the
Consttuton to aow the Senate to ratfy the Phppne concurrence
n the WTO Agreement. And we hod that there are.
A tod, whe the Consttuton ndeed mandates a bas n favor of
Fpno goods, servces, abor and enterprses, at the same tme, t
recognzes the need for busness exchange wth the rest of the
word on the bases of equaty and recprocty and mts protecton
of Fpno enterprses ony aganst foregn competton and trade
practces that are unfar. In other words, the Consttuton dd not
ntend to pursue an soatonst pocy. It dd not shut out foregn
nvestments, goods and servces n the deveopment of the
Phppne economy. Whe the Consttuton does not encourage the
unmted entry of foregn goods, servces and nvestments nto the
country, t does not prohbt them.
A"2 >e%ogn#6es Nee& to Prote%t Aea= E%onom#es
Upon the other hand, respondents mantan that the WTO tsef has
some but-n advantages to protect weak and deveopng
economes, whch comprse the vast ma|orty of ts members.
Unke n the UN where ma|or states have permanent seats and
veto powers n the Securty Counc, n the WTO, decsons are
made on the bass of soveregn equaty, wth each member's vote
equa n weght to that of any other. There s no WTO equvaent of
the UN Securty Counc.
Hence, poor countres can protect ther common nterests more
effectvey through the WTO than through one-on-one negotatons
wth deveoped countres. Wthn the WTO, deveopng countres
can form powerfu bocs to push ther economc agenda more
decsvey than outsde the Organzaton. Ths s not merey a
matter of practca aances but a negotatng strategy rooted n
aw. Thus, the basc prncpes underyng the WTO Agreement
recognze the need of deveopng countres ke the Phppnes to
"share n the growth n nternatona trade commensurate wth the
needs of ther economc deveopment."
Const#t$t#on :oes Not >$le 2$t ;ore#gn Com)et#t#on
Furthermore, the consttutona pocy of a "sef-reant and
ndependent natona economy" does not necessary rue out the
entry of foregn nvestments, goods and servces. It contempates
nether "economc secuson" nor "mendcancy n the nternatona
communty." As expaned by Consttutona Commssoner
Bernardo Vegas, sponsor of ths consttutona pocy:
"Economc sef reance s a prmary ob|ectve of a deveopng
country that s keeny aware of overdependence on externa
assstance for even ts most basc needs. It does not mean autarky
or economc secuson; rather, t means avodng mendcancy n the
nternatona communty. Independence refers to the freedom from
undue foregn contro of the natona economy, especay n such
strategc ndustres as n the deveopment of natura resources and
pubc uttes."
The WTO reance on "most favored naton," "natona treatment,"
and "trade wthout dscrmnaton" cannot be struck down as
unconsttutona as n fact they are rues of equaty and recprocty
that appy to a WTO members. Asde from envsonng a trade
pocy based on "equaty and recprocty," the fundamenta aw
encourages ndustres that are "compettve n both domestc and
foregn markets," thereby demonstratng a cear pocy aganst a
shetered domestc trade envronment, but one n favor of the
gradua deveopment of robust ndustres that can compete wth
the best n the foregn markets. Indeed, Fpno managers and
Fpno enterprses have shown capabty and tenacty to compete
nternatonay. And gven a free trade envronment, Fpno
entrepreneurs and managers n Hongkong have demonstrated the
Fpno capacty to grow and to prosper aganst the best offered
under a pocy of assez fare.
Const#t$t#on ;a*ors Cons$mers, Not 7n&$str#es or Enter)r#ses
The Consttuton has not reay shown any unbaanced bas n favor
of any busness or enterprse, nor does t contan any specfc
pronouncement that Fpno companes shoud be pampered wth a
tota proscrpton of foregn competton.
Oposa v. 'a0toran
Facts:
Pettoners, mnors represented by ther parents, fed a compant
n the RTC; t was a taxpayers cass sut representng themseves,
the countess muttudes, and future generatons of those who are
entted to the benefts of the countrys vrgn tropca forests.
The pantffs compant was specfed as foows: that a baanced
and heathfu ecoogy n the Phppnes s evdenced by 54% forest
cover and 46% everythng ese.
Twenty fve years ago, tropca vrgn forests amounted to 53% of
our and area but n 1987, satete mages showed that ony four
percent of the and was covered by forests. Recent surveys, n the
meantme, show that ony 2.8% of the countrys and area s
composed of tropca vrgn ranforests.
Pubc records revea that at the present rate of deforestaton, the
Phppne Isands w be bereft of natona resources after the end
of the decade, f not earer. Pantffs assert ther consttutona
rght to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy and cam that they are
entted to protecton of ths rght by the State n ts capacty as
)arens )atr#ae.
The compant was fed aganst Factoran, then head of the DENR; t
woud order the DENR to cance a exstng tmber censng
agreements (TLAs) n the country, and cease and desst from
acceptng, processng, renewng, and approvng TLAs. The tra
court dsmssed the compant and the |udge stated that the reef
sought for (canceaton of TLAs) cannot be done because t woud
not aow due process. The amended petton to the SC repeated ts
earer rght to a sound envronment, and added that (a) TLAs were
not contracts and even f they were consdered protected by the
non-mparment cause, the State may st revoke such agreements
when pubc nterest demands t; and (b) n grantng more TLAs to
cover more areas of and than what s avaabe s an act
consttutng grave abuse of dscreton, and s therefore sub|ect to
|udca scrutny.
Issues/ Held/atio:
The pettoners, mnors assert that they represent ther generaton
as we as generatons yet unborn. We fnd no dffcuty n rung
that they can, for themseves, for others of ther generaton and for
the succeedng generatons, fe a cass sut. Ther personaty to
sue n behaf of the succeedng generatons can ony be based on
the concept of ntergeneratona responsbty nsofar as the rght
to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy s concerned. Such a rght, as
herenafter expounded, consders the "rhythm and harmony of
nature." Nature means the created word n ts entrety. Such
rhythm and harmony ndspensaby ncude, nter aa, the |udcous
dsposton, utzaton, management, renewa and conservaton of
the country's forest, mnera, and, waters, fsheres, wdfe, off-
shore areas and other natura resources to the end that ther
exporaton, deveopment and utzaton be equtaby accessbe to
the present as we as future generatons. Needess to say, every
generaton has a responsbty to the next to preserve that rhythm
and harmony for the fu en|oyment of a baanced and heathfu
ecoogy. Put a tte dfferenty, the mnors' asserton of ther rght
to a sound envronment consttutes, at the same tme, the
performance of ther obgaton to ensure the protecton of that
rght for the generatons to come.
(2) Is there a specfc rght voated that woud serve a the
pettoners cause of acton?
Yes. Sec. 16, Artce II of the Consttuton provdes the rght. A
cause of acton s therefore present but as far as canceaton of
TLAs s concerned, there s a need to mpead the guarantees of
the same for they are ndspensabe partes.
(3) Are the TLAs contracts? Are they protected by the non-
mparment cause?
No. Even f a aw s passed mandatng canceaton/modfcaton of
the TLAs, the same cannot be stgmatzed as a voaton of non-
mparment cause because t s wthn the States exercse of poce
power to protect ts ecoogy.
'eli0iano5 Con0urring-
Athough the pettoners are n fact entted to a baanced and
heathfu ecoogy as stressed by the Consttutona rght, one
cannot cassfy such a rght as "specfc" wthout dong excessve
voence to the anguage. The mpcatons of makng the Sectons
n Artce II sef-executory are not the sub|ect of ths case.
Pettoners shoud seek a specfc ega rght. It s hs understandng
that the Courts decson mpes that wthn the coecton of
statutes, there s a specfc rght whch the pettoners can use.
C*ave, v. P*il. Estates &ut*orit1
1;
Facts:
PEA, as authorzed by ts charter created by Marcos, was mandated
to recam and, deveop, mprove, etc. se, and ease these
recamed ands. Durng the tme of Cory, more and was
transferred to PEA under ts name. Transfer Certfcate of Ttes of
the then recamed Freedom Isands were gven to PEA durng ths
tme. Durng Ramos tenure as Presdent, PEA, entered nto a |ont
venture agreement (|VA) wth AMARI, a prvate corporaton wthout
pubc bddng. The |VA ntended to deveop the recamed Freedom
Isands and recam an addtona 250 hectares surroundng sad
sands. In 1996, Senate Presdent Maceda, n a prveged speech,
caed the |VA "the grandmother of a scams." An nvestgaton
ensued wth the report concudng the foowng:
(1) The ands beng sod to AMARI were ands of the pubc doman
whch the government has not yet cassfed as aenabe, and
therefore the PEA has no authorty to se yet.
(2) Transfer Certfcate of Ttes of the Freedom Isands are then
vod; and the
(3) |VA entered nto s ega.
In 1997, a Lega Task Force was formed by the Presdent to study
the |VA; but contrary to the Senate nvestgaton that decred the
|VA, the task force uphed ts egaty. Ths prompted Chavez, n
1998, to fe sut as a taxpayer, contendng the foowng:
Pettoner contends the government stands to ose bons of pesos
n the sae by PEA of the recamed ands to AMARI. Pettoner
18
As you gather from the ast few deporabe dgests (and ths ast one) . Ive run
out of |uce. Fee free to fx/update/mock them at your convenence. - Mars.
prays that PEA pubcy dscose the terms of any renegotaton of
the |VA, nvokng Secton 28, Artce II, and Secton 7, Artce III, of
the 1987 Consttuton on the rght of the peope to nformaton on
matters of pubc concern. Pettoner assas the sae to AMARI of
ands of the pubc doman as a batant voaton of Secton 3,
Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton prohbtng the sae of aenabe
ands of the pubc doman to prvate corporatons. Fnay,
pettoner asserts that he seeks to en|on the oss of bons of
pesos n propertes of the State that are of pubc domnon.
The Amended |VA, however, pushed through after beng sgned by
PEA and AMARI, wth the approva of then Presdent Estrada. After
such a maneuver, Chavez prayed that the renegotated contract be
decared nu and vod based on consttutona and statutory
grounds.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the case s academc and moot after subsequent events.
Respondents - Yes; satsfed pettoners prayer for dscosure of
renegotatons; moot, because aready sgned.
Pettoners - counters that PEA and AMARI cannot avod the
consttutona ssue by smpy fast-trackng the sgnng and
approva of the Amended |VA before the Court coud act on the
ssue. Presdenta approva does not resove the consttutona
ssue or remove t from the ambt of |udca revew.
Court - PEA and AMARI have st to mpement the Amended |VA.
The prayer to en|on the sgnng of the Amended |VA on
consttutona grounds necessary ncudes preventng ts
mpementaton f n the meantme PEA and AMARI have sgned one
n voaton of the Consttuton. Pettoners prncpa bass n
assang the renegotaton of the |VA s ts voaton of Secton 3,
Artce XII of the Consttuton, whch prohbts the government from
aenatng ands of the pubc doman to prvate corporatons. If the
Amended |VA ndeed voates the Consttuton, t s the duty of the
Court to en|on ts mpementaton, and f aready mpemented, to
annu the effects of such unconsttutona contract.
Aso, the nstant petton s a case of frst mpresson. A prevous
decsons of the Court nvovng Secton 3, Artce XII of the 1987
Consttuton, or ts counterpart provson n the 1973 Consttuton,
covered agrcutura ands sod to prvate corporatons whch
acqured the ands from prvate partes. The transferors of the
prvate corporatons camed or coud cam the rght to |udca
confrmaton of ther mperfect ttes under Tte II of
Commonweath Act. 141 ("CA No. 141" for brevty). In the nstant
case, AMARI seeks to acqure from PEA, a pubc corporaton,
recamed ands and submerged areas for non-agrcutura purposes
by purchase under PD No. 1084 (charter of PEA) and Tte III of CA
No. 141. Certan undertakngs by AMARI under the Amended |VA
consttute the consderaton for the purchase. Nether AMARI nor
PEA can cam |udca confrmaton of ther ttes because the ands
covered by the Amended |VA are newy recamed or st to be
recamed. |udca confrmaton of mperfect tte requres open,
contnuous, excusve and notorous occupaton of agrcutura ands
of the pubc doman for at east thrty years snce |une 12, 1945 or
earer. Besdes, the deadne for fng appcatons for |udca
confrmaton of mperfect tte expred on December 31, 1987.
Lasty, there s a need to resove mmedatey the consttutona
ssue rased n ths petton because of the possbe transfer at any
tme by PEA to AMARI of tte and ownershp to portons of the
recamed ands. Under the Amended |VA, PEA s obgated to
transfer to AMARI the atters seventy percent proportonate share
n the recamed areas as the recamaton progresses. The
Amended |VA even aows AMARI to mortgage at any tme the
entre recamed area to rase fnancng for the recamaton pro|ect.
(2) WON the petton shoud be dsmssed because |udca
herarchy wasnt respected.
PEA and AMARI cam pettoner gnored the |udca herarchy by
seekng reef drecty from the Court. The prncpe of herarchy of
courts appes generay to cases nvovng factua questons. As t
s not a trer of facts, the Court cannot entertan cases nvovng
factua ssues. The nstant case, however, rases consttutona
ssues of transcendenta mportance to the pubc. The Court can
resove ths case wthout determnng any factua ssue reated to
the case. Aso, the nstant case s a petton for mandamus whch
fas under the orgna |ursdcton of the Court under Secton 5,
Artce VIII of the Consttuton. We resove to exercse prmary
|ursdcton over the nstant case.
(3) WON the petton shoud be dsmssed because of non-
exhauston of admnstratve remedes.
Respondent - they ddnt ask us for the nformaton before
proceedng to Court to ssue a mandamus; ths s n voaton of the
rue of mandamus. Tanada v. Tuvera s dfferent from the current
stuaton because there, the ExecDept had an affrmatve statutory
duty to pubsh the Presdent Decrees and thus, the mandamus was
warranted. In the nstant case, PEA has no affrmatve duty to
dscose such nformaton.
Court - The orgna |VA sought to dspose to AMARI pubc ands
hed by PEA, a government corporaton. Under Secton 79 of the
Government Audtng Code, the dsposton of government ands to
prvate partes requres pubc bddng. PEA was under a postve
ega duty to dscose to the pubc the terms and condtons for the
sae of ts ands. The aw obgated PEA to make ths pubc
dscosure even wthout demand from pettoner or from anyone.
PEA faed to make ths pubc dscosure because the orgna |VA,
ke the Amended |VA, was the resut of a negotated contract, not
of a pubc bddng. Consderng that PEA had an affrmatve
statutory duty to make the pubc dscosure, and was even n
breach of ths ega duty, pettoner had the rght to seek drect
|udca nterventon.
Moreover, and ths aone s determnatve of ths ssue, the prncpe
of exhauston of admnstratve remedes does not appy when the
ssue nvoved s a purey ega or consttutona queston. The
prncpa ssue n the nstant case s the capacty of AMARI to
acqure ands hed by PEA n vew of the consttutona ban
prohbtng the aenaton of ands of the pubc doman to prvate
corporatons. We rue that the prncpe of exhauston of
admnstratve remedes does not appy n the nstant case.
(4) Do pettoners have standng?
PEA argues that pettoner has no standng to nsttute mandamus
proceedngs to enforce hs consttutona rght to nformaton
wthout a showng that PEA refused to perform an affrmatve duty
mposed on PEA by the Consttuton. PEA aso cams that
pettoner has not shown that he w suffer any concrete n|ury
because of the sgnng or mpementaton of the Amended |VA.
Thus, there s no actua controversy requrng the exercse of the
power of |udca revew.
The pettoner has standng to brng ths taxpayers sut because
the petton seeks to compe PEA to compy wth ts consttutona
dutes. There are two consttutona ssues nvoved here. Frst s
the rght of ctzens to nformaton on matters of pubc concern.
Second s the appcaton of a consttutona provson ntended to
nsure the equtabe dstrbuton of aenabe ands of the pubc
doman among Fpno ctzens. The thrust of the frst ssue s to
compe PEA to dscose pubcy nformaton on the sae of
government ands worth bons of pesos, nformaton whch the
Consttuton and statutory aw mandate PEA to dscose. The thrust
of the second ssue s to prevent PEA from aenatng hundreds of
hectares of aenabe ands of the pubc doman n voaton of the
Consttuton, compeng PEA to compy wth a consttutona duty to
the naton.
Moreover, the petton rases matters of transcendenta mportance
to the pubc. In Chavez v. PCGG,|28| the Court uphed the rght of
a ctzen to brng a taxpayers sut on matters of transcendenta
mportance to the pubc, thus -
"Besdes, pettoner emphaszes, the matter of recoverng the -
gotten weath of the Marcoses s an ssue of transcendenta
mportance to the pubc. He asserts that ordnary taxpayers have
a rght to ntate and prosecute actons questonng the vadty of
acts or orders of government agences or nstrumentates, f the
ssues rased are of paramount pubc nterest, and f they
mmedatey affect the soca, economc and mora we beng of
the peope.
Moreover, the mere fact that he s a ctzen satsfes the
requrement of persona nterest, when the proceedng nvoves the
asserton of a pubc rght, such as n ths case. He nvokes severa
decsons of ths Court whch have set asde the procedura matter
of ocus stand, when the sub|ect of the case nvoved pubc
nterest.
Further, n Abano v. Reyes, we sad that whe expendture of
pubc funds may not have been nvoved under the questoned
contract for the deveopment, management and operaton of the
Mana Internatona Contaner Termna, pubc nterest |was|
defntey nvoved consderng the mportant roe |of the sub|ect
contract| . . . n the economc deveopment of the country and the
magntude of the fnanca consderaton nvoved. We concuded
that, as a consequence, the dscosure provson n the Consttuton
woud consttute suffcent authorty for uphodng the pettoner's
standng.
Smary, the nstant petton s anchored on the rght of the peope
to nformaton and access to offca records, documents and papers
- a rght guaranteed under Secton 7, Artce III of the 1987
Consttuton. Pettoner, a former soctor genera, s a Fpno
ctzen. Because of the satsfacton of the two basc requstes ad
down by decsona aw to sustan pettoner's ega standng, .e. (1)
the enforcement of a pubc rght (2) espoused by a Fpno ctzen,
we rue that the petton at bar shoud be aowed."
(5) Whether the consttutona rght to nformaton ncudes offca
nformaton on on-gong negotatons before a fna agreement.
Secton 7, Artce III of the Consttuton expans the peopes rght
to nformaton on matters of pubc concern n ths manner:
Sec. 7. The rght of the peope to nformaton on matters of pubc
concern sha be recognzed. Access to offca records, and to
documents, and papers pertanng to offca acts, transactons, or
decsons, as we as to government research data used as bass for
pocy deveopment, sha be afforded the ctzen, sub|ect to such
mtatons as may be provded by aw."
The State pocy of fu transparency n a transactons nvovng
pubc nterest renforces the peopes rght to nformaton on
matters of pubc concern. Ths State pocy s expressed n
Secton 28, Artce II of the Consttuton, thus:
Sec. 28. Sub|ect to reasonabe condtons prescrbed by aw, the
State adopts and mpements a pocy of fu pubc dscosure of a
ts transactons nvovng pubc nterest."
These twn provsons of the Consttuton seek to promote
transparency n pocy-makng and n the operatons of the
government, as we as provde the peope suffcent nformaton to
exercse effectvey other consttutona rghts. These twn
provsons are essenta to the exercse of freedom of expresson.
If the government does not dscose ts offca acts, transactons
and decsons to ctzens, whatever ctzens say, even f expressed
wthout any restrant, w be specuatve and amount to nothng.
These twn provsons are aso essenta to hod pubc offcas "at
a tmes x x x accountabe to the peope,"|29| for uness ctzens
have the proper nformaton, they cannot hod pubc offcas
accountabe for anythng. Armed wth the rght nformaton,
ctzens can partcpate n pubc dscussons eadng to the
formuaton of government poces and ther effectve
mpementaton. An nformed ctzenry s essenta to the exstence
and proper functonng of any democracy. As expaned by the
Court n Vamonte v. Bemonte, |r.
"An essenta eement of these freedoms s to keep open a
contnung daogue or process of communcaton between the
government and the peope. It s n the nterest of the State that
the channes for free potca dscusson be mantaned to the end
that the government may perceve and be responsve to the
peopes w. Yet, ths open daogue can be effectve ony to the
extent that the ctzenry s nformed and thus abe to formuate ts
w ntegenty. Ony when the partcpants n the dscusson are
aware of the ssues and have access to nformaton reatng thereto
can such bear frut."
PEA asserts, ctng Chavez v. PCGG,|31| that n cases of on-gong
negotatons the rght to nformaton s mted to "defnte
propostons of the government." PEA mantans the rght does not
ncude access to "ntra-agency or nter-agency recommendatons
or communcatons durng the stage when common assertons are
st n the process of beng formuated or are n the exporatory
stage."
Aso, AMARI contends that pettoner cannot nvoke the rght at the
pre-decsona stage or before the cosng of the transacton.
AMARI argues there must frst be a consummated contract before
pettoner can nvoke the rght. Requrng government offcas to
revea ther deberatons at the pre-decsona stage w degrade
the quaty of decson-makng n government agences.
Government offcas w hestate to express ther rea sentments
durng deberatons f there s mmedate pubc dssemnaton of
ther dscussons, puttng them under a knds of pressure before
they decde.
We must frst dstngush between nformaton the aw on pubc
bddng requres PEA to dscose pubcy, and nformaton the
consttutona rght to nformaton requres PEA to reease to the
pubc. Before the consummaton of the contract, PEA must, on ts
own and wthout demand from anyone, dscose to the pubc
matters reatng to the dsposton of ts property. These ncude
the sze, ocaton, technca descrpton and nature of the property
beng dsposed of, the terms and condtons of the dsposton, the
partes quafed to bd, the mnmum prce and smar nformaton.
PEA must prepare a these data and dscose them to the pubc at
the start of the dsposton process, ong before the consummaton
of the contract, because the Government Audtng Code requres
pubc bddng. If PEA fas to make ths dscosure, any ctzen can
demand from PEA ths nformaton at any tme durng the bddng
process.
Informaton, however, on on-gong evauaton or revew of bds or
proposas beng undertaken by the bddng or revew commttee s
not mmedatey accessbe under the rght to nformaton. Whe
the evauaton or revew s st on-gong, there are no "offca acts,
transactons, or decsons" on the bds or proposas. However, once
the commttee makes ts offca recommendaton, there arses a
"defnte proposton" on the part of the government. From ths
moment, the pubcs rght to nformaton attaches, and any ctzen
can access a the non-propretary nformaton eadng to such
defnte proposton. In Chavez v. PCGG, the Court rued as foows:
"Consderng the ntent of the framers of the Consttuton, we
beeve that t s ncumbent upon the PCGG and ts offcers, as we
as other government representatves, to dscose suffcent pubc
nformaton on any proposed settement they have decded to take
up wth the ostensbe owners and hoders of -gotten weath.
Such nformaton, though, must pertan to defnte propostons of
the government, not necessary to ntra-agency or nter-agency
recommendatons or communcatons durng the stage when
common assertons are st n the process of beng formuated or
are n the "exporatory" stage. There s need, of course, to observe
the same restrctons on dscosure of nformaton n genera, as
dscussed earer - such as on matters nvovng natona securty,
dpomatc or foregn reatons, ntegence and other cassfed
nformaton."
Contrary to AMARIs contenton, the commssoners of the 1986
Consttutona Commsson understood that the rght to nformaton
"contempates ncuson of negotatons eadng to the
consummaton of the transacton." Certany, a consummated
contract s not a requrement for the exercse of the rght to
nformaton. Otherwse, the peope can never exercse the rght f
no contract s consummated, and f one s consummated, t may be
too ate for the pubc to expose ts defects.
Requrng a consummated contract w keep the pubc n the dark
unt the contract, whch may be grossy dsadvantageous to the
government or even ega, becomes a fat accomp. Ths negates
the State pocy of fu transparency on matters of pubc concern, a
stuaton whch the framers of the Consttuton coud not have
ntended. Such a requrement w prevent the ctzenry from
partcpatng n the pubc dscusson of any proposed contract,
effectvey truncatng a basc rght enshrned n the B of Rghts.
We can aow nether an emascuaton of a consttutona rght, nor
a retreat by the State of ts avowed "pocy of fu dscosure of a
ts transactons nvovng pubc nterest."
The rght covers three categores of nformaton whch are "matters
of pubc concern," namey: (1) offca records; (2) documents and
papers pertanng to offca acts, transactons and decsons; and
(3) government research data used n formuatng poces. The
frst category refers to any document that s part of the pubc
records n the custody of government agences or offcas. The
second category refers to documents and papers recordng,
evdencng, estabshng, confrmng, supportng, |ustfyng or
expanng offca acts, transactons or decsons of government
agences or offcas. The thrd category refers to research data,
whether raw, coated or processed, owned by the government and
used n formuatng government poces.
The nformaton that pettoner may access on the renegotaton of
the |VA ncudes evauaton reports, recommendatons, ega and
expert opnons, mnutes of meetngs, terms of reference and other
documents attached to such reports or mnutes, a reatng to the
|VA. However, the rght to nformaton does not compe PEA to
prepare sts, abstracts, summares and the ke reatng to the
renegotaton of the |VA. The rght ony affords access to records,
documents and papers, whch means the opportunty to nspect
and copy them. One who exercses the rght must copy the
records, documents and papers at hs expense. The exercse of the
rght s aso sub|ect to reasonabe reguatons to protect the
ntegrty of the pubc records and to mnmze dsrupton to
government operatons, ke rues specfyng when and how to
conduct the nspecton and copyng.
The rght to nformaton, however, does not extend to matters
recognzed as prveged nformaton under the separaton of
powers. The rght does not aso appy to nformaton on mtary and
dpomatc secrets, nformaton affectng natona securty, and
nformaton on nvestgatons of crmes by aw enforcement
agences before the prosecuton of the accused, whch courts have
ong recognzed as confdenta. The rght may aso be sub|ect to
other mtatons that Congress may mpose by aw.
There s no cam by PEA that the nformaton demanded by
pettoner s prveged nformaton rooted n the separaton of
powers. The nformaton does not cover Presdenta conversatons,
correspondences, or dscussons durng cosed-door Cabnet
meetngs whch, ke nterna deberatons of the Supreme Court
and other coegate courts, or executve sessons of ether house of
Congress, are recognzed as confdenta. Ths knd of nformaton
cannot be pred open by a co-equa branch of government. A frank
exchange of exporatory deas and assessments, free from the
gare of pubcty and pressure by nterested partes, s essenta to
protect the ndependence of decson-makng of those tasked to
exercse Presdenta, Legsatve and |udca power. Ths s not the
stuaton n the nstant case.
We rue, therefore, that the consttutona rght to nformaton
ncudes offca nformaton on on-gong negotatons before a fna
contract. The nformaton, however, must consttute defnte
propostons by the government and shoud not cover recognzed
exceptons ke prveged nformaton, mtary and dpomatc
secrets and smar matters affectng natona securty and pubc
order. Congress has aso prescrbed other mtatons on the rght to
nformaton n severa egsatons.
(6) Whether stpuatons n the Amended |VA for the transfer to
AMARI of ands, recamed or to be recamed, voate the
Consttuton.
We can now summarze our concusons as foows:
1. The 157.84 hectares of recamed ands comprsng the Freedom
Isands, now covered by certfcates of tte n the name of PEA, are
aenabe ands of the pubc doman. PEA may ease these ands to
prvate corporatons but may not se or transfer ownershp of these
ands to prvate corporatons. PEA may ony se these ands to
Phppne ctzens, sub|ect to the ownershp mtatons n the 1987
Consttuton and exstng aws.
2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Mana Bay reman
naenabe natura resources of the pubc doman unt cassfed as
aenabe or dsposabe ands open to dsposton and decared no
onger needed for pubc servce. The government can make such
cassfcaton and decaraton ony after PEA has recamed these
submerged areas. Ony then can these ands quafy as agrcutura
ands of the pubc doman, whch are the ony natura resources
the government can aenate. In ther present state, the 592.15
hectares of submerged areas are naenabe and outsde the
commerce of man.
3. Snce the Amended |VA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a prvate
corporaton, ownershp of 77.34 hectares|110| of the Freedom
Isands, such transfer s vod for beng contrary to Secton 3, Artce
XII of the 1987 Consttuton whch prohbts prvate corporatons
from acqurng any knd of aenabe and of the pubc doman.
4. Snce the Amended |VA aso seeks to transfer to AMARI
ownershp of 290.156 hectares|111| of st submerged areas of
Mana Bay, such transfer s vod for beng contrary to Secton 2,
Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton whch prohbts the aenaton of
natura resources other than agrcutura ands of the pubc
doman. PEA may recam these submerged areas. Thereafter, the
government can cassfy the recamed ands as aenabe or
dsposabe, and further decare them no onger needed for pubc
servce. St, the transfer of such recamed aenabe ands of the
pubc doman to AMARI w be vod n vew of Secton 3, Artce XII
of the 1987 Consttuton whch prohbts prvate corporatons from
acqurng any knd of aenabe and of the pubc doman.
Ceary, the Amended |VA voates garngy Sectons 2 and 3,
Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton. Under Artce 1409|112| of the
Cv Code, contracts whose "ob|ect or purpose s contrary to aw,"
or whose "ob|ect s outsde the commerce of men," are "nexstent
and vod from the begnnng." The Court must perform ts duty to
defend and uphod the Consttuton, and therefore decares the
Amended |VA nu and vod ab nto.
Seventh ssue: whether the Court s the proper forum to rase the
ssue of whether the Amended |VA s grossy dsadvantageous to
the government.
Consderng that the Amended |VA s nu and vod ab nto, there s
no necessty to rue on ths ast ssue. Besdes, the Court s not a
trer of facts, and ths ast ssue nvoves a determnaton of factua
matters.
WHEREFORE, the petton s GRANTED. The Pubc Estates
Authorty and Amar Coasta Bay Deveopment Corporaton are
PERMANENTLY EN|OINED from mpementng the Amended |ont
Venture Agreement whch s hereby decared NULL and VOID ab
nto.
1. Caderon vs. Carae
G.R. No. 91636 Apr 23, 1992
Controversy s focused anew on Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987
Consttuton whch provdes:
Sec. 16. The Presdent sha nomnate and, wth the consent of the
Commsson on Appontments, appont the heads of the executve
departments, ambassadors, other pubc mnsters and consus, or
offcers of the armed forces from the rank of coone or nava
captan, and other offcers whose appontments are vested n hm
n ths Consttuton. He sha aso appont a other offcers of the
Government whose appontments are not otherwse provded for by
aw, and those whom he may be authorzed by aw to appont. The
Congress may, by aw, vest the appontment of other offcers ower
n rank n the Presdent aone, n the courts, or n the heads of
departments, agences, commssons, or boards.
The Presdent sha have the power to make appontments durng
the recess of the Congress, whether vountary or compusory, but
such appontments sha be effectve ony unt dsapprova by the
Commsson on Appontments or unt the next ad|ournment of the
Congress.
x x x
From the three (3) cases above-mentoned (Sarmento III vs. Mson,
Mary Concepcon Bautsta v. Saonga and Teresta Ountos Dees, et
a. v. The Commsson on Consttutona Commssons, et a.,), these
doctrnes are deducbe:
1. Confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments s requred
ony for presdenta appontees mentoned n the frst sentence of
Secton 16, Artce VII, ncudng, those offcers whose appontments
are expressy vested by the Consttuton tsef n the presdent (ke
sectora representatves to Congress and members of the
consttutona commssons of Audt, Cv Servce and Eecton).
2. Confrmaton s not requred when the Presdent apponts other
government offcers whose appontments are not otherwse
provded for by aw or those offcers whom he may be authorzed
by aw to appont (ke the Charman and Members of the
Commsson on Human Rghts). Aso, as observed n Mson, when
Congress creates nferor offces but omts to provde for
appontment thereto, or provdes n an unconsttutona manner for
such appontments, the offcers are consdered as among those
whose appontments are not otherwse provded for by aw.
Sometme n March 1989, RA 6715 (Herrera-Veoso Law), amendng
the Labor Code (PD 442) was approved. It provdes n Secton 13
thereof as foows:
xxx xxx xxx
The Charman, the Dvson Presdng Commssoners and other
Commssoners sha a be apponted by the Presdent, sub|ect to
confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments. Appontments to
any vacancy sha come from the nomnees of the sector whch
nomnated the predecessor. The Executve Labor Arbters and
Labor Arbters sha aso be apponted by the Presdent, upon
recommendaton of the Secretary of Labor and Empoyment, and
sha be sub|ect to the Cv Servce Law, rues and reguatons.
Pursuant to sad aw (RA 6715), Presdent Aquno apponted the
Charman and Commssoners of the NLRC representng the pubc,
workers and empoyers sectors.
Ths petton for prohbton questons the consttutonaty and
egaty of the permanent appontments extended by the Presdent
of the Phppnes to the respondents Charman and Members of the
Natona Labor Reatons Commsson (NLRC), wthout submttng
the same to the Commsson on Appontments for confrmaton
pursuant to Art. 215 of the Labor Code as amended by sad RA
6715.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not Congress may, by aw, requre
confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments of appontments
extended by the presdent to government offcers addtona to
those expressy mentoned n the frst sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII
of the Consttuton whose appontments requre confrmaton by the
Commsson on Appontments.
HELD: No.
Indubtaby, the NLRC Charman and Commssoners fa wthn the
second sentence of Secton 16, Artce VII of the Consttuton, more
specfcay under the "thrd groups" of appontees referred to n
Mson, .e. those whom the Presdent may be authorzed by aw to
appont. Undenaby, the Charman and Members of the NLRC are
not among the offcers mentoned n the frst sentence of Secton
16, Artce VII whose appontments requres confrmaton by the
Commsson on Appontments. To the extent that RA 6715 requres
confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments of the
appontments of respondents Charman and Members of the
Natona Labor Reatons Commsson, t s unconsttutona
because:
1) t amends by egsaton, the frst sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of
the Consttuton by addng thereto appontments requrng
confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments; and
2) t amends by egsaton the second sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII
of the Consttuton, by mposng the confrmaton of the
Commsson on Appontments on appontments whch are
otherwse entrusted ony wth the Presdent.
Decdng on what aws to pass s a egsatve prerogatve.
Determnng ther consttutonaty s a |udca functon. The Court
respects the audabe ntenton of the egsature. Regretfuy,
however, the consttutona nfrmty of Sec. 13 of RA 6715
amendng Art. 215 of the Labor Code, nsofar as t requres
confrmaton of the Commsson on Appontments over
appontments of the Charman and Member of the Natona Labor
Reatons Commsson (NLRC) s, as we see t, beyond redempton f
we are to render featy to the mandate of the Consttuton n Sec.
16, Art. VII thereof.
Supreme Court decsons appyng or nterpretng the Consttuton
sha form part of the ega system of the Phppnes. No doctrne or
prncpe of aw ad down by the Court n a decson rendered en
banc or n dvson may be modfed or reversed except by the
Court sttng en banc.
. . . The nterpretaton upon a aw by ths Court consttutes, n a
way, a part of the aw as of the date that aw was orgnay passed,
snce ths Court's constructon merey estabshes the
contemporaneous egsatve ntent that the aw thus construed
ntends to effectuate. The setted rue supported by numerous
authortes s a restatement of the ega maxm "egs nterpretado
egs vm obtnent" w the nterpretaton paced upon the wrtten
aw by a competent court has the force of aw.
ISSUE 2: Can egsaton expand a consttutona provson after the
Supreme Court has nterpreted t?
In Endenca and |ugo vs. Davd, the Court hed:
We have aready sad that the Legsature under our form of
government s assgned the task and the power to make and enact
aws, but not to nterpret them. Ths s more true wth regard to the
nterpretaton of the basc aw, the Consttuton, whch s not wthn
the sphere of the Legsatve department. If the Legsature may
decare what a aw means, or what a specfc porton of the
Consttuton means, especay after the courts have n actua case
ascertaned ts meanng by nterpretaton and apped t n a
decson, ths woud surey cause confuson and nstabty n |udca
processes and court decsons. Under such a system, a fna court
determnaton of a case based on a |udca nterpretaton of the aw
or of the Consttuton may be undermned or even annued by a
subsequent and dfferent nterpretaton of the aw or of the
Consttuton by the Legsatve department that woud be nether
wse nor desrabe, beng ceary voatve of the fundamenta
prncpes of our consttutona system of government, partcuary
those governng the separaton of powers. (Emphass supped)
Congress, of course, must nterpret the Consttuton, must estmate
the scope of ts consttutona powers when t sets out to enact
egsaton and t must take nto account the reevant consttutona
prohbtons.
. . . The Consttuton dd not change wth pubc opnon.
It s not ony the same words, but the same n meanng . . . and as
ong as t t speaks not ony n the same words, but wth the same
meanng and ntent wth whch t spoke when t came from the
hands of ts framers, and was voted and adopted by the peope . . .
The functon of the Court n passng upon an act of Congress s to
"ay the artce of the Consttuton whch s nvoked besde the
statute whch s chaenged and to decde whether the atter
squares wth the former" and to "announce ts consdered |udgment
upon the queston."
WHEREFORE, the petton s DISMISSED. Art. 215 of the Labor Code
as amended by RA 6715 nsofar as t requres the confrmaton of
the Commsson on Appontments of appontments of the Charman
and Members of the Natona Labor Reatons Commsson (NLRC) s
hereby decared unconsttutona and of no ega force and effect.
2. Lambno, et a. vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 174153, 25 October
2006) - Dgest
On 15 February 2006, the group of Rau Lambno and Erco
Aumentado ("Lambno Group") commenced gatherng sgnatures
for an ntatve petton to change the 1987 Consttuton. On 25
August 2006, the Lambno Group fed a petton wth the
Commsson on Eectons (COMELEC) to hod a pebscte that w
ratfy ther ntatve petton under Secton 5(b) and (c) and Secton
7 of Repubc Act No. 6735 or the Intatve and Referendum Act.
The proposed changes under the petton w shft the present
Bcamera-Presdenta system to a Uncamera-Paramentary form
of government.
The Lambno Group cams that: (a) ther petton had the support of
6,327,952 ndvduas consttutng at east 12% of a regstered
voters, wth each egsatve dstrct represented by at east 3% of
ts regstered voters; and (b) COMELEC eecton regstrars had
verfed the sgnatures of the 6.3 mon ndvduas.
The COMELEC, however, dened due course to the petton for ack
of an enabng aw governng ntatve pettons to amend the
Consttuton, pursuant to the Supreme CourtCs rung n
Santago vs. Commsson on Eectons. The Lambno Group eevated
the matter to the Supreme Court, whch aso threw out the petton.
1. The ntatve petton does not compy wth Secton 2, Artce XVII
of the Consttuton on drect proposa by the peope
Secton 2, Artce XVII of the Consttuton s the governng provson
that aows a peopeCs ntatve to propose amendments to the
Consttuton. Whe ths provson does not expressy state that the
petton must set forth the fu text of the proposed amendments,
the deberatons of the framers of our Consttuton ceary show
that: (a) the framers ntended to adopt the reevant Amercan
|ursprudence on peopeCs ntatve; and (b) n partcuar, the
peope must frst see the fu text of the proposed amendments
before they sgn, and that the peope must sgn on a petton
contanng such fu text.
The essence of amendments "drecty proposed by the peope
through ntatve upon a petton" s that the entre proposa on ts
face s a petton by the peope. Ths means two essenta eements
must be present.
Frst, the peope must author and thus sgn the entre proposa. No
agent or representatve can sgn on ther behaf.
Second, as an ntatve upon a petton, the proposa must be
emboded n a petton.
These essenta eements are present ony f the fu text of the
proposed amendments s frst shown to the peope who express
ther assent by sgnng such compete proposa n a petton. The
fu text of the proposed amendments may be ether wrtten on the
face of the petton, or attached to t. If so attached, the petton
must state the fact of such attachment. Ths s an assurance that
every one of the severa mons of sgnatores to the petton had
seen the fu text of the proposed amendments before - not after -
sgnng.
Moreover, "an ntatve sgner must be nformed at the tme of
sgnng of the nature and effect of that whch s proposed" and
faure to do so s "deceptve and mseadng" whch renders the
ntatve vod.
In the case of the Lambno Groups petton, theres not a snge
word, phrase, or sentence of text of the proposed changes n the
sgnature sheet. Nether does the sgnature sheet state that the
text of the proposed changes s attached to t. The sgnature sheet
merey asks a queston whether the peope approve a shft from the
Bcamera-Presdenta to the Uncamera- Paramentary system of
government. The sgnature sheet does not show to the peope the
draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to sgn the
sgnature sheet. Ths omsson s fata.
An ntatve that gathers sgnatures from the peope wthout frst
showng to the peope the fu text of the proposed amendments s
most key a decepton, and can operate as a ggantc fraud on the
peope. Thats why the Consttuton requres that an ntatve must
be "drecty proposed by the peope x x x n a petton" - meanng
that the peope must sgn on a petton that contans the fu text of
the proposed amendments. On so vta an ssue as amendng the
natons fundamenta aw, the wrtng of the text of the proposed
amendments cannot be hdden from the peope under a genera or
speca power of attorney to unnamed, faceess, and uneected
ndvduas.
2. The ntatve voates Secton 2, Artce XVII of the Consttuton
dsaowng revson through ntatves
Artce XVII of the Consttuton speaks of three modes of amendng
the Consttuton. The frst mode s through Congress upon three-
fourths vote of a ts Members. The second mode s through a
consttutona conventon. The thrd mode s through a peopes
ntatve.
Secton 1 of Artce XVII, referrng to the frst and second modes,
appes to "any amendment to, or revson of, ths Consttuton." In
contrast, Secton 2 of Artce XVII, referrng to the thrd mode,
appes ony to "amendments to ths Consttuton." Ths dstncton
was ntentona as shown by the deberatons of the Consttutona
Commsson. A peopes ntatve to change the Consttuton appes
ony to an amendment of the Consttuton and not to ts revson. In
contrast, Congress or a consttutona conventon can propose both
amendments and revsons to the Consttuton.
Does the Lambno Groups ntatve consttute an amendment or
revson of the Consttuton? Yes. By any ega test and under any
|ursdcton, a shft from a Bcamera-Presdenta to a Uncamera-
Paramentary system, nvovng the aboton of the Offce of the
Presdent and the aboton of one chamber of Congress, s beyond
doubt a revson, not a mere amendment.
Courts have ong recognzed the dstncton between an
amendment and a revson of a consttuton. Revson broady
mpes a change that aters a basc prncpe n the consttuton,
ke aterng the prncpe of separaton of powers or the system of
checks-and-baances. There s aso revson f the change aters the
substanta entrety of the consttuton, as when the change affects
substanta provsons of the consttuton. On the other hand,
amendment broady refers to a change that adds, reduces, or
deetes wthout aterng the basc prncpe nvoved. Revson
generay affects severa provsons of the consttuton, whe
amendment generay affects ony the specfc provson beng
amended.
Where the proposed change appes ony to a specfc provson of
the Consttuton wthout affectng any other secton or artce, the
change may generay be consdered an amendment and not a
revson. For exampe, a change reducng the votng age from 18
years to 15 years s an amendment and not a revson. Smary, a
change reducng Fpno ownershp of mass meda companes from
100% to 60% s an amendment and not a revson. Aso, a change
requrng a coege degree as an addtona quafcaton for eecton
to the Presdency s an amendment and not a revson.
The changes n these exampes do not enta any modfcaton of
sectons or artces of the Consttuton other than the specfc
provson beng amended. These changes do not aso affect the
structure of government or the system of checks-and-baances
among or wthn the three branches.
However, there can be no fxed rue on whether a change s an
amendment or a revson. A change n a snge word of one
sentence of the Consttuton may be a revson and not an
amendment. For exampe, the substtuton of the word "repubcan"
wth "monarchc" or "theocratc" n Secton 1, Artce II of the
Consttuton radcay overhaus the entre structure of government
and the fundamenta deoogca bass of the Consttuton. Thus,
each specfc change w have to be examned case-by-case,
dependng on how t affects other provsons, as we as how t
affects the structure of government, the carefuy crafted system of
checks-and-baances, and the underyng deoogca bass of the
exstng Consttuton.
Snce a revson of a consttuton affects basc prncpes, or severa
provsons of a consttuton, a deberatve body wth recorded
proceedngs s best suted to undertake a revson. A revson
requres harmonzng not ony severa provsons, but aso the
atered prncpes wth those that reman unatered. Thus,
consttutons normay authorze deberatve bodes ke consttuent
assembes or consttutona conventons to undertake revsons. On
the other hand, consttutons aow peopes ntatves, whch do
not have fxed and dentfabe deberatve bodes or recorded
proceedngs, to undertake ony amendments and not revsons.
In Caforna where the ntatve cause aows amendments but not
revsons to the consttuton |ust ke n our Consttuton, courts
have deveoped a two-part test: the quanttatve test and the
quatatve test. The quanttatve test asks whether the proposed
change s so extensve n ts provsons as to change drecty the
substanta entrety of the consttuton by the deeton or ateraton
of numerous exstng provsons. The court examnes ony the
number of provsons affected and does not consder the degree of
the change.
The quatatve test nqures nto the quatatve effects of the
proposed change n the consttuton. The man nqury s whether
the change w Coaccompsh such far reachng changes n the
nature of our basc governmenta pan as to amount to a
revson.C Whether there s an ateraton n the structure of
government s a proper sub|ect of nqury. Thus, Coa change n
the nature of |the| basc governmenta panC ncudes
Cochange n ts fundamenta framework or the fundamenta
powers of ts Branches.C A change n the nature of the basc
governmenta pan aso ncudes changes that Co|eopardze the
tradtona form of government and the system of check and
baances.C
Under both the quanttatve and quatatve tests, the Lambno
GroupCs ntatve s a revson and not merey an amendment.
Ouanttatvey, the Lambno GroupCs proposed changes
overhau two artces - Artce VI on the Legsature and Artce VII
on the Executve - affectng a tota of 105 provsons n the entre
Consttuton. Ouatatvey, the proposed changes ater substantay
the basc pan of government, from presdenta to paramentary,
and from a bcamera to a uncamera egsature.
A change n the structure of government s a revson of the
Consttuton, as when the three great co-equa branches of
government n the present Consttuton are reduced nto two. Ths
aters the separaton of powers n the Consttuton. A shft from the
present Bcamera-Presdenta system to a Uncamera-
Paramentary system s a revson of the Consttuton. Mergng the
egsatve and executve branches s a radca change n the
structure of government. The aboton aone of the Offce of the
Presdent as the ocus of Executve Power aters the separaton of
powers and thus consttutes a revson of the Consttuton.
Lkewse, the aboton aone of one chamber of Congress aters the
system of checks-and-baances wthn the egsature and
consttutes a revson of the Consttuton.
The Lambno Group theorzes that the dfference between
CoamendmentC and CorevsonC s ony one of procedure,
not of substance. The Lambno Group posts that when a
deberatve body drafts and proposes changes to the Consttuton,
substantve changes are caed CorevsonsC because members
of the deberatve body work fu-tme on the changes. The same
substantve changes, when proposed through an ntatve, are
caed CoamendmentsC because the changes are made by
ordnary peope who do not make an Cooccupaton, professon, or
vocatonC o ut of such endeavor. The SC, however, rued that the
express ntent of the framers and the pan anguage of the
Consttuton contradct the Lambno GroupCs theory. Where the
ntent of the framers and the anguage of the Consttuton are cear
and pany stated, courts do not devate from such categorca
ntent and anguage.
3. A revst of Santago vs. COMELEC s not necessary
The petton faed to compy wth the basc requrements of Secton
2, Artce XVII of the Consttuton on the conduct and scope of a
peopeCs ntatve to amend the Consttuton. There s,
therefore, no need to revst ths CourtCs rung n Santago
decarng RA 6735 Concompete, nadequate or wantng n
essenta terms and condtonsC to cover the system of ntatve
to amend the Consttuton. An affrmaton or reversa of Santago
w not change the outcome of the present petton. ItCs setted
that courts w not pass upon the consttutonaty of a statute f the
case can be resoved on some other grounds.
Even assumng that RA 6735 s vad, ths w not change the resut
here because the present petton voates Secton 2, Artce XVII of
the Consttuton, whch provson must frst be comped wth even
before compyng wth RA 6735. Worse, the petton voates the
foowng provsons of RA 6735:
a. Secton 5(b), requrng that the peope must sgn the petton as
sgnatores. The 6.3 mon sgnatores dd not sgn the petton or
the amended petton fed wth the COMELEC. Ony Attys. Lambno,
Donato and Agra sgned the petton and amended petton.
b. Secton 10(a), provdng that no petton embracng more than
one sub|ect sha be submtted to the eectorate. The proposed
Secton 4(4) of the Transtory Provsons, mandatng the nterm
Parament to propose further amendments or revsons to the
Consttuton, s a sub|ect matter totay unreated to the shft n the
form of government.
Source: http://|p-aw.com/bog/ambno-vs-comeec-gr-174153-25-
october-2006-dgest/
3. Sandad vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 90878 |anuary 29, 1990
PABLITO V. SANIDAD vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
On October 23, 1989, Repubc Act No. 6766, entted "AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA
AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted nto aw. The Commsson on
Eectons, promugated Resouton No. 2167, to govern the conduct
of the pebscte on the sad Organc Act for the Cordera
Autonomous Regon.
In a petton dated November 20, 1989, heren pettoner Pabto V.
Sandad, who cams to be a newspaper coumnst of the
"OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weeky
newspaper crcuated n the Cty of Baguo and the Corderas,
assaed the consttutonaty of Secton 19 of Comeec Resouton
No. 2167, whch provdes:
Secton 19. Prohbton on coumnsts, commentators or
announcers. w Durng the pebscte campagn perod, on the day
before and on the pebscte day, no mass meda coumnst,
commentator, announcer or personaty sha use hs coumn or
rado or teevson tme to campagn for or aganst the pebscte
ssues.
ISSUE: Whether Secton 19 of Comeec Resouton No. 2167 s
unconsttutona on the ground that t voates the consttutona
guarantees of the freedom of expresson and of the press.
HELD:
It s cear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Consttuton that what was
granted to the Comeec was the power to supervse and reguate
the use and en|oyment of franchses, permts or other grants ssued
for the operaton of transportaton or other pubc uttes, meda of
communcaton or nformaton to the end that equa opportunty,
tme and space, and the rght to repy, ncudng reasonabe, equa
rates therefor, for pubc nformaton campagns and forums among
canddates are ensured. The ev sought to be prevented by ths
provson s the possbty that a franchse hoder may favor or gve
any undue advantage to a canddate n terms of advertsng space
or rado or teevson tme. Ths s aso the reason why a "coumnst,
commentator, announcer or personaty, who s a canddate for any
eectve offce s requred to take a eave of absence from hs work
durng the campagn perod (2nd par. Secton 11(b) R.A. 6646). It
cannot be gansad that a coumnst or commentator who s aso a
canddate woud be more exposed to the voters to the pre|udce of
other canddates uness requred to take a eave of absence.
However, nether Artce IX-C of the Consttuton nor Secton 11 (b),
2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be construed to mean that the Comeec
has aso been granted the rght to supervse and reguate the
exercse by meda practtoners themseves of ther rght to
expresson durng pebscte perods. Meda practtoners exercsng
ther freedom of expresson durng pebscte perods are nether
the franchse hoders nor the canddates. In fact, there are no
canddates nvoved n a pebscte. Therefore, Secton 19 of
Comeec Resouton No. 2167 has no statutory bass.
In the case of Badoy, |r. v. Comeec, L-32546, Oct. 16, 1970, where
the consttutonaty of the prohbton of certan forms of eecton
propaganda was assaed, We rued theren that the prohbton s a
vad exercse of the poce power of the state "to prevent the
perverson and prosttuton of the eectora apparatus and of the
dena of equa protecton of the aws." The ev sought to be
prevented n an eecton whch ed to Our rung n that case does
not obtan n a pebscte. In a pebscte, votes are taken n an area
on some speca potca matter unke n an eecton where votes
are cast n favor of specfc persons for some offce. In other words,
the eectorate s asked to vote for or aganst ssues, not canddates
n a pebscte.
Anent respondent Comeec's argument that Secton 19 of Comeec
Resouton 2167 does not absoutey bar pettoner-coumnst from
expressng hs vews and/or from campagnng for or aganst the
organc act because he may do so through the Comeec space
and/or Comeec rado/teevson tme, the same s not mertorous.
Whe the mtaton does not absoutey bar pettoner's freedom of
expresson, t s st a restrcton on hs choce of the forum where
he may express hs vew. No reason was advanced by respondent
to |ustfy such abrdgement. We hod that ths form of reguaton s
tantamount to a restrcton of pettoner's freedom of expresson for
no |ustfabe reason.
Pebscte ssues are matters of pubc concern and mportance. The
peope's rght to be nformed and to be abe to freey and
ntegenty make a decson woud be better served by access to
an unabrdged dscusson of the ssues, ncudng the forum. The
peope affected by the ssues presented n a pebscte shoud not
be unduy burdened by restrctons on the forum where the rght to
expresson may be exercsed. Comeec spaces and Comeec rado
tme may provde a forum for expresson but they do not guarantee
fu dssemnaton of nformaton to the pubc concerned because
they are mted to ether specfc portons n newspapers or to
specfc rado or teevson tmes.
ACCORDINGLY, the nstant petton s GRANTED. Secton 19 of
Comeec Resouton No. 2167 s decared nu and vod and
unconsttutona. The restranng order heren ssued s hereby
made permanent.
4. Leyson vs. Offce of the Ombudsman
G.R. No. 134990 Apr 27, 2000
On 11 March 1997 pettoner Manue M. Leyson |r., Executve Vce
Presdent of ITTC, fed wth pubc respondent Offce of the
Ombudsman a grevance case aganst respondent Oscar A.
Torraba. The foowng s a summary of the rreguartes and
corrupt practces aegedy commtted by respondent Torraba: (a)
breach of contract - unatera canceaton of vad and exstng
contract; (b) bad fath - fasfcaton of documents and reports to
stop the operaton of MT Transasa; (c) manpuaton - nfuenced
ther nsurance to dsquafy MT Transasa; (d) unreasonabe dena
of requrement mposed; (e) doube standards and nconsstent n
favor of MT Marag; (f) engaged and entered nto a contract wth
Southwest Martme Corp. whch s not the owner of MT Marag,
where abtes were waved and whose pad-up capta s ony
P250,000.00; and, (g) overprcng n the freght rate causng osses
of mons of pesos to Cocochem.
On 2 |anuary 1998 pettoner charged respondent Trso Antporda,
Charman of UCPB and CIIF O Ms, and respondent Oscar A.
Torraba wth voaton of The Ant-Graft and Corrupt Practces Act
aso before the Ombudsman anchored on the aforementoned
aeged rreguartes and corrupt practces. The OMB dsmssed the
compant, based on the fndng that the case nvoved breach of
contract.
ISSUE: Whether the OMB commtted GADLAE| n dsmssng the
compant
HELD: Oumpo v. Tanodbayan nvoved the ssue as to whether
PETROPHIL was a government owned or controed corporaton the
empoyees of whch fe wthn the |ursdctona purvew of the
Tanodbayan for purposes of The Ant-Graft and Corrupt Practces
Act. We uphed the |ursdcton of the Tanodbayan on the
ratocnaton that w
Whe t may be that PETROPHIL was not orgnay "created" as a
government-owned or controed corporaton, after t was acqured
by PNOC, whch s a government-owned or controed corporaton,
PETROPHIL became a subsdary of PNOC and thus shed-off ts
prvate status. It s now funded and owned by the government as,
n fact, t was acqured to perform functons reated to government
programs and poces on o, a vta commodty n the economc fe
of the naton. It was acqured not temporary but as a permanent
ad|unct to perform essenta government or government-reated
functons, as the marketng arm of the PNOC to assst the atter n
seng and dstrbutng o and petroeum products to assure and
mantan an adequate and stabe domestc suppy.
But these |ursprudenta rues nvoked by pettoner n support of
hs cam that the CIIF companes are government owned and/or
controed corporatons are ncompete wthout resortng to the
defnton of "government owned or controed corporaton"
contaned n par. (13), Sec. 2, Introductory Provsons of the
Admnstratve Code of 1987, . e., any agency organzed as a stock
or non-stock corporaton vested wth functons reatng to pubc
needs whether governmenta or propretary n nature, and owned
by the Government drecty or through ts nstrumentates ether
whoy, or, where appcabe as n the case of stock corporatons, to
the extent of at east ffty-one (51) percent of ts capta stock. The
defnton mentons three (3) requstes, namey, frst, any agency
organzed as a stock or non-stock corporaton; second, vested wth
functons reatng to pubc needs whether governmenta or
propretary n nature; and, thrd, owned by the Government drecty
or through ts nstrumentates ether whoy, or, where appcabe
as n the case of stock corporatons, to the extent of at east ffty-
one (51) percent of ts capta stock.
In the present case, a three (3) corporatons comprsng the CIIF
companes were organzed as stock corporatons. The UCPB-CIIF
owns 44.10% of the shares of LEGASPI OIL, 91.24% of the shares of
GRANEXPORT, and 92.85% of the shares of UNITED COCONUT. 15
Obvousy, the beow 51% shares of stock n LEGASPI OIL removes
ths frm from the defnton of a government owned or controed
corporaton. Our concern has thus been mted to GRANEXPORT
and UNITED COCONUT as we go back to the second requste.
Unfortunatey, t s n ths regard that pettoner faed to
substantate hs contentons. There s no showng that
GRANEXPORT and/or UNITED COCONUT was vested wth functons
reatng to pubc needs whether governmenta or propretary n
nature unke PETROPHIL n Oumpo. The Court thus concudes that
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.
the CIIF companes are, as found by pubc respondent, prvate
corporatons not wthn the scope of ts |ursdcton.
Wth the foregong concuson, we fnd t unnecessary to resove the
other ssues rased by pettoner.
A bref note on prvate respondents' charge of forum shoppng.
Executve Secretary v. Gordon 16 s nstructve that forum shoppng
conssts of fng mutpe suts nvovng the same partes for the
same cause of acton, ether smutaneousy or successvey, for the
purpose of obtanng a favorabe |udgment. It s ready apparent
that the present charge w not prosper because the cause of
acton heren, . e., voaton of The Ant-Graft and Corrupt Practces
Act, s dfferent from the cause of acton n the case pendng before
the tra court whch s coecton of a sum of money pus damages.
WHEREFORE, the petton s DISMISSED. The Resouton of pubc
respondent Offce of the Ombudsman of 30 |anuary 1998 whch
dsmssed the compant of pettoner Manue M. Leyson |r., as we
as ts Order of 4 |une 1998 denyng hs moton for reconsderaton,
s AFFIRMED. Costs aganst pettoner.1wwph1.nwt
SO ORDERED.
+,-I*IN#I,.
&!G&& V ELEC#O&L CO""I((IO!
&.&)&D& G%O V E"I#&
*,/H!0 #N0 IN/,+,/#/I!N
>OIGI!&L %!DE(#&!DI!G5 LEG&L E&LI("5 &!D #3E
I!#EPE#&#IO! O' #3I( CO!(#I#%#IO!?
ROBERT CLINTON (1987)
>CO!(#I#%#IO!&L E"PIICI("- @%&(I-!E%#&L
PI!CIPLE( &!D CO!(#I#%#IO!&L #%#3(?
TIMOTHY ZICK (2003)
#/ 12II: ,*#3IN4 /H, C!N./I/5/I!N
>"&LOLO(- #3E CI(E( O' #3E EP%.LIC?
TEODORO AGONCILLO (1997)
>'O" "C)I!LE2A( I!(#%C#IO!( #O #3E !E7
CO!(#I#%#IO!- DOC%"E!#( O! #3E P3ILIPPI!E
CO!(#I#%#IO!&L (2(#E"?
VICENTE MENDOZA
(SEE LEGAL HISTORY REVIEWER)
"&.&!&G V LOPE4 VI#O
GO!4&LE( V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
; November 9, 1967
#OLE!#I!O V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
; October 16, 1971
PL&!&( V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
; |anuary 22, 1973
$&VELL&!& V EBEC%#IVE (ECE#&2
; March 31, 1973
(&!ID&D V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
; October 12, 1976
"I#& V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
; Apr 4, 1981
L&72E(A LE&G%E 'O & .E##E P3ILIPPI!E( V &@%I!O
EN BANC; May 22, 1986
'&C#(CI((%E(
- Pettoners questoned egtmacy of Aquno government.
- Her govt was sad to be ega snce t was not estabshed
pursuant to 1973 Const.
- Procamaton No. 3- ".Aquno govt s #nstalle& thro$gh &#re%t
e,er%#se of )o.er of the ;#l#)#no )eo)le, n defance of the
provsons of 1973 Const."
- Apr 10- Court aready voted to dsmss.
- Apr 17- Atty. Lozano wthdrew pettons and sad that they woud
pursue t by extra-|udca methods.
3ELD
Pet#t#ons ha*e no mer#t.
(1) Pettoners have no )ersonal#t+ and no %a$se of a%t#on.
(2) Legtmacy of govt s NOT |ustcabe, and s a potca queston
where peope are the ony |udge.
(3) Peope have aready accepted such govt, whch s n effectve
contro of the country, makng t a de |ure govt.
(4) Communty of natons has aso accepted t.
(5) Eeven members of SC have sworn to uphod aw under her
govt.
I! E- (&#%!I!O .E"%DE4
;October 24, 1986
DE LEO! V E(G%E& August 31, 1987
(&!#I&GO V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
DAVIDE; March 19, 1997
'&C#(
Atty. |esus Defn fed to the COMELEC a petton to amend the
Consttuton through a peopes ntatve. In hs petton, he wanted
to amend Sec 4 and 7 of Artce 6, Sec 4 of Artce 7 and Sec 8 of
Artce 10 n order to ft the term mts of a eectve government
offcas. He asks the COMELEC to assst them n gatherng the
suffcent number of sgnatures by settng up sgnature statons a
over the country, as requred by COMELEC Resouton No. 2300.
The COMELEC took cognzance of ther petton and set the case up
for hearng. Senator Rau Roco then fed a moton to dsmss before
the COMELEC, statng that t was not the ntatory petton propery
cognzabe before the COMELEC. Sen. Mram Defensor Santago, on
the other hand, fed a speca cv acton for prohbton, sayng
that RA 6735 s defcent nsofar as the ntatve for amendng the
Consttuton s concerned. She further aeges that what the
pettoners are wng to propose are not amendments, but
revsons. Thereafter, LABAN, DIK and MABINI fed ther motons for
nterventon, argung on the same ponts.
I((%E(
1. WON the court can take acton of ths case despte there beng a
pendng case before the COMELEC
2. WON RA 6735 s an adequate enabng aw for peopes ntatve
3. WON the COMELEC resouton no. 2300 s vad
4. WON the COMELEC acted wthout |ursdcton or n grave abuse
of dscreton n entertanng the Defn petton
3ELD
1. Yes. Comeecs faure to act on rocos moton to dsmss and ts
nsstence to hod on to the petton rendered rpe and vabe the
nstant petton under sec 2 rue 65 of rues of court
- Case may be treated as a speca cv acton for certorar snce
defn ddnt come up wth the mnmum number of sgnatures
- Court may brush asde techncates n cases of transcendenta
mportance.
2. No. The aw s nadequate.
- Frst, n Sec 2 of the Act (Statement and Pocy), t seems that the
word Consttuton was a deayed afterthought. The word
Consttuton was nether germane nor reevant to the sad secton.
It ony proves that t s sent to amendments n the consttuton.
- Second, n the Act does not provde for the contents of a petton
for ntatve on the consttuton.
- Thrd, there s no separate subtte for ntatve for the
Consttuton.
- Therefore, t seems that the man thrust of the act s on ntatve
and referendum of natona and oca aws. It faed to provde for
detas n mpementaton of ntatve on amendments to the
Consttuton.
- Comeec cannot be deegated power, snce the aw s ncompete
as t fas to provdes a suffcent pocy and standard for the
deegated power.
3. No. It ony foows that snce the RA 6735 s ncompete, t does
not have the power to prescrbe rues and reguatons on the
conduct of ntatve on amendments to the Consttuton.
4. Yes. There was nsuffcent number of sgnatures. Aso, comeec
acqures |ursdcton upon fng of the petton. The defn petton
was ony n ts ntatory peadng.
0ecision Petton granted
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P%!O D0on0ur an+ +issentE
RA 6735 s not defectve. The ntent of the framers was to provde
for a aw for ntatve on amendments to the Consttuton. (he cted
the sponsorshp remarks of Roco)
VI#%G
The COMELEC shoud have dsmssed the petton, snce t dd not
have the requred number of sgnatures.
'&!CI(CO D0on0ur an+ +issentE
ookng at the defnton of terms n the sad RA, the aw ceary
ntends to ncude amendments to the Consttuton.
P&!G&!I.&!
RA 6735 s not perfect but taken together wth the Consttuton and
COMELEC Res. No. 2300, t s suffcent to mpement Consttutona
ntatves.
E(OL%#IO!
;

E(#&D& V DE(IE#O
PUNO;
'&C#(
- Nature: Wrt of Premnary In|uncton aganst compants aganst
hm unt hs term s over
- May 11, 1998 - Estrada was eected Presdent; Arroyo was VP;
some 10 mon Fpnos voted for Estrada and both Estrada and
Arroyo were to serve a 6-year term.
- Oct. 4, 2000 - Estrada's "sharp decent from power" began; Chavt
Sngson, Estrada's ong tme frend, pubcy accused Estrada,
Estrada's famy and frends of recevng mons of pesos from
|ueteng ords.
- Oct. 5, 2000- Sen. Teofsto Gungona |r. devered a speech
entted "I ACCUSE" wheren he accused Estrada of recevng 220
mon pesos worth of |ueteng money from Gov. Sngson from
November 1998 t August 200 and obtaned another 70 mon
peson on excse tax st from Gov. Sngson
- The prvege speech was referred by Sen. Dron to the Bue
Rbbon Commttee and the Commttee on |ustce for |ont
nvestgaton
- The House of Reps aso decded to nvestgate the expose of Gov.
Sngson.
- Reps. Heherson Avarez, Ernesto Herrera and Mchae Defensor
spearheaded the move to mpeach Estrada.
- Oct. 11, 2000 - Archbshop |ame Cardna Sn ssued a pastora
statement askng Estrada to step down from the presdency as he
had ost the mora authorty to govern
- Oct. 13, 2000- CBCP aso cred out for Estrada's resgnaton
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'
- Oct. 17, 2000- Former Pres. Aquno |oned the cas for
resgnaton and former Pres. Ramos |oned the chorus as we.
- But before that, on Oct 12, Arroyo aready resgned as DSWD
Secretary and aso asked for Estrada's resgnaton but Estrada
reay hed on to hs offce and refused to resgn. (Accordng to |.
Puno: "The heat s on.")
- November ended wth a "bg-bang" because on November 13,
House Speaker Manue Var transmtted the Artces of
Impeachment (whch was based on the grounds of brbery, graft
and corrupton, betraya of pubc trust and cupabe voaton of the
Consttuton) sgned by 115 representatves to the Senate.
- Nov. 20, 2000- Senate fnay opened the mpeachment tra. 21
senators took ther oath as |udges wth SC Chef |ustce Haro G.
Davde |r, presdng.
- Dec. 7, 2000- The mpeachment tra started.
- Dramatc pont of the December hearngs was the testmony of
Carssa Ocampo, the SVP of Equtabe-PCI BANK. Ocampo testfed
that she was one foot away from Estrada when he affxed the
sgnature "|ose Vearde" on documents nvovng a 500 mon
pesos nvestment account wth ther bank on Feb 4 2000.
- Impeachment tra was ad|ourned n the sprt of Chrstmas and
when |anuary came, more bombshes were expoded.
> Sec. of Fnance Atty. Esprtu testfed that Estrada |onty
owned BW Resources Corporaton wth Mr. Dante Tan who was
facng charges of nsder tradng.
> |an. 16, 2001- wth a vote of 11-10, the Senator |udges rued
aganst openng the 2
nd
enveope whch aegedy contaned
evdence showng that pettoner hed 3.3 bon pesos n a secret
bank account under the name "|ose Vearde."
> In short, ths resuted to what we know as "EDSA II"
- |anuary 19, 2001- wthdrawa of support from the Armed Forces,
PNP and mass resgnatons ensued
- |an 20, 2001- Estrada surrendered. At 12 nn, C| Davde
admnstered the oath to Arroyo as the Presdent of the Phppnes.
> Estrada eft Maacaang and ssued a press statement sayng
that he now eaves Maacaang Paace for the sake of peace and
n order to begn the heang process of our naton.
> He aso wrote a etter sayng that the VP sha be the actng
presdent and sad etter was transmtted to former Speaker
Fuentebea and Sen. Pres. Pmente.
- |an 21, 2001- Arroyo dscharged the powers and dutes of the
Presdency. The SC ssued a resouton, whch confrmed the
authorty gven by the 12 members of the Court then present to the
Chef |ustce to admnster the oath of offce to GMA.
- |an. 24, 2001- Despte the recept of Estrada's etter, House of
Reps. passed House Resouton No. 175 experencng fu support to
GMA's admnstraton and aso HR no. 176
- Feb 7, 2001- Despte recept of Estrada's etter camng nabty,
Senate passed Resouton No. 82 confrmng GMA's nomnaton of
Teofsto Gungona as VP and the Senate's support of the new gov't.
and aso n the same date, Senate passed Res. No. 83 recognzng
that the mpeachment court s f$n%t$s off#%t#o.
- Feb. 8, 2001- Senate passed Res. No. 84 certfyng vacancy n
the Senate.
- Feb 15, 2001- C| Davde and |. Panganban nhbted themseves
from partcpatng n ths case as per Sagusag's moton. They of
course debunked hs charge "that they have compromsed ther
weght on one sde" but nonetheess recused themseves.
I((%E(
1. WON the pettons present a |ustcabe controversy
2. WON the pettoner resgned as presdent
3. WON the pettoner s ony temporary unabe to act as presdent
4. WON the pettoner en|oys mmunty from sut (and assumng he
en|oys mmunty, the extent of the mmunty)
5. WON the prosecuton of pettoner Estrada shoud be en|oned
due to pre|udca pubcty.
3ELD
1. The Court sha consder as |ustcabe the ssue of WON the
change n the presdency was done n the manner prescrbed by
the 1987 Consttuton. (7n th#s )art, the )onente &#fferent#ate&
E:S0 7 from E:S0 77 sa+#ng that E:S0 7 .as a re*ol$t#on, %hange of
)res#&en%+ .as &one e,tra-%onst#t$t#onall+ .hereas E:S0 77 .as
not a re*ol$t#on, the %hange .as &one to an element of the
go*ernment onl+ an& #t .as &one #ntra-%onst#t$t#onall+ /e%a$se
9M0 s.ore to $)hol& or )rote%t the 19'7 Const#t$t#on. >ea& #t #f $
.ant a /etter $n&erstan&#ng. 0lso, the Co$rt #s #nter)ret#ng #/ II
sec 1, #/ 2II .ec % an& #/ 2II .ec 11 #n th#s %ase so loo= at
those )ro*#s#ons too.!
2. The Court hed that resgnaton sha be determned from the
totaty of pror, contemporaneous and posteror facts and
crcumstanta evdence bearng a matera reevance on the ssue.
(In reaton to ths, see Art. VII, Secton 8)
3. The Court hed that the queston WON t may revew and revse
the decson of both Houses of Congress recognzng GMA as the de
|ure Presdent of the Phppnes s a potca one. (Congress has
la#& Estra&aBs %la#m of #na/#l#t+ to rest /e%a$se of #ts re%ogn#t#on of
9M0 as )res#&ent. "he #ss$e #s a )ol#t#%al 4$est#on an& the Co$rt
%annot re*#e. CongressB &e%#s#on .#tho$t *#olat#ng the )r#n%#)le of
se)arat#on of )o.ers.!
4. The Court hed (sha rue) that the Presdent en|oys mmunty
ony durng hs tenure. (Reasonng n the In Re: Bermudez case that
the ncumbent Presdent s mmune from sut or from beng brought
to court durng hs perod of hs ncumbency and tenure but not
beyond.)
5. The Court sha rue that to warrant a fndng of pre|udca
pubcty, there must be aegaton and proof that the |udges have
been unduy nfuenced by the barrage of pubcty.
0eicison The pettons of |oseph E. Estrada chaengng the
respondent Gora Macapaga- Arroyo as the de |ure 14
th
Presdent
of the Repubc are DISMISSED.
GO!4&LE( V !&V&(&
GONZAGA-REYES; August 14, 2000
'&C#(
- Preparatory Commsson on Consttutona Reform or PCCR was
created by then Presdent |oseph Estrada on Nov 26, 1998 by vrtue
of Executve Order No. 43 n order to "study and recommend
proposed amendments and/or revsons to the 1987 Consttuton,
and the manner of mpementng the same."
> The PCCR was nstructed to compete ts task on or before |une
30, 1999. On Feb 19, 1999, the Presdent ssued Executve Order
No. 70 whch extended the tme frame of the PCCRs work unt
Dec 31 1999.
> The PCCR submtted ts recommendatons to the Presdent on
Dec 20, 1999 and was dssoved by the Presdent on the same
day.
- Ramon Gonzaes, n hs capacty as ctzen and taxpayer, fed a
petton for prohbton and mandamus, assang the
consttutonaty of the creaton of the PCCR on two grounds:
> t s a pubc offce whch ony the egsature can create by way
of aw
> by creatng the PCCR, the Presdent s ntervenng n a process
from whch he s totay excuded by the Consttuton, .e. the
amendment of the fundamenta charter.
- In ths regard, Gonzaes:
> seeks to en|on the PCCR and the presdenta consutants,
advsers and assstants from actng as such
> seeks to en|on Exec Sec Ronado Zamora from enforcng ther
advce and recommendatons
> seeks to en|on the Commsson on Audt from passng n audt
expendtures for the PCCR and the presdenta consutants,
advsers and assstants
> prays for an order compeng respondent Zamora to furnsh
pettoner wth nformaton on certan matters.
I((%E(
1. WON the case has become moot and academc
2. WON pettoner has standng as a ctzen
3. WON pettoner has standng as a taxpayer
4. WON the Presdent has power to create postons (70) n the
Offce of the Presdent and appont presdenta consutants (20),
advsers (22) and assstants (28)
5. WON the Court may ssue a wrt of mandamus orderng Exec Sec
Ronado Zamora to provde pettoner wth names of executve
offcas hodng mutpe postons n government, copes of ther
appontments, and a st of the recpents of uxury vehces sezed
by the Bureau of Customs and turned over to Maacaang.
3ELD
1. atio An act s consdered moot when t no onger presents a
|ustcabe controversy because the ssues nvoved have become
academc or dead. It s beyond the scope of |udca power to gve
advsory opnon.
!biter The case has aready become moot and academc as the
PCCR has aready ceased to exst. Reef prayed for by Gonzaes
(prohbton) s mpossbe to grant and s an napproprate remedy
as body sought to be en|oned no onger exsts. Any rung
regardng the PCCR woud ony be n the nature of an advsory
opnon.
2. atio A ctzen has standng ony f he can estabsh that he has
suffered some actua or threatened n|ury as a resut of the
aegedy ega conduct of the government; the n|ury s fary
traceabe to the chaenged acton; and the n|ury s key to be
redressed by a favorabe acton.
!biter The nterest of a person assang the consttutonaty of a
statute must be drect and persona. He must be abe to show that
the aw s nvad, but aso that he has sustaned or s n mmedate
danger of sustanng some drect n|ury as a resut of ts
enforcement, and not merey that he suffers thereby n some
ndefnte way.
19
3. atio A taxpayer has standng to rase a consttutona ssue
when t s estabshed that pubc funds have been dsbursed n
aeged contraventon of the aw or the Consttuton, the acton of
whch s propery brought ony when there s an exercse by
Congress of ts taxng or spendng power.
!biter Under Sec 7 of EO No 43 whch created the PCCR, the
amount of P3 mon s "approprated" for ts operatona expenses
"to be sourced from the funds of the Offce of the Presdent." The
appropratons were authorzed by the Presdent, not by Congress.
In fact, there was no appropraton at a snce a))ro)r#at#on has
19
n Kosbayan v Morato ctng Vamonte v Ph Charty Sweepstakes Offce
been defned as nothng more than the egsatve authorzaton
prescrbed by the Consttuton that money may be pad out of the
Treasury. The funds for the PCCR was taken from the funds
ntended for the Offce of the Presdent, n the exercse of the Chef
Executves power to transfer funds pursuant to Sec 25 (5) Art VI of
Consttuton.
4. Appontment s not synonymous wth creaton.
- Pettoner does not have the personaty to rase ths ssue as he
has not proven that he has sustaned or s n danger of sustanng
any n|ury as a resut of the appontment, and he has not aeged
the necessary facts to enabe the Court to determne f he
possesses a taxpayers nterest.
5. As enshrned n Sec 7 of the B of Rghts, "the rght of the
peope to nformaton on matters of pubc concern sha be
recognzed. Access to offca records, and to documents, and
papers pertanng to offca acts, transactons, or decsons, as we
as to government research data used as bass for pocy
deveopment, sha be afforded the ctzen, sub|ect to such
mtatons as may be provded by aw."
- The rght to nformaton s a pubc rght, and the requrement of
persona nterest s satsfed by the mere fact that pettoner s a
ctzen and therefore part of the genera pubc whch possesses the
rght.
- "matters of pubc concern" s a term whch "embrace(s) a broad
spectrum of sub|ects whch the pubc may want to know, ether
because these drecty affect ther ves, or smpy because such
matters naturay arouse the nterest of an ordnary ctzen. In the
fna anayss, t s for the courts to determne n a case to case
bass whether the matter at ssue s of nterest or mportance, as t
reates to or affects the pubc."
0ecision Petton s dsmssed, wth the excepton that respondent
Zamora s ordered to furnsh pettoner wth nformaton requested.
/H, +HI-I++IN,. #. # ./#/,
6#/ I, II, I2, 27
./#/, 0,FIN,0
COLLEC#O O' I!#E!&L EVE!%E V C&"PO( %ED&
FERNANDO; October 29, 1971
'&C#(
- Coector of Interna Revenue hed Antono Campos Rueda, as
admnstrator of the estate of the ate Estrea Sorano Vda. de
Cerdera, abe for the stun of P 161,974.95 as defcency estate
and nhertance taxes for the transfer of ntangbe persona
propertes n the Phppnes, the deceased, a Spansh natona
havng been a resdent of Tanger, Morocco from 1931 up to the
tme of her death n 1955.
- Ruedas request for exempton was dened on the ground that the
aw of Tanger s not recproca to Secton 122 of the Natona
Interna Revenue Code.
- Rueda requested for the reconsderaton of the decson denyng
the cam for tax exempton. However, respondent dened ths
request on the grounds that there was no recprocty |wth Tanger,
whch was moreover| a mere prncpaty, not a foregn country.
- Court of Tax Appeas rued that the expresson 'foregn country,'
used n the ast provso of Secton 122 of the Natona Interna
Revenue Code, refers to a government of that foregn power whch,
athough not an nternatona person n the sense of nternatona
aw, does not mpose transfer or death taxes upon ntangbe
persona propertes of our ctzens not resdng theren, or whose
aw aows a smar exempton from such taxes. It s, therefore, not
necessary that Tanger shoud have been recognzed by our
Government n order to entte the pettoner to the exempton
benefts of the ast provso of Secton 122 of our Tax Code.
I((%E
Whether or not the requstes of statehood, or at east so much
thereof as may be necessary for the acquston of an nternatona
personaty, must be satsfed for a "foregn country" to fa wthn
the exempton of Secton 122 of the Natona Interna Revenue
Code
3ELD
- (upreme Court a//irme+ Court o/ ta: &ppealAs uling.
- If a foregn country s to be dentfed wth a state, t s requred n
ne wth Pound's formuaton that t be a potcay organzed
soveregn communty ndependent of outsde contro bound by tes
of natonhood, egay supreme wthn ts terrtory, actng through a
government functonng under a regme of aw.
- t s thus a soveregn person wth the peope composng t vewed
as an organzed corporate socety under a government wth the
ega competence to exact obedence to ts commands.
- The stress s on ts beng a naton, ts peope occupyng a defnte
terrtory, potcay organzed, exercsng by means of ts
government ts soveregn w over the ndvduas wthn t and
mantanng ts separate nternatona personaty.
- State s a terrtora socety dvded nto government and sub|ects,
camng wthn ts aotted area a supremacy over a other
nsttutons. Moreover, smary woud pont to the power entrusted
to ts government to mantan wthn ts terrtory the condtons of a
ega order and to enter nto nternatona reatons. Wth the atter
requste satsfed, nternatona aw does not exact ndependence
as a condton of statehood.
- Coector of Interna Revenue v. De Lara: There can be no doubt
that Caforna as a state n the Amercan Unon was ackng n the
aeged requste of nternatona personaty. Nonetheess, t was
hed to be a foregn country wthn the meanng of Secton 122 of
the Natona Interna Revenue Code.
- Ths Court dd commt tsef to the doctrne that even a tny
prncpaty, that of Lechtensten, hardy an nternatona
personaty n the tradtona sense, dd fa under ths exempt
category.
.!2,,I4N/8 #N0 .!2,,I4N I**5NI/8
&# II DECL&&#IO! O' PI!CIPLE( &!D (#&#E POLICIE(
Sec 1: The Phppnes s a democratc and repubcan state.
Soveregnty resdes n the peope and a government authorty
emanates form them.
&# V (%''&GE
Sec 1: Suffrage may be exercsed by a ctzens of the Phppnes,
not otherwse dsquafed by aw, who are at east 18 years of age,
and who sha have resded n the Phppnes for at east one year
and n the pace wheren they propose to vote, for at east sx
months mmedatey precedng the eecton. No teracy, property,
or other substantve requrement sha be mposed on the exercse
of suffrage
Sec 2: The Congress sha provde a system for securng the
secrecy and sanctty of the baot as we as a system for absentee
votng by quafed Fpnos abroad.
The Congress sha aso desgn a procedure for the dsabed and
terates to vote wthout the assstance of other persons. Unt
then, they sha be aowed to vote under exstng aws and such
rues as the Commsson on Eectons may promugate to protect
secrecy of the baot.
#&!&D& V &!G&&
PANGANIBAN; May 2, 1997
'&C#(
- Petton for Certorar
- DTI secretary Rzano Navarro sgned the Fna Act Embodyng the
Resuts of the Uruguay Round of Mutatera Negotatons. (Fna
Act). By sgnng t, he agreed on behaf of the Phppnes
o To submt the WTO agreement to competent authortes
for ther approva
o Adopt the mnstera decaratons and decsons
(Bascay, the fna act ams to beraze and expand word trade
and strengthen the nterreatonshp between trade and economc
poces affectng growth and deveopment.)
- The presdent then sent to the senate a etter whch submts the
Uruguay Round Fna Act for ther concurrence
- Another etter was sent by the presdent. Ths tme, he submts
the Uruguay Fna Round Act, the Agreement Estabshng the WTO,
the Mnstera Decaratons and Decsons and the Understandng
on Commtments n Fnanca Servces to the Senate for ts
concurrence.
- The Senate adopted Resouton number 97, whch expresses ther
concurrence n the ratfcaton of the presdent of the Agreement
Estabshng the WTO.
- The Presdent sgned the Instrument of Ratfcaton of the
Agreement Estabshng the WTO and the agreements and
assocated ega nstruments of that agreement.
- The fna act sgned by Secretary Navarro, on the other hand,
embodes not ony the WTO agreement but aso the mnstera
decaratons and decsons and the understandng on commtments
n fnanca servces.
- Pettoners assa the consttutonaty of the treaty. They aso
cam that snce the Senate ony concurred wth the WTO
agreement and not on a the contents of the Fna act, they
mpedy re|ected the Fna act.
I((%E(
1. WON the case s |ustcabe.
2. WON the party provsons and natona treatment causes n the
WTO agreement voates Sec. 19 Artce 2, Sec. 10 and 12
Artce 12 of the Consttuton ("economc natonasm" causes).
3. WON the WTO agreement unduy mts, restrcts and mpars
egsatve power of the Congress.
4. WON the WTO agreement ntrudes on the power of the
Supreme Court to promugate rues concernng peadng,
practce and procedures.
5. WON the concurrng of the senate ony n the WTO agreement
and not n the fna act mpes re|ecton of the fna act.
3ELD
- Petition +ismisse+.
1. Yes.
- The |udcary has the duty and power to strke down grave abuse
of dscreton on the part of any branch or nstrumentaty of
government ncudng Congress
2. No
- #*e +e0laration o/ prin0iples are not inten+e+ to 6e sel/-
e:e0uting5 rat*er5 t*e1 are <ust ai+ an+ gui+es 61 t*e
<u+i0iar1 in <u+i0ial review5 an+ 61 t*e legislature in
ena0ting laws. These broad prncpes need egsatve
enactments to mpement them.
- The economc natonasm provsons shoud be read wth other
consttutona mandates, especay Sec 1 and 13 of Artce 12.
- The WTO protects the weak economes. There are specfc
provsos n the agreement wth respect to tarffs, domestc
subsdes and protecton from unfar competton whch are
ntended to hep deveopng economes.
- The Consttuton does not rue out foregn competton.
Independence refers to the freedom from undue foregn contro of
the natona economy.
- The Consttuton has not reay shown any unbaanced bas n
favor of any busness or enterprse, nor does t contan any specfc
pronouncement that Fpno companes shoud be pampered wth
tota prescrpton of foregn competton.
- Consttutons are desgned to meet not ony the vagares of
contemporary events. They shoud be nterpreted to cover even
future and unknown crcumstances.
3. No
- (overeignt1 is not a6solute 6e0ause it is su6<e0t to
restri0tions an+ voluntaril1 agree+ to 61 t*e P*ilippines.
- The Consttuton dd not envson a hermt type soaton of the
country.
- By ther nherent nature, treates reay mt or restrct the
absouteness of soveregnty
- There are certan restrctons to the Consttuton
- Lmtatons mposed by the very nature of membershp n
the famy of natons.
- Lmtatons mposed by treaty stpuatons
- When the Phppnes |on the UN, t consented to restrct ts
sovergn rghts under the concept of auto-mtaton. (Reagan vs
Commsson of Interna Revenue)
- The underyng concept n the parta surrender of soveregnty s
the recproca commtment of the other contractng states grantng
the same prvege and mmuntes to the Phppnes, ts offcas
and ts ctzens.
4. No.
- The burden of proof s not transferred n cases of patent
nfrngement. It s st on the patent owner to ntroduce evdence of
the exstence of the aeged dentca product.
- The new rue shoud not reay present any probem n changng
the rues of evdence as the present aw on the sub|ect, RA 165
(Patent Law), provdes a smar presumpton n cases of
nfrngement of patent desgn.
- Concuson n the thrd ssue aso appes.
5. No.
- The fna act need not be ratfed. It s not the treaty tsef. Rather,
t s |ust a summary of the proceedngs. The fna act ony requred
that the senate concur wth the WTO agreement, whch they dd.
- The Senate was we-aware of what t was concurrng to as shown
by the members deberatons.
E&G&! V CO""I((IO!E O' I!#E!&L EVE!%E
FERNANDO; December 27, 1969
'&C#(
APPEAL from a decson of the Court of Tax Appeas
Pettoner: Wam Reagan -cvan empoyee of an Amercan
corporaton provdng technca assstance to the Unted States Ar
Force n the Phppnes
Respondent: Commssoner of Interna Revenue
|uy 7, 1959 -Reagan was assgned at the Cark Fed Ar Base
Apr 22, 1960 -He mported a tax-free Cadac wth accessores
vaued at $6,443.83
|uy 11, 1960 -pettoner asked Base Commander for permt to se
the car whch was granted provded that he se t to a member of
the US Armed Forces or a US ctzen empoyed n the Phppne
mtary bases. On the same date, he sod hs car for $6,600.00 to
We |ohnson, |r. of the US Marne Corps.
- As a resut of the transacton, respondent, after deductng the
anded cost of the car as we as pettoners persona exempton,
fxed hs net taxabe ncome arsng from the sae at P17,912.34
renderng hm abe for P2,979.00 ncome tax. After payng the
sum, pettoner sought a refund camng that he was exempt, but
pendng acton on hs request, he fed the case wth the Court of
Tax Appeas whch dened hs petton.
- Pettoner asserts that he s exempt from payng the ncome tax.
He contends that n ega contempaton the sae was made outsde
Phppne terrtory and therefore beyond ts |ursdcton to tax.
- Pettoner rees on a statement of |ustce Tuason n Co Po v.
Coector of Interna Revenue: "Whe n army bases or nstaatons
wthn the Phppnes those goods were n contempaton of aw on
foregn so." The court resoved ths by pontng out that the
statement was merey obter dctum n that case and therefore,
cannot be nvoked n ths case.
I((%E
WON the Cark Fed Ar Base s Phppne terrtory
3ELD
Yes. .ases un+er lease to t*e &meri0an arme+ /or0es 61
virtue o/ t*e "ilitar1 .ases &greement o/ 1FGH remain part
o/ P*ilippine territor1.
- The Phppnes beng ndependent and soveregn, ts authorty
may be exercsed over ts entre doman. Wthn ts mts, ts
decrees are supreme, ts commands paramount. Lkewse, t has to
be excusve. If t were not thus, there s a dmnuton of ts
soveregnty.
- Con0ept o/ auto-limitation- Any state may, by ts consent,
express or mped, submt to a restrcton of ts soveregn rghts. It
s not precuded from aowng another power to partcpate n the
exercse of |ursdctona rght over certan portons of ts terrtory. If
t does so, t by no means foows that such areas become
mpressed wth an aen character. They retan ther status as
natve so. They are st sub|ect to ts authorty. Its |ursdcton may
be dmnshed, but t does not dsappear. So t s wth the bases
under ease to the Amercan armed forces by vrtue of the mtary
bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foregn
terrtory.
- #*ere/ore5 t*e P*ilippinesA <uris+i0tional rig*ts over t*e
6ases5 0ertainl1 not e:0lu+ing t*e power to ta:5 *ave 6een
preserve+. &s to 0ertain ta: matters5 an appropriate
e:emption was provi+e+ /or.
- $u+gment (H 0on0ur5 I 0on0ur in t*e result5 1 +i+ not ta9e
part)
#*e +e0ision o/ t*e Court o/ #a: &ppeals +en1ing t*e re/un+
o/ PI5FHF.JJ as t*e in0ome ta: pai+ 61 petitioner is
a//irme+.
EP%.LIC V (&!DIG&!.&2&!
CORONA; |uy 15, 2003
'&C#(
- Speca Cv Acton n the Supreme Court. Certorar.
- Dec 17 1991, the Repubc, through the Presdenta Commsson
on Good Government or PCGG, fed a petton for forfeture before
the Sandganbayan, entted >e)$/l#% of the Ph#l#))#nes *s.
;er&#nan& E. - Mar%os, re)resente& /+ h#s EstateChe#rs an& 7mel&a
>. Mar%os, pursuant to RA 1379
20
.
- PCGG was created by vrtue of Executve Order No. 1
ssued on February 28, 1986 by then Presdent Corazon
Aquno, and was charged wth the task of assstng the
Presdent n the "recovery of a -gotten weath
accumuated by former Presdent Ferdnand E. Marcos, hs
mmedate famy, reatves, subordnates and cose
assocates, whether ocated n the Phppnes or abroad,
ncudng the takeover or sequestraton of a busness
enterprses and enttes owned or controed by them durng
s admnstraton, drecty or through nomnees, by takng
undue advantage of ther pubc offce and/or usng ther
powers, authorty, nfuence, connectons or reatonshp."
- In sad case, pettoner Repubc, represented by the Offce of the
Soctor Genera (OSG) sought:
a. the decaraton of the aggregate amount of US$356 mon
(estmated to be US$658 mon ncusve of nterest as of
20
An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any ro!erty "o #ave $een %nla&fully Ac'uire( $y Any u)lic *fficer or +,!loyee an( rovi(ing For the
roce(ure "herefor-
the tme of decson) deposted n escrow
21
n the Phppne
Natona Bank (PNB), as -gotten weath.
*The ff account groups, usng varous foregn foundatons n
certan Swss banks, prevousy hed the funds:
1. Azo-Verso-Vbur Foundaton accounts
2. Xandy-Wntrop: Chars-Scoar-Vaamo-Spnus-
Avertna-Foundaton accounts
3. Trndad-Rayby-Pamy Foundaton accounts
4. Rosays-Aguamna Foundaton accounts
5. Maer Foundaton accounts
b. the forfeture of US$25 mon and US$5 mon n treasury
notes whch exceeded the Marcos coupes saares, other
awfu ncome as we as ncome from egtmatey acqured
property. These treasury notes are frozen at the Bangko
Sentra ng Ppnas by vrtue of freeze order ssued by
PCGG.
- Oct 18, 1993, respondents Imeda R Marcos, Ma. Imeda M
Manotoc, Irene M Araneta and Ferdnand R Marcos, |r. fed ther
answer.
#*e General &greementC(upplemental &greements
- Before case was set for pre-tra, a Genera Agreement and the
Suppementa Agreements dated Dec 28, 1993 were executed by
the Marcos chdren and then PCGG Charman Magtanggo
Gungundo for a goba settement of the assets of the Marcos
famy
- The Genera Agreement/Suppementa Agreements sought to
dentfy, coate, cause the nventory of and dstrbute a assets
presumed to be owned by the Marcos famy under the condtons
contaned theren.
- It was stated n one of the "whereas causes" the fact that
pettoner Repubc "obtaned a |udgment from the Swss Federa
Trbuna on Dec 21 1990 that the US$356 mon beongs n
prncpe to the Repubc of the Phppnes provded certan
condtons are met.." The decson of the Swss Federa Supreme
Court affrmed the decson of Zurch Dstrct Attorney Peter
21
.oney or a (ee( or other in/tru,ent (e!o/ite( &ith a thir( !er/on for a (elivery to a given !arty u!on the fulfill,ent of /o,e con(ition- 0hile in the 1ee!ing of the
thir( !arty2 the ,oney or in/tru,ent i/ /ai( to )e 3in e/cro&4- 56an(o, #ou/e 0e)/ter7/ 8egal Dictionary2 6an(o, #ou/e2 9e& :or12 1996;
Cosandey grantng ega assstance to Repubc. Cosandey decared
the varous deposts n the name of the foundatons to be of ega
provenance and ordered that they be frozen to awat the fna
verdct n favor of the partes entted to resttuton.
- Sandganbayan conducted hearngs on the moton to approve the
Genera/Suppementa Agreements.
- Oct 18 1996 pettoner fed a moton for summary |udgment
and/or |udgment on the peadngs. Respondents fed ther
opposton.
- Nov 20 1997 Sandganbayan dened pettoners moton for
summary |udgment and/or |udgment on the peadngs on the
ground that the moton to approve the compromse agreement
"(took) precedence over the moton for summary |udgment"
- May 26 1998 Mrs. Marcos fed manfestaton camng she was not
a party to the moton for approva of the Compromse Agreement
and that the owned 90% of the funds wth the remanng 10%
beongng to the Marcos estate.
#*e 'un+ #rans/er
- Aug 10 1995 pettoner Repubc fed wth the Dstrct Attorney n
Zurch, Swtzerand an addtona request for the mmedate
transfer of the deposts to an escrow account n PNB. Ths was
granted.
- Marcoses appeaed, Swss Federa Supreme Court affrmed rung
of Dstrct Attorney of Zurch, and funds were remtted to the
Phppnes n escrow n 1998.
#*e Petition /or (ummar1 $u+gment
- Mar 10 2000 pettoner fed another moton for summary
|udgment "pertanng to the forfeture of the US$356 mon, based
on ff grounds:
a. essenta facts whch warrant the forfeture of the funds are
admtted by respondents n ther peadngs and other
submssons made n the course of the proceedng
b. respondents admsson made durng pre-tra that they do
not have any nterest or ownershp over the funds tenders
no genune ssue or controversy as to any matera fact n
the present acton
- Mrs. Marcos fed her opposton, whch was ater adopted by co-
respondents Marcos chdren.
- Mar 24 2000 hearng on moton for summary |udgment was
conducted
- Sep 19 2000 Sandganbayan granted pettoners moton for
summary |udgment, statng that there s no ssue of fact whch cas
for the presentaton of evdence, and decared the funds, whch
were deemed unawfuy acqured as -gotten weath, forfeted n
favor of the State.
- Mrs. Marcos fed moton for reconsderaton on Sep 26 2000;
Marcos chdren foowed.
- In |an 31 2002 resouton, Sandganbayan reversed ts Sep 19
2000 decson, statng that "the evdence offered for summary
|udgment of the case dd not prove that the money n the Swss
Banks beonged to the Marcos spouses because no ega proof
exsts n the record as to the ownershp by the Marcoses of the
funds", and thus dened pettoners moton for summary |udgment.
Hence, the present petton.
- Pettoner asserts n the man that the Sandganbayan commtted
grave abuse of dscreton n reversng the decson on the ground
that the orgna copes of the authentcated Swss Federa Supreme
Court decsons and ther "authentcated transatons" have not
been submtted to the Court, when n fact the Sandganbayan
quoted extensvey a porton of the Swss decsons n denyng a
prevous moton dated |uy 29 1999. Pettoner adds that nowhere
n the respondents motons for reconsderaton and suppementa
moton for reconsderaton were the authentcty, accuracy and
admssbty of the Swss decsons ever chaenged.
- Respondents, of course, assert that the petton shoud be dened.
&nal1sis o/ espon+entsA Legitimate In0ome
- the Marcoses reported P16,408,442.00 or US$2,414,484.91 n
tota ncome over a perod of 20 years from 1965 to 1984.
- Ths amount ncudes Ferdnand Marcos saary as Senate
Presdent n 1965, (P15,935) and as Presdent from 1966 to 1985
(1966-1976 at P60,000/year; 1977-1985 at P100,000/year), Imeda
Marcos saary as Mnster of Human Settements from 1976 to
1986 (P75,000/year), ncome from ega practce (P11,109,836),
pus other sources.
- Ferdnand Marcos made t appear that he had an extremey
proftabe ega practce before he became Presdent, and that he
was st recevng payments amost 20 years after
- Computatons estabsh the tota net worth of spouses Ferdnand
and Imeda, for the years 1965 to 1984, n the amount of
US$957,487.75. (assumng ncome from ega practce s vad)
- The fve group accounts have a tota baance of US$356 mon.
I((%E(
1. WON pettoner Repubcs acton for certorar s proper.
2. WON respondents rased any genune ssue of fact whch woud
ether |ustfy or negate summary |udgment.
3. WON pettoner Repubc was abe to prove ts case for forfeture
n accordance wth Sectons 2 and 3 of RA 1379.
3ELD
1. atio Where the case s undenaby ngraned wth mmense
pubc nterest, pubc pocy and deep hstorca repercussons,
certorar s aowed notwthstandng the exstence and avaabty
of the remedy of appea.
!biter Amost two decades have passed snce the government
ntated ts search for and reverson of -gotten weath. The
defntve resouton of such cases on the merts s ong overdue.
2. atio Mere denas, f unaccompaned by any fact whch w be
admssbe n evdence at a hearng, are not suffcent to rase
genune ssues of fact and w not defeat a moton for summary
|udgment
!biter Court hed that respondent Marcoses faed to rase any
genune ssue of fact n ther peadngs. Summary |udgment shoud
take pace as a matter of rght.
- a genune ssue s an ssue of fact whch cas for the presentaton
of evdence, as dstngushed from an ssue whch s fcttous and
contrved, set up n bad fath or patenty ackng n substance.
- Respondents faed to specfcay deny each and every aegaton
contaned n the petton for forfeture n the manner requred by
the rues (Sec 10 Rue 8 1997 Rues of Cv Procedure). Ther
answers ncude "they have no suffcent knowedge" or "they coud
not reca because t happened a ong tme ago" or "the funds were
awfuy acqured" wthout statng the bass of such assertons.
- Oueston: Whether the knd of dena n respondents answer
quafes as the specfc dena caed for by the rues. No. The Court
hods that f an aegaton drecty and specfcay charges a party
wth havng done, performed or commtted a partcuar act whch
the atter dd not n fact do, perform or commt, a categorca and
express dena must be made.
- The aegatons for forfeture on the exstence of the Swss bank
deposts, not havng been specfcay dened by respondents n
ther answer, were deemed admtted pursuant to Sec 11 Rue 8 of
1997 Rues on Cv Procedure.
a. Proprety of Summary |udgment
- Summary |udgment s proper when there s ceary no genune
ssue as to any matera fact n the acton. The Court s |ustfed
n dspensng wth the tra and renderng summary |udgment f
t s demonstrated by affdavts, depostons or admssons that
the ssues are not genune but sham or fcttous.
- moton for summary |udgment s premsed on the
assumpton that the ssues presented need not be tred
ether because these are patenty devod of substance or
that there s no genune ssue as to any pertnent fact.
- It s a procedura devce for the prompt dsposton of
actons n whch the peadngs rase ony a ega ssue, not
a genune ssue as to any matera fact.
b. Whether pettoner Repubc had bound tsef to go to tra
and had egay waved rght t had to move for summary
|udgment.
- Court rues that pettoner coud vady move for summary
|udgment any tme after the respondents answer was fed or,
for that matter, at any subsequent stage of the tgaton. The
fact that pettoner agreed to proceed to tra dd not n any way
prevent t from movng for summary |udgment.
c. Whether by the tme moton for summary |udgment was
fed on Mar 10 2000, estoppe by aches had aready set n
aganst pettoner.
- Doctrne of estoppe or aches does not appy when
government sues as a soveregn or asserts governmenta
rghts. Nor can estoppe vadate an act that contravenes aw or
pubc pocy.
- estoppe by aches s the faure or negect for an
unreasonabe or unexpaned ength of tme to do that
whch, by exercsng due dgence, coud or shoud have
been done earer, warrantng a presumpton that the
person has abandoned hs rght or decned to assert t.
- n nvokng doctrne of estoppe by aches,
respondents must show not ony un|ustfed nacton but
aso that some unfar n|ury to them mght resut uness
the acton s barred.
3. atio The prma face presumpton rased by the aw that a
property s unawfuy acqured when the amount or vaue s
manfesty dsproportonate to the offca saary and other awfu
ncome of the pubc offcer who owns t stands as proved uness
defendant shows, and proves, that these were awfuy acqured
and that there are other egtmate sources of ncome.
!biter burden of proof was on respondents to dspute
presumpton and show by cear and convncng evdence that the
Swss deposts were awfuy acqured and that they had other
egtmate sources of ncome. A presumpton s prma face proof of
the fact presumed, and, uness the fact thus prma face
estabshed by ega presumpton s dsproved, t must stand as
proved.
- the Court not ony took nto consderaton that respondents
themseves made admssons n ther peadngs and testmones,
but that pettoner was abe to present sworn statements of
wtnesses who had persona knowedge of the Marcoses
partcpaton n the ega acquston of funds.
E(OL%#IO!
CORONA; November 18, 2003
- SC: Respondents n ther motons for reconsderaton do not rase
any new matters for the Court to resove.
Is summar1 <u+gment in /or/eiture pro0ee+ings a violation
o/ +ue pro0essK
- Respondents: RA 1379 s pena n substance and effect, hence
they are entted to consttutona safeguards en|oyed by accused.
- SC: Due process of aw has two aspects: substantve and
procedura. There must be a compance wth both substantve and
procedura requrements n order that a partcuar act may not be
mpugned as voatve of the due process cause.
- substantve due process refers to ntrnsc vadty of a
aw that nterferes wth the rghts of a person to hs
property
- there s no showng that RA 1379 s unfar,
unreasonabe or un|ust. Respondents were not
deprved of ther property through forfeture for
arbtrary reasons.
- procedura due process means compance wth
procedures or steps, even perods, prescrbed by the
statute, n conformty wth the standard of far pay and
wthout arbtrarness on the part of those who are caed
upon to admnster t.
- forfeture proceedngs are actons #n rem, thus cv n
nature, contrary to respondents contenton that they are
pena n character. The proceedngs under RA 1379 do not
termnate n the mposton of penaty but merey n the
forfeture n favor of the State of propertes egay
acqured.
- Cv suts to recover unawfuy acqured property under
RA 1379 may be proven by preponderance of evdence.
The Government s requred ony to state the known awfu
ncome of respondents for the prma face presumpton of
ega provenance to attach. Pettoner Repubc havng
estabshed ths presumpton, burden of proof shfted to
respondents to show by cear and convncng evdence
that the Swss deposts were awfuy acqured and that
they had other egtmate sources of ncome. Respondents
faed on ths part.
- essence of due process s found n the reasonabe
opportunty to be heard and submt ones evdence n
support of hs defense
- Respondents were repeatedy accorded fu
opportunty to present ther case, defenses and
peadngs. They obstnatey refused to do so and have
tred to confuse the ssues and the Court and to deay
the dsposton of the case
- "the peope and the State are entted to favorabe
|udgment, free from vexatous, caprcous and oppressve
deays, the sautary ob|ectve beng to restore the
ownershp of the Swss deposts to the rghtfu owner -
that s, the Repubc of the Phppnes - n the shortest
possbe tme."
*otions 9or reconsiderations denied :it& 9inalit(.
0!*INI5* #N0 I*+,I5*
C&I!O V I!(%L& GOVE!"E!#
HOLMES; February 23, 1909
'&C#(
- Mateo Carno, an Igorot from the Provnce of Benguet, contests
dsmssa of appcaton of regstraton of ther an0estral lan+
through wrt of error.
- Carnos ancestors mantaned fences for catte, cutvated some
parts, and pastured parts for catte /or more t*an 5J 1ears
6e/ore t*e #reat1 o/ Paris (Apr 11, 1899). Ths and s aso
used for nhertance n accordance to Igorot custom.
- Athough the pantff apped n 1893-1894 and 1896-1897, no
+o0ument o/ title was issue+ by Spansh Crown. In 1901,
pantff aeged ownershp under mortgage aw and the ands were
regstered to hm but t ony estabshed possessory tte.

- +rocedure
- Court -- application of and regstraton ;ranted (March 4,
1904 )
- CFI of Benguet - appea on behaf of Government of the
Phppnes and US havng taken possesson of property for mtary
and pubc purposes; application dismissed
- Phppne SC - a99irmed decson of CFI Benguet
- Federa SC - :rit o9 error revewng |udgment of Phppne SC
- Respondents argue:
- Gven that
- Span assumed and asserted that they had tte to
a the and n the Phppnes except to permt prvate
ands to be acqured
- No prescrpton aganst the Spansh Crown
- Decree of |une 25, 1880 requred regstraton wthn
a mted tme to make the tte good
- And US succeeded the tte of Span (through Treaty
of Pars)
- Pantffs and not regstered and he had ost a rghts
and a mere trespasser
- Aso, Benguet never brought under cv or
mtary government of the Spansh Crown, so t s not
certan whether regstraton granted was under Spansh
aws
- Pantff argues:
- Argument seems to amount to dena of natve ttes
throughout an mportant Isand of Luzon
I((%E
WON Carno owns the and
3ELD
atio Prescrpton, mentoned n the roya cedua of 1754 states:
"Where such possessors sha not be abe to produce tte deeds, t
sha be suffcent f they sha show that ancent possesson, as a
vad tte by prescrpton."
- Decree of |une 25, 1880 states: possesson for certan tmes sha
be deemed owners; cutvated and 20 years, uncutvated 30
years. Pantffs father was owner of and by the very terms of ths
decree.
- By Organc Act of |uy 1, 1902, a the property and rghts acqured
there by the Unted States are to be admnstered "for the beneft
of the nhabtants thereof."
!biter Wrt of error s the genera method of brngng cases to ths
court (Federa SC), and appea the excepton, confned to equty n
the man.
- Every presumpton s and ought to be aganst the government n a
case ke present.
- The reason for takng over the Phppnes was dfferent
(compared to occupaton of whte race aganst Natve Amercans).
Our frst ob|ect n the nterna admnstraton of the sands s to do
|ustce to the natves not to expot ther country for prvate gan.
- The effect of proof was not to confer tte but smpy to estabsh
t, as aready conferred by the decree, f not by earer aw.
0ecision ,2,.,0
- Appcant shoud be granted what he seeks and shoud not be
deprved of what by the practce and beef of those among whom
he ved, was hs property, through a refned nterpretaton of an
amost forgotten aw of Span.
)IVE!)O V EGI(#E O' DEED( O' "&!IL&
MORAN; November 15, 1947
'&C#(
- Appea from a |udgment of the CFI of Mana
- December, 1941-Krvenko, aen, bought a resdenta ot from the
Magdaena Estate. Inc
- The regstraton of the ot was nterrupted by the war.
- May, 1945-Krvenko sought to accompsh sad regstraton but the
Regster of Deeds of Mana (RDM) dened on the ground that he s
an aen and cannot acqure and n ths |ursdcton.
- Krvenko fed as sut n the CFI of Mana by means of a %ons$lta.
- CFI affrmed RDM's refusa hence ths appea.
< After the brefs have been presented, Krvenko fed a moton to
wthdraw the appea.
- The case was aready voted upon and the ma|orty decson was
beng prepared.
- Rue 52, secton 4 of the Rues of Court: Court's dscreton to grant
a wthdrawa of appea after the brefs have been presented.
- The moton for wthdrawa stated no reason whatsoever and the
Soctor Genera was agreeabe to t.
- Whe the moton was pendng, a new crcuar of the Department
of |ustce (Crcuar No. 128) dated August 12, 1947 was ssued,
nstructng a regster of deeds to accept for regstraton a
transfers of resdenta ots to aens.
- RDM naturay obeyed the crcuar.
I((%E
Jurisdiction:
WON the Court shoud grant the moton wthdrawng an appea wth
the ssuance of the sad crcuar of the DO|
+rimar( Issue:
WON an aen under our Consttuton may acqure resdenta and.
3ELD
The Court dened the moton wthdrawng the appea. Grantng a
wthdrawa of appea s dscretonary upon the Court after the brefs
have been presented.
- It cannot grant appeant's moton wthdrawng hs appea ony
because the consttutona ssue shoud be avoded.
- Aso, the wthdrawa was dened because under the
crcumstances, partcuary (1! the %#r%$lar of the :e)t. of 1$st#%e
#ss$e& .h#le th#s %ase .as )en&#ng /efore the Co$rt an& or&er#ng
all reg#sters of &ee& to a%%e)t for reg#strat#on all transfers of
res#&ent#al lots to al#ens, together .#th the %#r%$mstan%e that (2!
)ro/a/l+ a s#m#lar 4$est#on ma+ ne*er %ome $) aga#n /efore the
Co$rt, the effect of the wthdrawa woud be offensve to the
opnon reached by a ma|orty of the members of the Court after
ong and exhaustve deberatons on the consttutona queston.
- To aow the wthdrawa under such crcumstances s equvaent to
toeratng an offense to the consttuton, offense that may be
permanent.
- The Court hed that NO, aens may not acqure prvate or pubc
agrcutura ands, ncudng resdenta ands. (The votes were: 8-3)
- The case was decded under secton 5 of Artce XIII of the 1935
Consttuton whch s more comprehensve and more absoute n
the sense that t PROHIBITS THE TRANSFER TO ALIENS OF ANY
PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LAND INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL LAND
WHATEVER ITS ORIGIN MIGHT HAVE BEEN.
- Ths provson coses the ony remanng avenue through whch
agrcutura resources may eak nto aens' hands.
- Ths provson shoud be read n connecton wth secton 1 of
Artce XIII "natura resources, wth the excepton of pubc
agrcutura and, sha not be aenated" and wth respect to pubc
agrcutura ands, ther aenaton s mted to Fpno ctzens.
- Ths provson secures the pocy of natonazaton n Sec. 1 of Art.
XIII.
- It woud be fute to prohbt the aenaton of pubc ands to aens
f, after a, they may be freey so aenated upon ther becomng
prvate agrcutura ands n the hands of the Fpno ctzens.
- atio The Court sha rue that t cannot grant a moton
wthdrawng an appea f such a wthdrawa woud resut to a
permanent offense to the Consttuton.
- The Court sha rue that under the provsons of the Consttuton,
aens are not aowed to acqure the ownershp of urban or
resdenta ands n the Phppnes and as a consequence, a
acqustons made n contraventon of the prohbtons snce the
Consttuton became effectve are nu and vod )er se and a/ #n#t#o.
LEE 3O!G 3O) V D&VID
FERNANDO; December 27, 1972
'&C#(
- Pedro, Smeon, Rosta and Leonco LEE HONG HOK, pettoners
- Anano DAVID, the Hon. Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura
Resources, the Drector of Lands and Court of Appeas
- APPEAL by certorar from a decson of the Court of Appeas.
- Pettoners wanted to decare nu and vod Davds Torrens Tte
(OCT No. 510) because they aeged to own the dsputed lot (226
m
2 2
Lot 2892, whch s a porton of Lot 2863 of the Naga Cadastre)
through accretion.
- |un 18, 1958 - Drector of Lands ssued Davd a saes patent of the
ot
- Aug 26, 1959 - Undersecretary of Agrcutura and Natura
Resources ssued Davd a Msceaneous Saes Patent No. V-1209
- Oct 21, 1959 - Naga Cty Regster of Deeds ssued Davd OCT No.
510

I((%E(
1. WON Lot 2892 came nto beng not by recamaton but by
a00retion, therefore a prvate - not pubc - doman (ths court says
t does not warrant any further consderaton)
2. WON authortatve doctrnes do not precude a party other than
the government to dspute the vadty of a grant (ths court says t
does)
3. WON the ndefeasbe character of a pubc and patent after one
year shoud not be recognzed (ths court says t shoud be).
3ELD
1. 7m)er#$m s the government authorty possessed by the state
whch s appropratey embraced n the concept of soveregnty, and
&om#n#$m s the states capacty to own or acqure property.
Domnum enabes the state to provde for the expotaton and use
of ands and other natura resources, ncudng ther dsposton,
except as mted by the Consttuton. The present Consttuton
adopts the modfed concept of 3$re regal#a, n whch a ands - n
Span and ts earer decrees - were hed by the Crown, and the
present Consttuton hods that t s the state whch possesses
ownershp (Caro v Insuar Government). In Vaenton v Murcano
(1904), a ands hed wthout proper and true deeds of grant be
restored to us (the Spansh state) accordng as they beong to us, n
order that after reservng before a what to us or to our vceroys,
audencas, and governors may seem necessary for pubc squares,
ways, pastures and commons n those paces whch are peoped,
takng nto consderaton not ony ther present condton, but aso
ther future and ther probabe ncrease, and after dstrbutng to
the natves what may be necessary for tage and pasturage,
confrmng n them n what they now have and gvng them more f
necessary, a the rest of sad ands may reman free and
unencumbered for us to dspose of as we may wsh.
In Montano v Insuar Government, unapproprated pubc ands
consttutng the pubc doman the soe power s vested n
Congress.
The and n queston s not prvate property; the Drector of Lands
and the Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura Resources have
aways sustaned the pubc character thereof by vrtue of
recamaton (and not by accreton whch the pettoners cam).
Therefore, the ony remedy for the appeants s an acton for
reconveyance on the ground of fraud commtted by respondents.
There was no fraud; everythng was done n the open - notces
were pubshed, sae and awardng of and to Davd were pubc
offca acts of a Government offcer.
#*e +ispute+ lot is a result o/ re0lamation5 t*ere/ore a
pu6li0 lan+.
2. Ony the government, represented by the Drector of Lands, or
the Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura Resources, can brng an
acton to cance a vod certfcate of tte ssued pursuant to a vod
patent. Pantffs are prvate partes and not government offcas,
and therefore cannot nsttute for the nufcaton of Davds
Torrens Tte, snce they are not the regstered owners of the and
and they had not been decared as owners n the cadastra
proceedngs of Naga Cadastre after camng t as ther prvate
property.
Mannang v Consoacon states that "|t|he fact that the grant was
made by the government s undsputed. Whether the grant was n
conformty wth the aw or not s a queston whch the government
may rase, but unt t s rased by the government and set asde,
the defendant (n ths case, the respondents) cannot queston t.
The egaty of the grant s a queston between the grantee and the
government."
Onl1 t*e government 0an Luestion t*e vali+it1 o/ t*e title
w*i0* it gave.
3. Snce the fng of the saes appcaton of Davd and durng a
the proceedngs n connecton wth sad appcaton, up to the
actua ssuance of the saes patent n hs favor, t*e appellants
+i+ not put up an1 opposition or a+verse 0laim t*ereto. Ths
s fata to them because after the regstraton and ssuance of the
certfcate and dupcate certfcate of tte based on a pubc and
patent, the and covered thereby automatcay comes under the
operaton of RA 496 sub|ect to a the safeguards provded theren.
0fter reg#strat#on an& #ss$an%e of the %ert#f#%ate an& &$)l#%ate
%ert#f#%ate of t#tle /ase& on a )$/l#% lan& )atent, the lan& #s
a$tomat#%all+ %o*ere& /+ >0 496 --- # =96 > =% sa+s that an+
4$est#on %on%ern#ng the *al#&#t+ of the %ert#f#%ate of t#tle /ase& on
fra$& sho$l& /e ra#se& .#th#n one +ear from the &ate of the
#ss$an%e of the )atent. "hereafter the %ert#f#%ate of t#tle /ase&
thereon /e%omes #n&efeas#/le.
In Aquno v Drector of Lands (1919), "|t|he proceedngs under
the Land Regstraton Law and under the provsons of Chapter VI of
the Pubc Land Law are the same n that both are aganst the
whoe word, both take the nature of |udca proceedngs, and for
both t*e +e0ree o/ registration issue+ is 0on0lusive an+
/inal.
In Cabacug v Lao, "a hoder of a and acqured under a free patent
s more favoraby stuated than that of an owner of regstered
property. Not ony does a free patent have a force and effect of a
Torrens Tte, but n addton the person to whom t s granted has
kewse n hs favor the rght to repurchase wthn a perod of fve
years."
Davds appcaton was a renewa of hs deceased wfes
appcaton, wheren hs deceased wfe occuped Lot 2892 snce
1938.
#*e +e0ision o/ Court o/ &ppeals o/ $anuar1 M15 1F81 an+ its
resolution o/ "ar0* 1G5 1F8F are a//irme+
GO!4&LE( V "&CO(
FERNANDO; |uy 31, 1975
'&C#(
- Gonzaes assaed the vadty of EO 30 as an mpermssbe
encroachment by the Presdent on the egsatve prerogatve
- EO 30 has the creaton of a trust for the beneft of the Fpno
peope under the name and stye of the Cutura Center of the
Phppnes to awaken our peopes conscousness n the natons
cutura hertage and encourage ts preservaton, promoton and
deveopment
- In the Court of Frst Instance, stress was ad on the funds
admnstered by the Center as comng from donatons and
contrbutons and not a snge centavo rased by taxaton
- Respondents argue EO 30 as: 1) egtmate exercse of executve
power and that 2) ths s suppementary to rather than a dsregard
of RA 4165 creatng the Natona Commsson on Cuture and that
3) pettoner Gonzaes dd not have the requste personaty to
contest as a taxpayer the vadty of EO 30 as the funds hed by the
Cutura Center came from donatons and contrbutons and not one
centavo came from taxaton
- Later, PD 15 was ssued creatng the Cutura Center of the
Phppnes
I((%E(
1. WON pettoner has standng
2. WON EO 30 encroached on the egsatve prerogatve
3. WON the ssue on the vadty of EO 30 became moot and
academc
3ELD
1. The court sha rue that taxpayer has no ega standng to
queston executve acts that do not nvove the use of pubc funds
2.The court sha rue that the Presdent had the power to
admnster a trust created by an agreement wth a foregn country
3.EO 30 was superseded by PD 15, hence the sut has assumed a
moot and academc character
!biter
(1)-The funds admnstered by the Presdent of the Phppnes came
from donatons and contrbutons and not by taxaton
-There was that absence of the requste pecunary or monetary
nterest
(2) -As head of State, as Chef Executve, as spokesman n
domestc and foregn affars, n behaf of the estate as )arens
)atr#ae, the Presdent has authorty to mpement for the beneft of
the Fpno peope by creatng the Cutura Center consstng of
prvate ctzens to admnster the prvate contrbutons and
donatons gven not ony by the US government but aso by prvate
persons
-Creaton of rues governng the admnstraton of a trust may be
concurrenty exercsed by the Presdent and Congress
0ecision :7SM7SSE:, No standng and even f there was, st no
encroachment and that t s aready moot and academc
C%4 V (ECO' E!VIO!"E!# &!D !&#%&L E(
PER CURIAM; 6 December 2000
'&C#(
- epu6li0 &0t !o. ;MH1 (Indgenous Peopes Rghts Act of 1997)
- In+igenous peoplesC0ultural 0ommunities (IPCICC)
-Group of peope dentfed by sef-ascrpton and ascrpton by
others, who have contnuousy ved as organzed communty on
communay bounded and defned terrtory;
- &n0estral lan+s (sec.3b IPRA)
- Land occuped by members of the ICC/IP snce tme mmemora,
by themseves or through ther predecessors-n-nterest, under
cams of ndvdua or tradtona group ownershp,... ncudng
resdenta ots, rce terraces or paddes, prvate forests, swdden
farms, and tree ots.
- &n0estral +omains (sec.3a IPRA)
- Areas generay beongng to ICC/IP comprsng ands, nand
waters, coasta areas and natura resources theren, hed under a
cam of ownershp, occuped or possessed by ICC/IP, by themseves
or through ther ancestors, communay or ndvduay snce tme
mmemora contnuousy to the present... ncudng ancestra ands,
forests, pasture, resdenta, agrcutura, and other ands
ndvduay owned, huntng grounds, bura grounds, worshp areas,
bodes of water, mnera and other resources, and ands no onger
occuped excusvey by ICC but to whch they had tradtona
access, partcuary the home ranges of ICC who are st nomadc or
shftng cutvators.
- +rocedure: C%4 an+ E%OP&5 as 0iti,ens an+ ta:pa1ers
(upon the pea that questons rased are of "transcendenta
mportance"), /ile+ /or PO3I.I#IO! (drectng NCIP to cease
from mpementng IPRA and ts IR; DENR Secretary to cease from
mpementng Crcuar 2; DBM Secretary to cease from dsbursng
pubc funds) an+ "&!D&"%( (commandng DENR Secretary to
compy wth hs duty of carryng out the State's consttutona
mandate) assailing 0ertain provisions o/ &;MH1 (IP&) as
%!CO!(#I#%#IO!&L.
I((%E(
The foowng provsons of RA8371 and ts Impementng Rues
were questoned -
(1) Sectons 3a, 3b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 57, 58 amount to an unlaw/ul
+eprivation o/ t*e (tateNs owners*ip over L&!D( O' #3E
P%.LIC DO"&I! (ncudng the mneras and other natura
resources theren) n voaton of the REGALIAN DOCTRINE.
(2) Sectons 3a and 3b violate t*e IG3#( O' PIV&#E
L&!DO7!E(.
(3) Sectons 51, 52, 53, 59, 63, 65, 66 whch defne the powers and
|ursdcton of the NCIP and make customary aw appcabe to the
settement of dsputes nvovng ancestra domans and ands,
violate t*e D%E POCE(( 0lause of the Consttuton.
(4) Rue 7, Part 2, Secton 1 of the NCIP Admn. Order No.1, whch
provdes that "the admnstratve reatonshp of the NCIP to the
Offce of the Presdent s characterzed as a atera but autonomous
reatonshp for purposes of pocy and program coordnaton", s
nvad as it in/ringes upon t*e Presi+entNs power o/ 0ontrol
over e:e0utive +epartments.
3ELD
There was !O "&$OI#2 VO#E reached as the |ustces were
equay dvded at 7-7. The case was then redeberated upon, but
the votng st remaned the same. Accordngy, t*e petition is
DI("I((ED pursuant to Rue 56, Secton 7 of the Rues of Cv
Procedure.
- Those n favor of dsmssng petton:
|. Kapunan, |. Davde |r., |. Beoso, |. Ousumbng, |. Santago, |.
Puno, |. Mendoza
- Those n favor of grantng petton:
|. Panganban, |. Vtug, |. Meo, |. Pardo, |. Buena, |. Gonzaga-Reyes,
|. De Leon
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!(
P%!O D+ismissE
- Development o/ t*e egalian Do0trine in t*e P*ilippine
Legal (1stem
A. Laws of the Indes: A ands became the excusve patrmony and
domnon of the Spansh Crown.
B. Vaenton vs. Murcano (1904): "Whe the State has aways
recognzed the rght of the occupant to a deed f he proves a
possesson for a suffcent ength of tme, yet t has aways nssted
that he must make that proof before the proper admnstratve
offcers, and obtan from them hs deed, and unt he dd that the
State remaned the absoute owner."
C. Pubc Land Acts (PLA) and the Torrens System: Under the PLA,
"pubc and" referred to all lan&s of the )$/l#% &oma#n .hose t#tle
st#ll rema#ne& #n the go*ernment. The Torrens system requres that
the government ssue an off#%#al %ert#f#%ate of t#tle attestng to the
fact that the person named s the owner of such property
descrbed. The certfcate of tte s ndefeasbe and mprescrptbe.
D. Phppne Consttutons: The Regaan Doctrne was estabshed
1935 Consttuton, and t was reterated n the 1973 and 1987
Const.
-Provsons of IPRA do NOT contravene the Consttuton
(1) &D an+ &L are t*e private propert1 o/ t*e IP an+ +o not
0onstitute part o/ t*e lan+ o/ t*e pu6li0 +omains5 as t*e1
*ave a0Luire+ su0* properties 61 !&#IVE #I#LE (&DC&L) an+
#OE!( #I#LE (&L).
a. Nat#*e t#tle )res$mes that the lan& #s )r#*ate an& .as ne*er
)$/l#%. Carno s the ony case that specfcay and categorcay
recognzes natve tte.
b. For purposes of regstraton under the PLA and the Land
Regstraton Act, the IPRA expressy converts AL nto pubc
agrcutura and whch may be dsposed of by the State. The
necessary mpcaton s that AL s prvate.
(I) #*e rig*t o/ owners*ip an+ possession 61 t*e ICCCIP to
t*eir &D is a -I*I/,0 9orm o9 o:ners&ip an+ +oes not
in0lu+e t*e rig*t to alienate su0* &D.
a. It s prvate because t s not part of the pubc doman. But the
AD s owned n common by the ICC/IP and not by one partcuar
person. Communa rghts to the and are hed not ony by the
present possessors but extends to a generatons of the ICC/IP.
b. Lands may be transferred ony to the members of the same
ICC/IP; n accord wth customary aws; and sub|ect to the rght of
redempton of IP for a perod of 15 years f transferred to a non-
member of IP.
c. The ndgenous concept of ownershp exsts even wthout a paper
tte.
(M) #*e egalian Do0trine *as not 6een violate+ as t*e rig*t
o/ ICCCIP to +evelop lan+s an+ ! wit*in t*e &D +oes not
+eprive t*e (tate o/ owners*ip over t*e !5 an+ o/ 0ontrol
an+ supervision in t*eir +evelopment an+ e:ploitation.
a. Sec.7a mts the rght of ownershp of the IP. But the
Impementng Rues of IPRA ncuded the term "natura resources"
n such rghts of ownershp whch s CONTRARY to Sec.2 Art.12 of
the 1987 Const.
b. The sma-scae utzaton of NR n Sec.7b of the IPRA s aowed
under par.3, Sec.2 Art.12 of the 1987 Const. Managng and
conservng these resources, by ther very nature, necessary re|ect
utzaton n a arge-scae.
c. The arge-scae utzaton of NR n Sec.57 of IPRA may be
harmonzed wth par.1 and 4, Sec.2 Art.12 of the 1987 Const. The
grant of prorty rghts mpes that there s a superor entty that
owns these resources and who has the power to grant such
preferenta rghts.
(G) IP& is a re0ognition o/ our a0tive parti0ipation in t*e
International In+igenous "ovement.
VI#%G DgrantE
(1) IPRA effectvey wthdraws from the pubc doman the ancestra
domans, as the noton of communty property nvoves matters of
propretary nterest AND aso some forms of sef-governance over
the property.
(2) The decson of the US Court n Carno vs. Insuar Government
cannot overrde the coectve w of the peope expressed n the
Consttuton.
(3) Art.12 sec.5 par.2- "The consttutona am s to get Congress to
ook cosey nto the customary aws and, wth specfcty and by
proper rectas, to hew them to, and make them part of the stream
of aws." There shoud be a baancng of nterests between specfc
need of IP and mperatves of natona nterest.
)&P%!&! D+ismissE
-Premnary ssues-
(1) The petton presents an actua controversy.
(2) Pettoners have the requste standng.
As ctzens, they possess the pubc rght to ensure that the natona
patrmony s not aenated and dmnshed n voaton of the
Consttuton. As taxpayers, they possess the rght to restran
offcas from wastng pubc funds through the enforcement of an
unconsttutona statute.
(3) The petton for prohbton and mandamus s not an mproper
remedy.
(4) Notwthstandng the faure of pettoners to observe the
herarchy of courts, (petton shoud have been fed n the ower
court frst) the Court assumes |ursdcton n vew of the mportance
of the ssues rased.
-Substantve ssues-
(1) #*e provisions re0ogni,ing owners*ip o/ IP over t*e
an0estral lan+s an+ +omains are not un0onstitutional.
a. The Regaan theory does not negate natve tte to ands hed n
prvate ownershp snce tme mmemora.
b. Sec.1 Art.12 of 1935 Consttuton does not state that certan
ands whch are "absoutey necessary for soca wefare and
exstence," sha then be owned by the State.
c. Se%. 0rt.12 e,)resses so*ere#gn #ntent to D)rote%t the r#ghts of
7P to the#r 05.D Framers dd not ntend Congress to decde whether
AD sha be pubc or prvate property, as they have acknowedged
that AD sha be treated as prvate property.
(I) #*e provisions o/ &;MH1 +o not in/ringe upon t*e
(tateNs owners*ip over t*e natural resour0es wit*in t*e
an0estral +omains.
a. Sec.3a merey defnes coverage of AD; #ts )$r)ose #s &ef#n#t#onal
an& not &e%larat#*e of a r#ght or t#tle. It does not pso facto convert
the character of such natura resources as prvate property of the
IP.
b. The concept of natve tte to natura resources, unke natve
tte to and, has NOT been recognzed n the Phppnes.
(M) #*e provisions o/ IP& pertaining to t*e utili,ation o/
natural resour0es are not un0onstitutional.
a. Sec.2(3) Art.12 of the 1935 Const allo.s small-s%ale $t#l#6at#on
of nat$ral reso$r%es /+ #ts %#t#6ens. The State retans fu contro
over such actvtes, through the mposton of requrements and
condtons for the exporaton, deveopment and utzaton of the
NR.
b. En&er se%.7/, r#ghts g#*en to 7P are &$l+ %#r%$ms%r#/e& an& are
l#m#te&:
to manage and conserve NR wthn terrtores;
to beneft and share the profts from aocaton and utzaton
of NR;
to negotate the terms and condtons for exporaton of NR n
the area (refers ony to the premnary actvty of search and
prospectng of mnera resources);
to an nformed and ntegent partcpaton n the formuaton
and mpementaton of any pro|ect that w affect AD;
to receve |ust and far compensaton for any damages
sustaned by such pro|ects;
to effectve measures by the government to prevent any
nterference wth these rghts
c. Pr#or#t+ r#ghts &o not mean e,%l$s#*e r#ghts. The grant of sad
prorty rghts s not a banket authorty to dsregard pertnent aws
and reguatons.
-Coroary ssues-
(1) IP& +oes not violate t*e Due Pro0ess 0lause.
a. The property rghts referred to n Sec.56 ("Exstng property
regmes shoud be protected") beong to those acqured by
ndvduas, .hether #n&#geno$s or non-#n&#geno$s. Where the aw
does not dstngush, the courts shoud not dstngush.
b. The fact that NCIP sha be composed excusvey of members of
IP does not mean that the NCIP s ncapabe, or w appear to be so
ncapabe, of deverng |ustce to the non-IP.
c. The appcaton of customary aw #s l#m#te& to &#s)$tes
%on%ern#ng )ro)ert+ r#ghts or relat#ons n determnng the
ownershp and extent of the AD, where ALL partes nvoved are
members of IP.
(I) Implementing ules o/ IP& +oes not in/ringe upon t*e
Presi+entNs power o/ 0ontrol over t*e E:e0utive
Department.
Athough NCIP s ndependent to a certan degree, t was )la%e& /+
Congress D$n&er the 2ff#%e of the Pres#&entD and as such, s st
sub|ect to the Presdent's power of contro and supervson under
Sec.17 Art.7 of the Const.
"E!DO4& D+ismissE
(1) It s not a |ustcabe controversy.
|udca power cannot be extended to matters whch do not nvove
actua cases or controverses wthout upsettng baance of power.
(2) Pettoners do not have ega standng.
In Tanada v. Tuvera, when the queston s one of pubc rght and
the ob|ect of mandamus s to procure the enforcement of a pubc
duty, the peope are regarded as the rea party n nterest. But n
ths case, "what pubc rght s there for pettoners to enforce when
the IPRA does not appy to them except n genera and n common
wth other ctzens??"
P&!G&!I.&! DgrantE
- RA8371 s unconsttutona n that-
&. It re0ogni,es an+ grants rig*ts o/ owners*ip over Olan+s
o/ t*e pu6li0 +omain w*i0* are owne+ 61 t*e (tate.O
.. It lessens t*e aut*orit1 o/ t*e (tate to oversee t*e
Oe:ploration5 +evelopment5 an+ utili,ation o/ natural
resour0esO w*i0* s*oul+ un+er 6e t*e /ull 0ontrol an+
supervision o/ t*e (tate.O
(1) A Fpnos, whether ndgenous or not, are sub|ect to the
Consttuton. Because of the State's mpementaton of poces
consdered to be for the common good, all those %on%erne& ha*e to
g#*e $), $n&er %erta#n %on&#t#ons, e*en *este& r#ghts of o.nersh#).
(2) The concept of ownershp of ICC/IP, even f t s a coectve
rght, st perpetuay wthdraws such property from the contro of
the State and from ts en|oyment by other ctzens of the Repubc.
Ownershp of NR s n ALL the Fpno peope.
(3) Sec.3 Art.12 of the Const provdes that Fpno ctzens may
acqure no more than 12 hectares of aenabe pubc and, but
>0'(71 s)ea=s of no area or term l#m#ts to an%estral lan&s an&
&oma#ns. Based on ethnographc surveys, soctor genera
estmates that AD cover 80% of our mnera resources and between
8 and 10 mon of the 30 mon hectares of and n the country.
(4) Sec.2 Art.12 of the Const provdes that the State may drecty
undertake exporaton, deveopment and utzaton of NR or t coud
enter nto co-producton, |ont venture or producton-sharng
agreements wth Fpno ctzens or enttes at east 60% Fpno-
owned (and such agreements sha not exceed 25 years). RA 8371
renqushes ths power n favor of ICC/IP and they may even
exercse such rght wthout any tme mt.
(5) Yes, ICC/IP shoud be gven prorty n the use of ther AD and AL
but the+ sho$l& not /e grante& )er)et$al o.nersh#) an& %ontrol of
the naton's substanta weath to the excuson of other aw-abdng
Fpno ctzens.
.5I/. #4#IN./ /H, ./#/,
&# BVI GE!E&L POVI(IO!(
Sec 3: The State sha not be sued wthout ts consent
(3&%' V CO%# O' &PPE&L(
REGALADO; November 27, 1990
'&C#(
Pettoner Loi+a @. (*au/, a Fpno by orgn and marred to an
Amercan who s a member of the Unted States Ar Force, apped
for the vacant poston of Gudance Counseor, GS 1710-9, n the
Base Educaton Offce at Cark Ar Base, for whch she s emnenty
quafed. She had functoned as a Gudance Counseor at the Cark
Ar Base at the GS 1710-9 eve for approxmatey four years at the
tme she apped for the same poston n 1976. her appcaton was
forwarded to Anthony Pers, who had some reservatons regardng
Shaufs work experence. Pers then requested the Cvan
Personne Offce to ntate mmedate nqury to the Centra
Oversea Rotaton and Recrutng Offce (CORRO). Pers was then
nformed by CORRO that an Edward B. Isakson was seected for the
poston. Isakson was paced on the ros at Cark Ar Base on
|anuary 1977.
By reason of her non-seecton to the poston, Loda Shauf
fed an equa empoyment opportunty compan aganst
respondents for aeged dscrmnaton aganst the former by
reason of her natonaty and sex. Tra court hed n favor of Shauf,
whe Court of Appeas reversed decson.
I((%E(
1. WoN the offcers of the US Armed Forces performng offca
functons n accordance wth the powers vested n them
under the Phppne Amercan Mtary Bases Agreement are
mmune from sut (even w/o consent of the State).
2. WoN the respondents are guty of dscrmnaton aganst
pettoner Shauf.
3. WoN Shauf shoud be awarded compensatory damages.
3ELD
As expressed n Art. XVI, Secton 3 of the 1987 Const, the state
may not be sued wthout ts consent. Ths s a generay accepted
prncpe of Internatona aw under Art II, Secton 2. The case at
hand may be construed as a sut aganst the US, snce the damages
to Shauf w be taken from funds of the US. However, t s aso
appcabe to compants fed aganst offcas of the state for acts
aegedy performed by them n the dscharge of ther dutes.
Unauthorzed acts of government offcas are not acts of the State,
and an acton aganst the offcas by one whose rghts have been
nvaded by such offenses, s not a sut aganst the State covered by
the rue of mmunty. The respondents are beng sued n ther
prvate and persona capacty. #*e rationale /or t*is ruling is
t*at t*e +o0trine o/ state immunit1 0annot 6e use+ as an
instrument /or perpetrating an in<usti0e. & pu6li0 o//i0ial
ma1 6e lia6le in *is personal private 0apa0it1 /or w*atever
+amage *e ma1 *ave 0ause+ 61 *is a0t +one wit* mali0e
an+ in 6a+ /ait*5 or 6e1on+ t*e s0ope o/ *is aut*orit1 or
<uris+i0tion.
0octrine Yes. Regaado s concurred wth by Meenco-Herrera,
Paras, Pada, and Sarmento.
1. The US offcers are NOT IMMUNE from sut even wthout the
consent of the State.
2. Yes the pettoners are guty of dscrmnaton aganst
Shauf. Despte Shaufs quafcatons, Pers dd not even
consder the formers appcaton. Snce the pettoner was
abe to prove the dscrmnaton n the non-consderaton of
her appcaton, the burden shfted to the respondents. The
respondents however answered wth mere denas of the
charges.
3. Shauf need not be awarded compensatory damages. There
was no proof that she reay was to earn $39,662 f she was
empoyed at the tme. Damages w*i0* are merel1
possi6le are spe0ulative. #*ere must 6e an a0tual
proo/ o/ loss.
72LIE V &&!G
GUTIERREZ; May 28, 1992
'&C#(
Pettoners Wye and Wams were the assstant admnstratve
offcer and commandng offcer, respectvey, of the US Nava base
n Subc. Respondent Aurora Rarang was an empoyee n the Offce
of the Provost Marsha assgned as the merchandse contro guard.
Wye, as one of hs dutes, supervsed the pubcaton of the "Pan
of the Day" a day pubcaton that featured among others, an
"acton ne nqury". On feb.3,1978, an nqury was pubshed
sayng that confscated goods were beng consumed/ used for
persona beneft by the merchandse contro nspector and that a
certan "Aurng" was, n hersef, a dsgrace to the offce. Rarang,
beng the ony person named Aurng n the sad offce, went to
press an acton for damages aganst Wye and Wams an& the ES
Na*al -ase. (That Rarang was ndeed the Aurng mentoned n the
nqury was proven by the apoogy etter ssued by Wye for the
nadvertent pubcaton.)
She aeged that the artce consttuted fase, n|urous, and
macous defamaton and be tendng to mpeach her honesty,
vrtue and reputaton exposng her to pubc hatred, contempt and
rdcue.
Defendants aeged that (1) defendants acted n performance of
ther offca functons as offcers of the US Navy and are thus
mmune from sut (2) US Nava Base s mmune from sut beng an
nstrumentaty of the US Government and (3) the RTC has no
|ursdcton over the sub|ect matter and the partes nvoved.
Lower court rung: defendants pay damages because acts were not
offca acts of the US government, but persona and tortous acts
(whch are not ncuded n the rue that a soveregn country cant
be sued wthout ts consent). Sut aganst US Nava Base was
dsmssed.
I((%E(
1. WON offcas of the US Nava Base nsde Phppne Terrtory, n
dscharge of ther offca dutes, are mmune from sut.
2. Are US offcers who commt a crme or tortous act whe
dschargng offca functons st covered by the prncpe of state
mmunty from sut?
3ELD
1. Yes, they are mmune.
atio Offcers of the US Navy as nstrumentates of the US
government are mmune from sut (but ony when they are actng/
dschargng ther offca functons. ths s part of the second
ssue)
Art.XVI, sec.3 of 1987 const provdes that state may not be sued
wthout ts consent. But even wthout ths affrmaton, court s st
bound by the doctrne of ncorporaton
22
. The doctrne s appcabe
not ony to suts aganst the state but aso to compants fed
aganst offcas for acts aegedy performed by them n dscharge
of ther offca dutes.
The tradtona rue of mmunty excepts a State from beng sued n
the courts of another State wthout ts consent or waver. Ths rue
s a necessary consequence of the prncpes of ndependence and
equaty of States.
Because the actvtes of states have mutped, t has been
necessary to dstngush them -- between soveregn and
governmenta acts (|ure mper) and prvate, commerca and
propretary acts (|ure gestons). The resut s that State mmunty
now extends ony to acts |ure mper.
There s no queston, therefore, that the pettoners actvey
partcpated n screenng the features and artces n the POD as
part of ther offca functons. Under the rue that U.S. offcas n
the performance of ther offca functons are mmune from sut,
then t shoud foow that the pettoners may not be hed abe for
the questoned pubcaton.
It s to be noted, however, that the pettoners were sued n ther
persona capactes for ther aeged tortous acts n pubshng a
beous artce.
2. No.
22
)r#n%#)les are &eeme& #n%or)orate& #n the la. of e*er+ %#*#l#6e& state as a %on&#t#on an& %onse4$en%e of #ts
mem/ersh#) #n the so%#et+ of nat#ons. E)on #ts a&m#ss#on to s$%h so%#et+, the state #s a$tomat#%all+ o/l#gate& to
%om)l+ .#th these )r#n%#)les #n #ts relat#ons .#th other states
atio Our aws and, we presume, those of the Unted States do not
aow the commsson of crmes n the name of offca duty. The
genera rue s that pubc offcas can be hed personay
accountabe for acts camed to have been performed n connecton
wth offca dutes where they have acted $ltra *#res or where there
s showng of bad fath. Immunty from sut cannot nsttutonaze
rresponsbty and non-accountabty nor grant a prveged status
not camed by any other offca of the Repubc.
Under Art. 2176 of the cv code, whoever by act or omsson,
causes damage to another, there beng faut or neggence s
obged to pay for the damage done. Such faut or neggence, f
there s no pre-exstng contractua reaton between the partes, s
caed a 4$as#-&el#%t and s governed by the provsons of ths
Chapter.
Indeed the mputaton of theft contaned n the POD dated February
3, 1978 s a defamaton aganst the character and reputaton of the
prvate respondent. Pettoner Wye hmsef admtted that the
Offce of the Provost Marsha expcty recommended the deeton
of the name Aurng f the artce were pubshed. The pettoners,
however, were neggent because under ther drecton they ssued
the pubcaton wthout deetng the name "Aurng." Such act or
omsson s $ltra *#res and cannot be part of offca duty. It was a
tortous act whch rdcued the prvate respondent. The pettoners,
aone, n ther persona capactes are abe for the damages they
caused the prvate respondent.
%!I#ED (#&#E( O' &"EIC& V G%I!#O
CRUZ; February 26, 1990
'&C#(
- Petton for certorar and prohbton wth premnary n|uncton to
revew the decson of the RTC of Angees Cty
- Ths case s a consodaton of four separate cases, a nvovng
state mmunty.
G.. !o. H88JH
- Prvate respondents Vaenca, Tangao and de Par sued offcers
of the U.S. Ar Force n Cark Ar Base n connecton wth the bddng
conducted by them for contracts for barberng servces n the sad
base.
- Respondents sought to compe the Phppne Area Exchange
(PHAX) and ndvdua pettoners to cance the award to defendant
Dzon, to conduct rebddng and to aow respondents by a wrt of
premnary n|uncton to contnue operatng concessons pendng
tgaton.
- Respondent court ssued an order drectng pettoners to mantan
the status quo.
- Petitioners /ile+ motion to +ismiss an+ opposition to t*e
petition /or preliminar1 in<un0tion on t*e groun+ t*at t*e
a0tion was a suit against t*e %nite+ (tates5 w*i0* *as not
waive+ its non-sua6ilit15 an+ t*at as o//i0ialsCemplo1ees o/
t*e %.(. &ir 'or0e5 +e/en+ants were also immune /rom suit.
- Tra Court dened the appcaton for a wrt of premnary
n|uncton as we as the moton to dsmss.
- Petitioners /ile+ /or 0ertiorari an+ pro*i6ition wit*
preliminar1 in<un0tion in t*e (C.
G.. !o. HFGHJ
- Genove fed a compant for damages aganst Lamacha, Besa,
Cartaa and Orascon for hs dsmssa as cook n the U.S. Ar Force
Recreaton Center at |ohn Hay Ar Staton n Baguo Cty. After
nvestgaton, the ff: facts were ascertaned:
- Genove poured urne nto the soup stock used n cookng
vegetabes served to cub customers.
- Lamacha, as cub manager, suspended Genove and
referred the case to the Board of Arbtrators, whch found hm
guty and recommended hs dsmssa.
- De/en+ants5 <oine+ 61 t*e %nite+ (tates o/ &meri0a5
move+ to +ismiss t*e 0omplaint5 alleging t*at Lama0*ia5 as
an o//i0er o/ t*e %.(. &ir 'or0e5 was immune /rom suit5 an+
t*at t*e suit was in e//e0t against t*e %nite+ (tates5 w*i0*
*as not given its 0onsent to 6e sue+.
- Sad moton was dened.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'0
G.. !o. ;JJ1;
- Lus Bautsta, was empoyed as barracks boy n Camp O Donne,
an extenson of Cark Ar Base.
- He was arrested foowng a buy-bust operaton conducted by
ndvdua pettoners Kng, Dye and Bostck, offcers of the Unted
States Ar Force and speca agents of the Unted States Ar Force
Offce of Speca Operatons, for voatng R.A. 6425, or the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
- Bautsta was dsmssed from empoyment.
- He then fed a compant for damages aganst ndvdua
pettoners.
- Petitioners /ile+ a motion to +ismiss t*e 0omplaint on t*e
groun+ t*at t*e +e/en+ants were a0ting in t*eir o//i0ial
0apa0it1 w*en t*e1 +i+ t*e a0ts 0omplaine+ o/ an+ t*at t*e
suit was against t*e %nite+ (tates wit*out its 0onsent.
- Moton was dened by respondent |udge.
G.. !o. ;JI5;
- Prvate respondents fed a compant for damages for n|ures
sustaned as a resut of the acts of heren pettoners.
- Accordng to pantffs (heren respondents), defendants (heren
pettoners) beat them up, handcuffed them and uneashed dogs on
them whch bt them and caused them extensve n|ures.
- Accordng to defendants, the pantffs were arrested for theft and
were btten by the dogs because they were struggng and resstng
arrest.
- #*e %nite+ (tates o/ &meri0a an+ t*e in+ivi+uall1 name+
+e/en+ants move+ to +ismiss t*e 0ase an+ argue+ t*at t*e
suit was in e//e0t a suit against t*e %nite+ (tates w*i0* *as
not given its 0onsent to 6e sue+. #*e +e/en+ants also
0laime+ immunit1 /or a0ts +one 61 t*em in t*e per/orman0e
o/ t*eir o//i0ial /un0tions.
- Tra court dened the moton to dsmss, as we as the moton for
reconsderaton.
I((%E(
1. WON the cases aganst the pettoners were suts aganst the
Unted States, to whch t has not consented
2. WON the ndvdua pettoners may nvoke mmunty from sut by
mere asserton that the acts were done by them n the
performance of ther offca functons as offcers or agents of the
Unted States
3ELD
17 atio If the case nvoves the state enterng nto a contract n
the dscharge of ts commerca, propretary and prvate functon,
then the state w be deemed to have mpedy consented to the
sut.
easonin;
- The rue that a state may not be sued wthout ts consent now
expressed n Artce XVI, Secton 3, of the 1987 Consttuton, s one
of the generay accepted prncpes of nternatona aw.
- A states are soveregn equas and cannot assert |ursdcton over
the other.
- The rue says that a state may not be sued wthout ts consent,
whch ceary mports that t may be sued f t consents.
- Consent may be express or mped.
- Express-emboded n a genera or speca aw
- Imped-when the state enters nto a contract or t commences
tgaton
- However, not a contracts operate as a waver of non-suabty-a
dstncton must be made between contracts entered nto n a
states governmenta and soveregn capacty or prvate, propretary
and commerca capacty
- The atter mpes waver of non-suabty, the former does not.
* If t s not proven that the acts were done by the ndvdua
pettoners n the performance of ther offca functons as offcers
or agents of the Unted States, then they may not nvoke mmunty
form sut.
- The doctrne of state mmunty s aso appcabe to
compants fed aganst offcas of the state for acts aegedy
performed by them n the dscharge of ther dutes.
- #*e /a0t t*at t*e a0ts were +one 61 t*e in+ivi+ual
petitioners in t*e per/orman0e o/ t*eir o//i0ial /un0tions as
o//i0ers or agents o/ t*e %nite+ (tates is a matter o/
evi+en0e5 and charges aganst them may not be dsmssed |ust by
mere asserton. If the ndvdua pettoners are found abe for
persona torts n whch the US tsef s not nvoved, then they aone
must satsfy the |udgment.
I) uling- (0))l#%at#on of rat#o #n the &#fferent %ases!
G.. !o. H88JH
- Barbershops sub|ect of the concessons granted by US are
commerca enterprses operated by prvate persons. The contracts
beng decdedy commerca, pettoners cannot pead any
mmunty.
- Petton s dsmssed.
G.. !o. HFGHJ
- Restaurant servces offered at the |ohn Hay Ar Staton partake of
the nature of a busness enterprse undertaken by the US
government n ts propretary capacty. Pettoners cannot nvoke
the doctrne of state mmunty to |ustfy the dsmssa of the
damage sut aganst them.
- However, notwthstandng these consderatons, compant n the
court beow must st be dsmssed. Athough suabe, the
pettoners are not abe because of the strength of evdence that
they acted propery n termnatng Genove for hs dsgustng
offense.
- Petton s granted, case aganst pettoners s dsmssed.
G.. !o. ;JJ1;
- Indvduay-named pettoners were actng n the exercse of ther
offca functons, and not n ther prvate or unoffca capacty.
- It foows that for dschargng ther dutes as agents of the Unted
States, they cannot be drecty mpeaded for acts mputabe to
ther prncpa, whch has not gven ts consent to be sued.
- Petton s granted, case aganst pettoners s dsmssed.
G.. !o. ;JI5;
- The court hestates to make a concuson because the record s
too meager to ndcate f the ndvdua pettoners were actng n
the dscharge of ther offca functons, or had actuay exceeded
ther authorty.
- Ony after needed nqury n the ower court sha have
determned n what capacty the ndvdua pettoners were actng
w the Court determne f the doctrne of state mmunty s
appcabe.
- Petton s dsmssed and the respondent court s drected to
proceed wth the hearng and decson.
$%("&G P3ILIPPI!E( V. !LC
PUNO; December 15, 1994
'&C#(
- 'loren0io (a0ramento was one of the 74 se%$r#t+ ass#stan%e
s$))ort )ersonnel (SASP) workng at |USMAG Phs.; he had been
wth |USMAG for more than 20yrs (1969-1992); was dsmssed on
Apr 27, 1992
- He fed a compant wth the Dept. of Labor and Empoyment
(March 31, 1992) on the ground that he was egay suspended
and dsmssed; asked for renstatement
- $%("&G fed a Moton to Dsmss nvokng ts immunit1 /rom
suit as an agency of US; aso aeged ack of empoyer-empoyee
rep and t has no |urdca personaty to sue and be sued
- La6or &r6iter Dane Cueto dsmssed compant for want of
|ursdcton
- !LC reversed-|USMAG had ost ts rght not to be sued based
on: 1) estoppe- |USMAG faed to refute the empoyer-empoyee
rep under the contro test and 2) t has waved ts rght to
mmunty from sut when t hred Sacramentos servces.
- !LC reed on 8arr+ 5+ons *s. ES0 ("US Govt waved ts
mmunty from sut by enterng nto a contract of stevedorng
servces, and thus, t submtted tsef to the |ursdcton of oca
courts")
- $%("&G now contends that the NLRC commtted grave abuse
of dscreton n reversng the abor arbters decson, n sayng
that |USMAG waved ts mmunty from sut, n fndng an
empoyer-empoyee rep between |USMAG and Sacramento, and
n consderng |USMAG estopped from denyng that respondent
s ts empoyee for faure to present proof.
I((%E
Is the |ont Unted States Mtary Assstance Group to the RP
(|USMAG-PHIL) mmune from sut?
3ELD
atio As t stands now, the appcaton of the doctrne of mmunty
from sut has been restrcted to soveregn or governmenta
actvtes. The mante of state mmunty cannot be extended to
commerca, prvate and propretary acts.
easonin;
- When |USMAG took the servces of Sacramento, t was performng
a governmenta functon on behaf of the US pursuant to the
Mtary Assstance Agreement. The sut s, n effect, one aganst the
US and, consderng that the US has not waved or consented to the
sut, the compant cannot prosper.
- Immunty of State from sut s one of the unversay recognzed
prncpes of nternatona aw that the Phs. Recognzes and adopts
as part of the aw of the and. Ths s anchored on the prncpe of
soveregn equaty of states (an equa has no power over an equa).
0iscussion
- 3istori0al .a09groun+ o/ $%("&G
- was created pursuant to the Mtary Assstance Agreement
dated March 21, 1947 between the Phppnes and the US;
prmary task was to advse and assst the Phppnes on ar
force, army and nava matters
- n 1991, US manfested ts preparedness to provde funds to
cover the saares of SASP and securty guards, the rent of
bdgs, and housng, and cost of uttes
- Memoran&$m of 0greement between AFP and |USMAG-Phs
- Saares- for securty guards and SASP
- SASP are empoyees of the AFP; under the tota operatona
contro of the Chef |USMAG-Phs; AFP to assume the
severance/retrement pay abty for a apponted SASP
- It s apparent that when |USMAG took the servces of prvate
respondent, t was performng a governmenta functon on
behaf of the US. Hence, the sut s, n effect, one aganst the US
Government.
- In ths |ursdcton, Immunty of State s a unversay accepted
prncpe. Immunty s understood as the exempton of the state
and ts organs from the |udca |ursdcton of another state.
- A state cannot be sued n the courts of another state, wthout
ts consent or waver. An e:0eption to the doctrne, however,
was recognzed n Santos, et al *s. Santos, et al@ "the state tsef
may be sued, even wthout ts consent, because by enterng
nto a contract, the soveregn state has descended the eve of
the ctzen and ts consent to be sued s mped from the very
act of enterng nto such contract."
- t was n ths ght that the state mmunty ssue n 8arr+ 5+ons
*s. ES0 was decded
- E:0eption evolve+- exstence of contract does not, per se,
mean that soveregn states may, at a tmes, be sued n oca
courts.
- ES *s. >$#6@ "...does not appy where the contract reates to
the exercse of ts soveregn functons"
- ES *s. 8on. >o&r#go, et al@ "pettoners cannot nvoke the
doctrne of state mmunty...the reason s that by enterng
nto the empoyment contract wth Genove n the dscharge
of ts propretary functons, t mpedy dvested tsef of ts
soveregn mmunty from sut."
- SASP are empoyees of the AFP as consstenty contended by
|USMAG, thus t s not estopped from denyng empoyer-
empoyee reatonshp
0ispositive Petton for certor s granted, resouton of NLRC s
reversed and set asde
P!. V CI
FERNANDO; |anuary 31, 1978
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'(
'&C#(
- Pettoner PNB receved a notce of garnshment whch was served
upon ts branch on OC by an authorzed deputy sherff of the court
*** What was sought to be garnshed was the money of the
Peopes Homeste and Housng Corporaton deposted at the
pettoners branch n OC n order to satsfy the decson of the
respondent court
- PNB fed a moton to quash the notce based on 2 grounds:
1. t*e appointment o/ respon+ent Gil6ert Loren,o as
aut*ori,e+ +eput1 s*eri// to serve t*e writ o/ e:e0ution was
0ontrar1 to law
FFF PN- %onten&s that the ser*#%e of not#%e /+ the a$thor#6e&
&e)$t+ sher#ff of th#s %o$rt %ontra*enes Se%. 11 of Common.ealth
0%t No. 10
2(
FFF 7t arg$es that it is t&e s&eri99 o9 ?C and not t&e Cler@ o9
t&is court :&o is its ,)<o99icio .&eri99, that has the a$thor#t+ to
ser*e the not#%e of garn#shment an& that the a%t$al ser*#%e of the
latter off#%er of sa#& not#%e #s therefore not #n or&er
I. t*e /un+s su6<e0t o/ t*e 0*ara0ter >ma1 6e pu6li0 in
0*ara0ter?
- COIR dened PNBs moton to quash a notce of garnshment
I((%E
A2N an or&er of Co$rt of 7n&$str#al >elat#ons (C27>! &en+#ng, for
la%= of mer#t, )et#t#oner PN-Gs mot#on to 4$ash a not#%e of
garn#shment
24
%an /e st#gmat#6e& as a gra*e a/$se of &#s%ret#on.
3ELD
No. Theres no grave abuse of dscreton.
atio
1. RA No. 4201 has aready repeaed Commonweath Act No. 103,
and under ths aw, t s now the Cerk of ths Court that s at the
same tme the Ex-Offco Sherff. Therefore, the Cerk of ths Court
has the authorty to ssue wrts of executon and notces
23
"A wrts and processes ssued by the court sha be served and executed free of charge by provnca sherffs
or by any person authorzed by ths court, n the same manner as wrts and processes of Courts of Frst Instance
24
Garnshment - a ega warnng concernng the attachment of property to satsfy a debt
-- aso the attachment of such property
2. Frst, the tone n assertng ths argument was even rresoute.
And 2
nd
, the Peopes Homeste and Housng Corporaton had a
|urdca exstence enabng t to sue and be sued. The premse that
the funds spoken of are pubc n character may be accepted n the
sense that t was government-owned. However, t does not foow
that they were exempt from garnshment.

((( v C&
MELENCIO-HERRERA; February 21. 1983
'&C#(
- In March 1963, spouses Davd B. Cruz and Socorro Canco Cruz
apped for and were granted a rea estate oan by the SSS wth
ther resdenta ot ocated at Lozada Street, Sto. Rosaro, Pateros,
Rza covered by Transfer Certfcate of Tte No. 2000 of the
Regster of Deeds of Rza ts coatera. Pursuant to ths rea estate
oan sad spouses executed on March 26, 1963 the correspondng
rea estate mortgage orgnay n the amount of P39,500.00 whch
was ater ncreased to P48,000.00 coverng sad property.
- On |uy 9, 1968, defendant SSS fed an appcaton wth the
Provnca Sherff of Rza for the forecosure of the rea estate
mortgage executed by the pantffs on the ground, among others
that the condtons of the mortgage have been broken snce
October 1967 wth the defaut on the part of the mortgagor to pay
n fu the nstaments then due and payabe on the prncpa debt
and the nterest thereon, and a of the monthy nstaments due
and payabe thereafter up to the present date. Notce of the
Sherff's Sae of the mortgaged property was ntay pubshed n
the Sunday Chronce n ts ssue of |uy 14, 1968 announcng the
sae at pubc aucton of the sad mortgaged property. Despte
pantffs etter to defendant demandng the atter to wthdraw
forecosure and dscontnue the pubcaton of the notce of sae of
ther property camng that pantffs were up-to date n the
payment of ther monthy amortzatons, defendant SSS st went
on to pubsh second and thrd pubcatons of forecosure.
- On |uy 24, 1968, the pantff Cruz spouses nsttuted before the
Court of Frst Instance of Rza an acton for damages and
attorney's fees aganst the SSS and the Provnca Sherff of Rza
aegng, among other thngs, that they had fuy and regousy
pad ther monthy amortzatons and had not defauted n any
payment. Tra Court rendered |udgment aganst defendant SSS.
Court of Appeas affrmed Tra Courts decson. Hence, ths petton
for revew on certorar.
I((%E(
(1) WON the Cruz spouses had, n fact, voated ther rea estate
mortgage contract wth the SSS as woud have warranted the
pubcatons of the notces of as woud have forecosure
(2) WON the SSS s mmune from sut
(3) WON SSS can be hed abe for damages.
3ELD
(1) atio On questons of apprecaton of evdence, factua
fndngs of the ower court are not sub|ect to revew by ths Court.
easonin; The reasonng used precedence to arrve at ths rato.
Appyng the rue, t can be sad therefore, that the fndngs of the
Court of Appeas that the mortgage-debtors have not n fact
voated ther contract because SSS accepted ther nstament
payments athough gven ate w not be dsturbed on appea.
(2) atio An entty performng governmenta functons, by vrtue
of the expct provson of an enabng aw, s deemed to have
waved mmunty from sut, athough t does not thereby concede
ts abty.
easonin; Agan, the eg of reasonng s rato by precedence,
ctng Rayo v. Court of Frst Instance of Buacan, (110 SCRA 457),
whch nvoved the Natona Power Corporaton as an entty
performng governmenta functons. In that case t sad, "It s
suffcent to say that the government has organzed a prvate
corporaton, put money n t and has aowed t to ste and be sued
n any court under ts charter." The enabng aw s R.A. No. 6395.
Appyng ths rue n the present case, the SSS own organc act
specfcay provdes that t can sue and be sued n Court, the
enabng aw beng R.A. 1161 and P.D. 24. Hence, theres a
statutory consent by the SSS to wave rght of mmunty from sut.
(3) atio No mora and/or temperate damages s to be ad|udged
aganst a party whch commenced forecosure proceedngs n vew
of the rreguar payments of the debtor of hs nstaments.
0ecision (1) The rung of the ower courts reman. Whe t s true
that the payments of the monthy nstaments were prevousy not
reguar, t s a fact that as of |une 30, 1968 the appeee, Davd B.
Cruz and Socorro Conco-Cruz were up-to-date and current n the
payment of ther monthy nstaments. Havng accepted the pror
ate payments of the monthy nstaments, the appeant coud no
onger suddeny and wthout pror notce to the mortgagors appy
for the extra-|udca forecosure of the mortgage.
(2) SSS s deemed to have waved ts mmunty from sut.
(3) SSS cannot be hed abe for damages.
2otin; 10 |ustces concur, 1 dssent, 3 took no part.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
"&)&(I& D+issentE
What was commtted n ths case was a tortous act (grossy
neggent borderng on mace or bad fath) of the empoyees of
the SSS n forecosng the mortgage of the wrong mortgage-
debtor
SSS cannot be hed abe for the damages caused by the tortous
acts of ts empoyees n the performance of ther reguar
functons
SSS as a pubc nstrumentaty for soca wefare s mmune from
sut despte ts Charter provson that t can sue and be sued.
SSS exercses purey governmenta functons and cannot be sued
wthout ts consent for the tortous acts of ts personne
CO""I(IO!E O' P%.LIC 3IG37&2( V .%GO(
DE CASTRO; March 31, 1980
'&C#(
- Appea from a decson of the Court of Frst Instance of Cebu
- The facts of the case s as per above except that the
compensaton determned s now the ssue. The vaue of the
property was pegged at P 2.37 per square meter based on the prce
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'
used n the conveyance of severa peces of property n the same
area at about the same tme. However, the court a quo n
determnng due compensaton, consdered the vaue of the pesos
to the doar at the tme the case was beng decded. So nstead of
|ust P14,615.79 the amount awarded became P49,459.34. (the
orgna amount of 14,615.79 dvded by 2 {the exchange rate at
the tme of the takng to be P2.00 to US$1.00} and the product
beng mutped by 6.775). Based on ths amount, the court
determned nterest to be P145,410.44. Tota due from the
government, ncudng attorneys fee of ten percent amounted to
P214,356.75.
- Apparenty, the court a quo, n revsng upward the compensaton,
reed on Artce 1250 of the New Cv Code whch provdes for
payment of an obgaton n an amount dfferent from what has
been agreed on because of the superventon of extra-ordnary
nfaton or defaton.
- The government, through the Soctor Genera, appeaed the
decson contendng that the court a quo erred n appyng ts
method and voated the hgh courts order to make as a bass of
compensaton the prce or the vaue of the and when t was taken.
The Soctor Genera aso took ssue wth the award of ten percent
as attorneys fees as exhorbtant consderng that Amgabe ony
sought P5,000.00.
I((%E(
1. WON the compensaton awarded by the court s proper
2. WON the attorneys fees awarded were exorbtant
3ELD
1) In a revew of the reevant Artce of the New Cv Code, the
Court noted that the provson appes ony f there was a contract
or agreement. Usng the precedent, Veasco vs Mana Eectrc (L-
19390 December 29, 1971), the court expressed the vew that the
takng of prvate property by the government n the exercse of ts
emnent doman does not gve rse to a contractua obgaton.
Snce there s no contract to speak of because the obgaton of the
government sought to be enforced does not orgnate from
contract, then Artce 1250 does not appy. The |ust compensaton
s the vaue of the property at the tme t was taken.
- Amgabe s st entted to nterest on the prce of the and as
there was no moton of reconsderaton from the Soctor
Genera before the decson became fna.
2) The Court noted that Amgabe ony sked for P5,000
attorneys fees and hence the amount requested s reasonabe.
0ispositive |udgment appeaed s reversed as to the bass of
determnng the prce of the and. And the prce of P2.37 per square
meter or tota amount s P14,615.79 pus sx percent per annum
nterest reckoned from the tme the property was taken to the tme
the compensaton s pad.
4!2,N*,N/
%!I#ED (#&#E( V DO
LADD; May 19, 1903
'&C#(
The defendants, Fred Dorr et a., have been convcted upon a
compant chargng them wth the offense of wrtng, pubshng,
and crcuatng a scurrous be aganst the Government of the
Unted States or the Insuar Government of the Phppne Isands.
The compant s based upon secton 8 of Act No. 292 of the
Commsson
25
. The aeged be was pubshed as an edtora n the
ssue of "Mana Freedom" of Apr 6, 1902. Vruent attacks on the
Cv Commsson and ts members, for nstance the appontment of
one Tecson as |ustce of the peace and the brandng of Trndad H.
Pardo de Tavera as a coward and a rasca, were expcty rased
among others. Hence, ths appea.
25
"Every person who sha utter sedtous words or speeches, wrte, pubsh, or crcuate scurrous bes aga#nst
the 9o*ernment of the En#te& States or the 7ns$lar 9o*ernment of the Ph#l#))#ne 7slan&s, or whch tend to dsturb
or obstruct any awfu offcer n executng hs offce, or whch tend to nstgate others to caba or meet together
for unawfu purposes, or whch suggest or ncte rebeous conspraces or rots, or whch tend to str up the
peope aganst the awfu authortes, or to dsturb the peace of the communty, the safety and order of the
Government, or who sha unknowngy concea such ev practces, sha be punshed by a fne not exceedng
two thousand doars or by mprsonment not exceedng two years, or both, n the dscreton of the court."
(7tal#%s m#ne!
I((%E(
1. What s meant n secton 8 of Act No. 292 by the expresson "the
Insuar 9o*ernment of the Phppnes"?
26

2. Whether the artce consttutes an offense under secton 8 of
Act No. 292?
3ELD
1. atio The term "government" as empoyed n Act No. 292 of
the Unted States Phppne Commsson s used n the abstract
sense of the exstng potca system as dstngushed from the
concrete organsm of the Government - the Houses of Congress
and the Executve.
easonin; There are two admssbe meanngs of the term
"government" provded: a. n a genera and abstract sense, the
exstng aws and nsttutons of the Isands, or b. the aggregate of
the ndvduas by whom the Government of the Isands s, for the
tme beng, admnstered. The frst admssbe defnton s derved
from the act of (the U.S.) Congress on |uy 14, 1798, commony
known as the Sedton Act)
27
2. atio The pubcaton of an artce can not be punshed under
Act No. 292 of the Unted States Phppne Commsson as havng
sedtous tendences uness t has a tendency to produce
dsaffecton or a feeng ncompatbe wth a dsposton to reman
oya to the Government and obedent to ts aws.
- The pubcaton of an artce abusve of the Unted States
Phppne Commsson and ts members s not a be upon the
Government and does not fa wthn sad Act No. 292 of the Unted
States Phppne Commsson.
easonin; The artce n queston contans no attack upon the
government system of the U.S., and though grossy abusve as
respects both the Commsson as a body and some of ts ndvdua
26
N.B. We need to answer ths queston frst n order to be abe to resove the next ssue.
2<
"It s made an offense to wrte, prnt, utter, pubsh or cause to procure to be wrtten, prnted, uttered, or
pubshed or to knowngy and wngy assst or ad n wrtng, prntng, utterng, or pubshng any fase,
scandaous, and macous wrtng or wrtngs aganst the Government of the Unted States, or the Presdent of
the Unted States, wth ntent to defame the sad Government, or ether House of sad Congress, or the sad
Presdent, or to brng them, or ether of them, nto contempt or dsrepute, or to excte aganst them or ether any
of them the hatred of the good peope of the Unted States."
members, t contans no attack upon the governmenta system by
whch authorty of the U.S. s enforced n these Isands.
Furthermore, t s the character of the men who are ntrusted wth
the admnstraton of the government that the wrter s seekng to
brng nto dsrepute by mpugnng the purty of ther motves, ther
pubc ntegrty, and ther prvate moras, and the wsdom of ther
pocy. The pubcaton of the artce therefore, no sedtous
tendency beng apparent, consttutes no offense under secton 8 of
Act No. 292)
0ispositive The |udgment of convcton s reversed and the
defendants are acqutted.
/,I/!8
&# I !&#IO!&L #EI#O2
The natona terrtory comprses the Phppne archpeago, wth a
the sands and water embraced theren, and a other terrtores
over whch the Phppnes has soveregnty or |ursdcton,
consstng of ts terrestra, fuva and aera domans, ncudng ts
terrtora sea, the seabed, the subso, the nsuar sheves, and
other submarne areas. The waters around, between, and
connectng the sands of the archpeago, regardess of ther
breadth and dmensons, form part of the nterna waters of the
Phppnes.
EP%.LIC &C# !O. MJG8
&n &0t to De/ine t*e .aselines o/ t*e #erritorial (ea o/ t*e
P*ilippines
- Approved: 17 |une 1961
Ahereas %la$ses -
1. The foowng form part of terrtora sea of the Phs:
A waters wthn mts set forth n Treaty of Pars (1898),
US-Span treaty (1900), and US-Brtan treaty (1930).
A waters around, between and connectng the varous
sands of the archpeago.
A waters beyond outermost sands of archpeago but
wthn mts of boundares set forth n such treates.
2. The basenes from whch the terrtora sea of Phppnes s
determned consst of straght nes |onng approprate ponts of
the outermost sands of the archpeago.
Se%t#on 1 - It defnes and descrbes the basenes for the terrtora
sea of the Phs.
Se%t#on 2 - A waters wthn the basenes provded n sec1 are
consdered nand or nterna waters of the Phs.
EP%.LIC &C# !O. 5GG8
.&. 5GG8 s smpy an Act to correct typographca errors n
Secton 1 of R.A. 3046 defnng the basenes of the terrtora sea of
the Phppnes. It further says that the defnton of the basenes of
the terrtora seas of the Phppne Archpeago as provded n ths
Act s wthout pre|udce to the deneaton of the basenes of the
terrtora sea around the terrtory of Sabah, stuated n North
Borneo, over whch the Repubc of the Phs. has acqured domnon
and soveregnty. Approved September 18, 1968.
PE(IDE!#I&L DECEE !O. 15F8
|une 11, 1978 - Pres. Marcos ssued P.D. 1596 decarng certan
area (the Kaayaan Isand Group or more commony known as the
"Spraty Isands") as Phppne terrtory as we as provdng for ts
Government and Admnstraton.
sad area s vta to the securty and economc survva of
the Phppnes and much of t s part of the contnenta
margn of the Ph. archpeago
the area does not egay beong to any state or naton and
by reason of hstory, ndspensabe need, effectve
occupaton and contro estabshed n accordance wth
nternatona aw, sad area (ncudng ts sea-bed, subso,
contnenta margn and ar space) must be deemed to
beong to and sub|ect to the soveregnty of the Ph.
other states cams to some of the area cannot preva over
the cams of the Phppnes on ega, hstorca, and
equtabe grounds
named t "Kaayaan" and consttuted t as a dstnct and
separate muncpaty of Paawan
admnstraton and government sha be vested n the
Secretary of Natona Defense or n other Cv govt. or AFP
offcers as may be desgnated by the Pres.
PE(IDE!#I&L DECEE !O. 15FF
Esta6lis*ing an E:0lusive E0onomi0 4one an+ /or Ot*er
Purposes
- Excusve Economc Zone (EEZ) s a seazone over whch a state
has speca rghts over the exporaton and use of marne resources
- A#=#)e&#a
- It extends from two hundred nautca mes beyond and from the
basenes from whch the terrtora sea
- when t overaps another EEZ, the common boundares sha be
determned by countres
- What can be exercsed n EEZ?
o Soveregnty rghts for the purpose of exporaton and
expotaton, conservaton and management of the natura
resources
o Excusve rghts and |ursdcton wth respect to the
estabshment and utzaton of artfca sands, off-shore
termnas, nstaatons and structures, the preservaton of the
marne envronment, ncudng the preventon and contro of
pouton, and scentfc research
o Other rghts recognzed by nternatona aw or state practce
- It aso restrcts other countres from exercsng the rghts above n
our EEZ.
- Recognzes that other countres have EEZs
- The Presdent may authorze a government agency to promugate
rues for the purposes of ths decree
- Anyone who voates any provson of the decree sha be sub|ect
to a fne (P2,000-P100,000) or mprsonment (6 mos - 10 yrs) or
both. Vesses and other equpment or artces used sha be
confscated.
+,!+-,
PE&".LE
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.''
We, the soveregn Fpno peope, mporng the ad of Amghty
God, n order to bud a |ust and humane socety and estabsh s
Government that sha embody our deas and aspratons, promote
the common good, conserve and deveop our patrmony, and
secure to ourseves and our posterty, the bessngs of
ndependence and democracy under the rue of aw and a regme of
truth, |ustce, freedom, ove, equaty, and peace, do ordan and
promugate ths Consttuton.
&# II DECL&&#IO! O' PI!CIPLE( &!D (#&#E POLICIE(
Sec 1: The Phppnes s a democratc and repubcan State.
Soveregnty resdes n the peope and a government authorty
emanates from them.

Sec 4: The prme duty of the Government s to serve and protect
the peope. The Government may ca upon the peope to defend
the State and, n the fufment thereof, a ctzens may be
requred, under condtons provded by aw, to render persona,
mtary or cv servce.

Sec 15: The State sha protect and promote the rght to heath of
the peope and nst heath conscousness among them.
Sec 16: The State sha protect and advance the rght of the peope
to a baanced and heathfu
&# III .ILL O' IG3#(
Sec 2:
Sec 7:
&# VII EBEC%#IVE DEP&#"E!#
Sec 4:
&# BVI GE!E&L POVI(IO!(
Sec 2:
&# BVIII #&!(I#O2 POVI(IO!(
Sec 25:
#EC(O! V. CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
VITUG; March 3, 2004
'&C#(
- On December 31, 2003, FP| fed hs certfcate of canddacy for
the poston of Presdent of the Phppnes under the Koasyon ng
Nagkakasang Ppno (KNP).
- In hs certfcate of canddacy, FP| represented hmsef to be
a natura-born ctzen.
- Hs rea name was stated to be "Fernando, |r." or "Ronad
Aan" Poe, born n Mana on August 20, 1939.
- On |anuary 9, 2004, Vctorno X. Forner fed a petton before the
COMELEC to dsquafy FP| and to deny due course or to cance hs
certfcate of canddacy on the ground that FP| made a matera
msrepresentaton n hs certfcate of canddacy by camng to be a
natura-born Fpno ctzen.
- Accordng to Forner, FP|s parents were foregners - hs
mother Besse Keey Poe was an Amercan and hs father
Aan F. Poe was a Spansh natona beng a son of Lorenzo
Pou, a Spansh sub|ect.
- Even f Aan F. Poe was a Fpno ctzen, he coud not have
transmtted hs Fpno ctzenshp to FP| because FP| was
egtmate.
- Aan F. Poe contracted a pror marrage to a certan
Pauta Gomez before marryng Besse Keey accordng
to an "uncertfed" copy of a supposed certfcaton of
the marrage n |uy 5, 1936.
- Even f no such pror marrage exsted, Aan F. Poe
marred Bessey Keey ony a year after the brth of FP|.
The marrage certfcate of ther marrage refected the
date of ther marrage to be on September 16, 1940
where Aan was 25, unmarred and Fpno, and Besse
was 22, unmarred and Amercan.
- FP|s earest estabshed ascendant was hs grandfather Lorenzo
Pou.
- No brth certfcate for Lorenzo but hs death certfcate
ssued upon hs death n September 11, 1954 at age 84
dentfed hm as a Fpno resdng n San Caros, Pangasnan.
- Lorenzo marred Marta Reyes and ther son Aan was born
on May 17, 1915. The brth certfcate of Aan showed that
hs father was an Espao father and to a mestza Espao
mother.
+rocedure
- In the |anuary 19, 2004 hearng before the COMELEC, Forner
presented the foowng peces of evdence:
- Copy of the certfcate of brth of FP|
- Certfed photocopy of an affdavt by Pauta Gomez-Poe
attestng that she had fed a bgamy case aganst Aan F. Poe
because of hs reatonshp wth Keey (n Spansh)
Engsh transaton of (b)
- Certfed copy of the certfcate of brth of Aan F. Poe
- Certfcaton from the drector of the Records Management
and Archves Offce statng that a Lorenzo Poe/Pou resded n
the Phppnes before 1907
- Certfcaton from OIC of the Archves Dvson of the Natona
Archves statng that there was no avaabe nformaton
regardng the brth of Aan F. Poe
- FP| presented the foowng peces of evdence among others:
- Certfcaton that there was no avaabe nformaton
regardng the brth of Aan F. Poe n the regstry of brths for
San Caros, Pangasnan
- Certfcaton by the OIC of the Archves Dvson of the
Natona Archves that there was no avaabe nformaton
about the marrage of Aan F. Poe and Pauta Gomez
- Certfcate of brth of Ronad Aan F. Poe
- Orgna Certfcate of Tte f the Regstry Deeds of
Pangasnan n the name of Lorenzo Pou,
- Copes of tax decaratons under the name of Lorenzo Pou
- Copy of certfcate of death of Lorenzo Pou
- Copy of marrage contract of Fernando Pou and Besse Keey
- Certfcaton ssued by the Cty Cv Regstrar of San Caros,
Pangasnan statng that the records of the brth of the sad
offce from 1900 to May 1946 were destroyed durng Word
War II
- |anuary 23, 2004 - COMELEC dsmssed the Forner petton for
ack of mert and Forner fed a moton for reconsderaton on
|anuary 26, 2004. The moton was dened by the COMELEC en banc
on February 6, 2004.
- February 10, 2004 - Forner fed a petton before the Supreme
Court, prayng for TRO, a wrt of premnary n|uncton or any other
resouton that woud stay the fnaty and/or executon of the
COMELEC resoutons.
- The two other pettons (Tecson and Desdero v. COMELEC and
Veez v. Poe) chaenge the |ursdcton of the COMELEC and assert
that ony the Supreme Court has orgna and excusve |ursdcton
to resove the basc ssue on the case.
I((%E(
1. Does the Court have |ursdcton over the three cases fed?
2. Can FP| be dsquafed as a presdenta canddate on the ground
that he materay msrepresented n hs certfcate of canddacy
that he was a natura-born Fpno?
3ELD
1. atio |ursdcton ssue
- The COMELECs decson on dsquafed cases nvovng a
presdenta canddate coud be eevated to and coud be
taken cognzance by the Supreme Court.
- The |ursdcton of the Supreme Court woud not ncude
cases drecty brought before t questonng the quafcatons
of a canddate for the presdency or vce-presdency before
the eectons are hed.
easonin;
- Does the Court have |ursdcton over the three cases fed?
- Forner petton - Yes
- In seekng the dsquafcaton of FP| before the COMELEC,
Forner reed on the foowng:
- H0 *er#f#e& )et#t#on see=#ng to &en+ &$e %o$rse or to
%an%el a %ert#f#%ate of %an&#&a%+ ma+ /e f#le& /+ an+
)erson e,%l$s#*el+ on the gro$n& that an+ mater#al
re)resentat#on %onta#ne& there#n as re4$#re& $n&er
Se%t#on 74 #s falseIJ (Omnbus Eecton Code, Sec. 78)
- HIthe Comm#ss#on shall ha*e e,%l$s#*e %harge of the
enfor%ement an& a&m#n#strat#on of all la.s relat#*e to the
%on&$%t of ele%t#ons for the )$r)ose of en&$r#ng free,
or&erl+ an& honest ele%t#onsIJ (Sec. 52, same)
- Han+ #ntereste& )art+J authorzed to fe a verfed
petton to deny or cance the certfcate of canddacy of
any nusance canddate (Art. 69, same)
- Decsons of the COMELEC on dsquafcaton cases may be
revewed by the Supreme Court under the Revsed Rues of
Cv Procedure (Rue 65). Asde from that, accordng to Art. 9,
Sec. 7 of the Consttuton, Han+ &e%#s#on, or&er or r$l#ng of
ea%h Comm#ss#on ma+ /e /ro$ght to the S$)reme Co$rt on
%ert#orar# /+ the aggr#e*e& )art+ .#th#n th#rt+ &a+s from
re%e#)t thereof.J
- |udca power s vested n the Supreme Court whch ncudes
the duty of the courts to sette actua controverses nvovng
rghts whch are egay demandabe and enforceabe and to
determne whether or not there has been grave abuse of
dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton on the
part of any branch of nstrumentaty of the government. (Art.
8, Sec. 1, Consttuton).
- Tecson petton and Veez petton - No
- The Tecson and Veez pettons make use of Art. 7, Sec 4(7)
of the Consttuton n assang the COMELECs |ursdcton
when t took cognzance of the Forner petton because the
HS$)reme Co$rt s#tt#ng en /an% shall /e the sole 3$&ge of all
%ontests relat#ng to the ele%t#on, ret$rns an& 4$al#f#%at#ons of
the Pres#&ent or V#%e Pres#&ent an& ma+ )rom$lgate #ts r$les
for the )$r)ose.J
- A "contest" refers to a post-eecton scenaro. Eecton
contests are ether eecton protests or a quo warranto whch
woud have the ob|ectve of dsodgng the wnner from offce.
The Rues of the Presdenta Eectora Trbuna state:
- H"r#/$nal shall /e the sole 3$&ge of all %ontestsIrelat#ng
to 4$al#f#%at#ons of the Pres#&ent or V#%e-Pres#&ent of the
Ph#l#))#nes.J (Rue 12)
- H0n ele%t#on %ontest #s #n#t#ate& /+ the f#l#ng of an
ele%t#on %ontest or a )et#t#on for 4$o-.arranto aga#nst the
Pres#&ent or V#%e-Pres#&ent.J (Rue 13)
- H2nl+ the reg#stere& %an&#&ate for Pres#&ent or V#%e-
Pres#&ent .ho re%e#*e& the se%on& or th#r& h#ghest
n$m/er of *otes ma+ %ontest the ele%t#on of the Pres#&ent
or the V#%e-Pres#&entI/+ f#l#ng a *er#f#e& )et#t#onI.#th#n
(0 &a+s after the )ro%lamat#on of the .#nner.J (Rue 14)
- The rues speak of the |ursdcton of the trbuna over
contests reatng to the eecton, returns and quafcatons of
the Presdent and the Vce Presdent and not canddates for
Presdent or Vce-Presdent.
2. atio FP|s ctzenshp ssue (Votng 6 concur, 7 dssent, 1
abstenton and 1 separate opnon)
- The dstnctons between egtmacy and egtmacy shoud
ony reman n the sphere of cv aw and shoud not unduy
mpnge on the doman of potca aw.
- The 1935 Consttuton confers ctzenshp to a persons
whose fathers are Fpno regardess of whether such chdren
are egtmate of egtmate.
easonin;
- Can FP| be dsquafed as a presdenta canddate on the ground
that he materay msrepresented n hs certfcate of canddacy
that he was a natura-born Fpno?
- Concept of ctzenshp
- Arstote descrbed a ctzen as a man who shared n the
admnstraton of |ustce and n the hodng of an offce and
the state woud be composed of such ndvduas n order to
acheve a sef-suffcent exstence.
- Ctzenshp deas wth rghts and enttements on the one
hand and wth concomtant obgatons on the other.
- Ctzenshp underwent changes n the 18
th
to 20
th
centures.
- In the 18
th
century, the concept was cv ctzenshp
whch estabshed the rghts necessary for necessary for
ndvdua freedom (eg. Rghts to property, persona berty
and |ustce)
- In the 19
th
century, t expanded to ncude potca
ctzenshp whch encompassed the rght to partcpate n
the exercse of potca power.
- In the 20
th
century, there was the deveopment of soca
ctzenshp whch ad emphass on the rght of the ctzen
to economc we-beng and soca securty.
- Internatonazaton of ctzenshp s an ongong
deveopment.
- Ctzenshp n the Phppnes from the Spansh tmes to the
present
- Durng the Spansh perod, no such term as "Phppne
ctzens," ony "Spansh sub|ects." In church records, natves
were dentfed as "ndos."
- Spansh aws on ctzenshp ncuded:
- Order de a Regenca of 1841
- Roya Decree of 23 August 1868 (defned the potca
status of chdren born n the Phppnes)
- Ley Extran|era de Utramar of 1870
- The 1876 Spansh Consttuton was not extended to the
Phppnes because the coony was to be governed by
speca aws.
- Accordng to the Cv Code of Span, the foowng were
Spansh ctzens:
- Persons born n Spansh terrtory
- Chdren of a Spansh father or mother even f they
were born outsde Span
- Foregners who have obtaned naturazaton papers
- Those who, wthout such papers, may have become
domced nhabtants of any town of the Monarchy
- Artce 10 of the Treaty of Pars stated that the cv and
potca status of the natve nhabtants woud be determned
by the US Congress. Spansh sub|ects and natves who
choose to reman n the terrtory may preserve ther
aegance to the Crown of Span by makng a decaraton of
ther decson wthn a year from the date of the ratfcaton of
the treaty. If no such decaraton s made, ther aegance
sha be hed renounced and they woud have adopted the
natonaty of the terrtory n whch they resde.
- Upon ratfcaton of the treaty, the natve nhabtants of
the Phppnes became Spansh sub|ects.
- They dd not become Amercan ctzens but were ssued
passports descrbng them to be ctzens of the Phppnes
entted to protecton of the US.
- Phppne Organc Act of 1902 - frst appearance of the term
"ctzens of the Phppne sands." A ctzen of the Phppne
sands under ths Act was:
- An nhabtant of the Phppnes and a Spansh sub|ect on
Apr 11, 1899.
- An nhabtant meant:
- A natve born nhabtant
- An nhabtant who was a natve of Span
- An nhabtant who obtaned Spansh papers on or
before Apr 11, 1899.
- Controversy as to the ctzenshp of a chd born between
Apr 11, 1899 and |uy 1, 1902 as there was no ctzenshp
aw n the Phppnes. The common aw prncpe |us so
(prncpe of terrtoraty) was sad to govern those born n
the Phppnes durng ths tme.
- Phppne Autonomy Act (|ones Law) - A natve born
nhabtant of the Phppnes was deemed to be a ctzen of the
Phppnes as of Apr 11, 1899 f:
- A Spansh sub|ect on Apr 11, 1899
- Resdng n the Phppnes on the sad date
- Snce that date, not a ctzen of another country
- 1935 Consttuton - provded that |us sanguns (bood
reatonshp) be the bass for ctzenshp, as stated n Sec. 1,
Art. 3:
- Those who are ctzens of the Phppne Isands at the
tme of the adopton of the Consttuton
- Those born n the Phppne Isands of foregn parents
who, before the adopton of ths Consttuton, had been
eected to pubc offce n the Phppne Isands
- "hose .hose fathers are %#t#6ens of the Ph#l#))#nes
- Those whose mothers are ctzens of the Phppnes and
upon reachng the age of ma|orty, eect Phppne
ctzenshp
- Those who are naturazed n accordance wth aw
- 1973 Consttuton - Corrected Sec. 1, Art. 3 (4) of the 1935
Consttuton, whch, when taken together wth the exstng
cv aw provsons woud provde that women woud
automatcay ose ther Fpno ctzenshp and acqure that of
ther foregn husbands. Ths was deemed dscrmnatory n
that t ncapactated the Fpno woman from transmttng her
ctzenshp to her egtmate chdren and requred egtmate
chdren of Fpno mothers to st eect Fpno ctzenshp
upon reachng the age of ma|orty. The provsons of Sec. 1,
Art. 3 of the 1973 Consttuton state that the foowng are
ctzens of the Phppnes:
- Those who are ctzens of the Phppnes at the tme of
the adopton of ths Consttuton
- "hose .hose fathers or mothers are %#t#6ens of the
Ph#l#))#nes
- Those who eect Phppne ctzenshp pursuant to the
provsons of the 1935 Consttuton
- Those who are naturazed n accordance wth aw
- Add Sec. 2 of the same artce whch provded that a
femae ctzen of the Phppnes who marres an aen
retaners her Phppne ctzenshp uness by her act or
omsson she s deemed to have renounced her ctzenshp
under the aw.
- 1987 Consttuton - amed to correct the rreguar stuaton
generated by the questonabe provso n the 1935
Consttuton whch outnes n Artce 4, Sec. 1 that the
foowng are Fpno ctzens:
- Those who are ctzens of the Phppnes at the tme of
the adopton of ths Consttuton
- Those whose fathers and mothers are ctzens of the
Phppnes
- Those born before |anuary 17, 1973 of Fpno mothers
who eect Phppne ctzenshp upon reachng the age of
ma|orty
- Those who are naturazed n accordance wth aw.
- The Consttuton requres that the Presdent of the Phppnes
shoud be, among the many requrements, a natura-born
ctzen of the Phppnes (Art. 7, Sec. 2).
- Natura born ctzen - ctzens of the Phppnes from brth
wthout havng to perform any act to acqure or perfect ther
Phppne ctzenshp
- Ctzenshp of FP| n reaton to grandfather Lorenzo Pous
ctzenshp and father Aan F. Poes ctzenshp
- Aan F. Poe was a Fpno ctzen because hs father
Lorenzo was aso Fpno.
- Concusons wth some degree of certanty to be drawn
from the documents presented:
- The parents of FP| were Aen Poe and Besse Keey.
- FP| was born to them on August 20, 1939.
- Aan F. Poe and Besse Keey were marred to each
other on September 16, 1940.
- The father of Aan F. Poe was Lorenzo Pou.
- At the tme of hs death on September 11, 1954,
Lorenzo Poe was 84 years od.
- The pubc documents submtted are deemed
trustworthy.
- The three documents (brth certfcate of FP|,
marrage certfcate of Besse and Aan and the
death certfcate of Lorenzo) were certfed true
copes of the orgnas.
- The Rues of Court (130, Secton 3) state that when
the sub|ect of the nqury s the content of the
document, no evdence sha be admssbe except
the orgna document tsef. One of the exceptons
however s when the orgna s a pubc record n the
custody of a pubc offce s recorded n a pubc
offce.
- As pubc documents, the three documents are
prma face proof of ther contents as stated n the
Rues of Court (130, Secton 44) that the entres n
offca records made by a pubc offcer n the
performance of hs duty are prma face evdence of
the facts stated theren. Ths s grounded on: of
offca duty n the preparaton of the statement
made. The penaty affxed to a breach of that duty.
Routne and dsnterested orgn of most such
statements. Pubcty of the record whch makes
more key the pror exposure of such errors as
mght have occurred
- It s safe to assume that Lorenzo Pous pace of
resdence at the tme of death was the same as hs
resdence before death n the absence of evdence that
woud attest otherwse. In that case, Lorenzo Pou woud
have benefted from the "en masse Fpnzaton" that
the Phppne B effected n 1902. Ths ctzenshp
woud then extend to hs son Aan F. Poe, FP|s father.
- Lorenzo born sometme n 1870 durng the Spansh
coonzaton perod.
- Forner argues that Lorenzo was not n the
Phppnes durng the cruca perod of 1898 to 1902
but there s no exstng record to attest to that cam.
- Forner faed to show that Lorenzo was out of the
country durng that same tme perod.
- Lorenzos resdence at the tme of death was n San
Caros, Pangasnan.
- For proof of faton or paternty, the mandatory rues of
cv aw woud not appy n ths case. The duy notarzed
decaraton by Ruby Keey Mangahas, FP|s materna aunt
and sster of hs mother Besse, provng the acts of Aan F.
Poe, recognzng hs own paterna reatonshp wth FP|
(vng wth Besse and the chdren n one house as one
famy) woud be accepted.
- Forner argues that the mandatory rues under cv rue
shoud appy because FP| was an egtmate son.
- Acknowedgement needed to estabsh paternty
(eg. Acknowedgement n the brth certfcate by
sgnng name)
- In the FP| case, there was no sgnature of Aan F.
Poe n the brth certfcate of FP|.
- 1950 Cv Code - acknowedgement of egtmate
chdren of three types whch had to be done durng
the fetme of the presumed parent:
- Vountary (expressy made n record brth, w
or a statement before the court n authentc
wrtng)
- Lega (n favor of fu bood brothers and ssters
of an egtmate chd who was recognzed as
natura)
- Compusory (demanded generay n cases when
the chd had n hs favor any evdence to prove
faton)
- The Famy Code has berazed the rues as
stated n Artces 172, 173 and 175 and the rues
have retroactve effect (Artce 255). These
provsons are there to govern the prvate and
persona affars of the famy. There s tte
ndcaton that ths shoud aso govern hs potca
rghts.
- Ths shoud be taken n the context of cv aw, beng
that branch of aw whch s concerned wth the
organzaton of the famy and reguaton of property.
The reevance of ctzenshp s exempfed n Art. 15 of
the Cv Code.
- The proof of faton for purposes of determnng
ctzenshp status shoud be deemed ndependent from
those prescrbed for cv code purposes. The ordnary
rues shoud govern.
- DNA testng to prove paternty coud aso be resorted
to.
- There s no |ursprudence to prove that an egtmate chd
cannot nhert hs fathers ctzenshp.
- Forner argues that even f Aan F. Poe were Fpno,
Aans ctzenshp woud not have been transmtted to FP|
because FP| was egtmate.
- FP| was aeged to be egtmate because of the
bgamous marrage between hs parents Aan and Besse
for the reason that Aan aegedy had a pror exstng
marrage to a certan Pauta Gomez. The Court hed that
the veracty of ths marrage between Pauta and Aan s
doubtfu.
- Forner aso contended that even f Aan and Besses
marrage was not bgamous, FP| was st egtmate
because hs parents were marred after he was born.
Forner based hs arguments on the cases of Morano v.
Vvo, Chongban v. de Leon and Serra v. Repubc.
- In the cases cted above, t s mportant to note the
s mota n each case. If the pronouncement of |us
sanguns was n the s mota, t woud consttute
doctrne courtesy of stare decss. If not, t s mere
obter dctum.
- In a of the mentoned cases, there was no |us
sanguns n the s mota of the cases. If there was
|us sanguns mentoned, t was mere obter dctum.
- The pronouncement that an egtmate chd cannot
nhert the fathers ctzenshp has no textua bass n the
Consttuton and voates the equa protecton cause.
- For |ursprudence that regarded an egtmate chd to
nhert the mothers ctzenshp, t was there to ensure a
Fpno natonaty for the chd wth the assumpton that
the mother woud gan custody.
- The 1935 Consttuton appes to FP| snce he was born
durng that tme perod and t states that Fpno ctzens
ncude those whose fathers are ctzens of the Phppnes.
0ecision
1. The evdence does not estabsh concusvey FP|s ctzenshp but
the evdence preponderates n hs favor to hod that he coud not
be guty of msrepresentaton n hs certfcate of canddacy.
Forner v. COMELEC DI("I((ED for faure to show grave abuse of
dscreton on the part of the COMELEC for dsmssng the orgna
petton.
2. Tecson v. COMELEC and Veez v, Poe DI("I((ED for want of
|ursdcton.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P%!O
$uris+i0tion
- SC s unanmous on the ssue of |ursdcton
- Tecson and Vadez pettons - pettoners cannot nvoke Art
VII S4 of the Consttuton because the word "contest" means
that the Court can ony be nvoked after the eecton and
procamaton of a Presdent or Vce Presdent. There can be no
"contest" before a wnner s procamed.
- Forner petton - as a revew under R64 n reaton to R65 of
the RoC, Court has |ursdcton.
- COMELEC dd not commt grave abuse of dscreton when t rued
that pettoner faed to prove by substanta evdence that FP|
deberatey msrepresented that he s a natura-born Fpno ctzan
n hs CoC
- Certorar power of the SC to revew COMELEC decsons s a
mted power
- Can ony reverse or change the COMELEC decson on the
ground that COMELEC commtted grave abuse of dscreton
(despotc, arbtrary or caprcous)
- The rung of the COMELEC denyng the petton to dsquafy
respondent Poe s based on substanta evdence, hence s not
despotc, whmsca or caprcous
- Romuadez-Marcos v COMELEC - msrepresentaton must not
ony be matera but aso deberate and wfu
- Pettoner has burden to prove evdence to show that (1)
respondent made msrepresentaton n hs CoC, (2) that
msrepresentaton s matera to the poston to whch he s
canddate and (3) that matera msrepresentaton was made
deberatey and wfuy
- Anayss of pettoners evdence
- Certfcate of brth - ony proved the date of brth of FP|, not
that he s not a natura-born ctzen
- Sworn statements of Pauta Gomez chargng Aan Poe wth
bgamy and marrage cense of between Aan Poe and Pauta
Gomez, presented thru Dr. Manapat - pued out because
they were fabrcated
- Respondent submtted affdavts that show that the fes
submtted by the pettoner are fabrcated by Manapats
nstructons
- Pettoner cams that the affdavts must not be
consdered because of technca grounds
- SC rued that the COMELEC s a quas-|udca body and
are not bound by the technca rues of evdence.
- Brth certfcate of Aan Poe - aso fabrcated; does not prove
anythng besdes brth
- Certfcaton of Dr. Manapat that the Natona Archves has
no record that Lorenzo Pou entered or resded n the
Phppnes before 1907 - manufactured
- Certfcaton of Estrea Domngo, OIC Archves Dv that the
Regster of Brths that there s no nformaton on the Natona
Archves on the brth of Aan Poe to the spouse Lorenzo Pou
and Marta Reyes - ack of nformaton s not proof
- Poe from the tme of hs nvountary brth has aways
conducted hmsef as Fpno
- "For faure of the pettoner to dscharge the burden of
proof, Poe s entted to an outrght dsmssa of the Forner
petton." Poe does not need to present contrary evdence for
the burden of proof s not shfted to hm.
- Assumng that COMELEC gravey abused ts |ursdcton and the
ssue of whether respondent Poe s a natura-born ctzen Fpno
shoud now be resoved, the Forner petton need not be remanded
to the COMELEC for further recepton of evdence
- Remand to the COMELEC to gve the pettoner a second
opportunty to prove hs case s a papabe error
- "In ght of these erudte opnons of our amc curae, t s
dayght cear that pettoner Forner s not ony wrng wth hs
facts but aso wrong wth hs aw.
- Remand means a new round of tgaton n the COMELEC
when ts proceedngs have ong been cosed and termnated;
to gve another chance to prove facts whch he faed to prove
before
- Favors of remand cannot be extended to the tgant because
of potca neutraty
- Remand w change the nature of a Sec 78 proceedng by |udca
egsaton, hence, unconsttutona
- Prncpa ssue: whether respondent deberatey made a
matera msrepresentaton n hs CoC when he wrote that he
s a natura-born Fpno ctzen
- Remandng the case to COMELEC w change the character
of a S78 proceedng (WON FO| s a natura-born Fpno ctzen
w be the man ssue and not |ust an ssue ncdenta to the
ssue of matera msrepresentaton)
- SC cannot engage n |udca egsaton as t s somethng
ony egsature can change by another aw
- Remand w voate respondent Poes rght to due process, hence,
unconsttutona
- If case were remanded to the COMELEC, the body s no
onger an mparta trbuna s there are three of the seven
members of the commsson that have gven frm vew that
Poe s not a natura-born Fpno ctzen
- Remand w deay the resouton of the ssue of whether
respondent Poe s quafed. Deay w aso pre|udce hs canddacy
and w favor hs potca opponents.
- "The rght to run for pubc offce ncudes the rght to equa
chance to compete. The rght to run s empty f the chance to
wn s dmnshed of dened a canddate.
- To avod deay, the court shoud tsef decde the ssue and
decare respondent Poe as a natura-born ctzen on the bass of the
evdence adduced before the COMELEC
- Whether respondent Poe s egtmate s rreevant n
determnng hs status as natura-born ctzen --- that s the aw.
- The aw does not make any dstncton n appyng 3$s
sang$#n#s to egtmate chdren.
- Morano v Vvo - WON the stepson was to fe the natura
cerebra house.
- Chongban v de Leon - a egtmate son whose father
became Fpno because of eecton to a pubc offce before
the 1935 consttuton
- Serra v Repubc - an egtmate son of a Chnese father and
a Fpno mother
- Paa v Chan - Ountn cams that hs father s Fpno
because hs grandmother s a Fpna. The court rued that
snce there s no proof that hs grandmother s Fpno then
hs father s not Fpno thereby not makng hm Fpno as
we. The courts rung shoud have stopped here but the SC
foowed wth an o/#ter &#%t$m that even f Ountns father
were Fpno, he woud not be Fpno because he was
egtmate.
- The statements on the egtmate chd were
unnecessary and were |ust o/#ter &#%ta and not rat#o
&e%#&en&#, therefore do not consttute stare &e%#s#s.
- 2/#ter &#%ta do not estabsh doctrne even f repeated
endessy.
- Reasons why court shoud create new doctrne:
- There s no textua foundaton
- It voates the equa protecton cause
- Peope v Cayat - estabshed the doctrne on
consttutonay aowabe dstnctons. Such dstncton
must be germane to the purpose of the aw.
- Tan Chong v Secretary of Labor - "The duty of ths Court
s to forsake and abandon any doctrne or rue found to be
n voaton of the aw n force."
- E/# les non &#st#ng$#t ne nos &#st#ng$ere &e/em$s,
especay f the dstncton has no textua
- Mern Magaona - transmssve essence of ctzenshp
- To estabsh that respondent Poe s a natura-born ctzen, a that
s needed s proof of hs faton to hs father Aan Poe, a Fpno
ctzen --- that s the crtca fact.
- Fpno ctzenshp of Aan Poe, respondents father s we
estabshed.
- To dsquafy respondent Poe because he s egtmate w voate
our treaty obgaton.
0ispositive Whether respondent Fernando Poe, |r. s quafed to
run for Presdent nvoves a consttutona ssue but ts potca tone
s no ess domnant. The Court s spt down the mdde on the
ctzenshp of respondent Poe, an ssue of frst mpresson made
more dffcut by the nterpay of natona and nternatona aw.
Gven the ndecsveness of the votes of the members of ths Court,
the better pocy approach s to et the peope decde who w be
the next Presdent. For on potca questons, ths Court may err
but the soveregn peope w not. To be sure, the Consttuton dd
not grant to the uneected members of ths Court the rght to eect
n behaf of the peope.
I! VIE7 73EEO', the pettons n G.R. Nos. 161434, 161634
and 161824 are DISMISSED.
D&VIDE
'&C#(
- |anuary 9, 2004 - Forner fed petton to dsquafy FP| and to
cance hs certfcate of canddacy for the May 10 eectons because
of he s not a natura-born Fpno ctzen
- |anuary 23, 2004 - COMELEC dsmssed the case decarng that ts
|ursdcton s mted to a matters reatng to eecton, returns and
quafcatons of a eectve regona, provnca and cty offcas,
but not those of natona offcas ke the presdent.
- but t has |ursdcton to pass upon the ssue of ctzenshp of
natona offcas under sec 78 of OECon pettons to deny due
course or cance certfcates of canddacy on the ground of
fase matera representaton.
- Fndngs:
- Forner evdence s not substanta
- FP| dd not commt any fasehood n matera
representaton when he stated that he s a natura-born
Fpno ctzen
- Tecson and Desdero, |r prayed speca cv acton of certorar
under R65 RoC to chaenge |ursdcton of COMELEC over the ssue
of FP|s ctzenshp. They cam that ony the Sc has |ursdcton
(ArtVII S4, const)
- |anuary 29, 2004 - Veez fed petton wth the ff ssues:
- Whether COMELEC has |ursdcton over the pettons to deny
due course or cance certfcated of canddacy of Presdenta
canddates
- Whether SC has |ursdcton over the pettons of Tecson,
Veez and Forner
- Whether FP| s a Fpno ctzen, and f so, f hes a natura-
born Fpno ctzen
$uris+i0tion
- Tecson and Veez pettons
- The provson n the consttuton ony refers to past-eecton
remedes, they shoud have resorted to pre-eecton remedes
n the OEC whch are mpemented by the COMELEC Rues of
Procedure
- Pre-eecton remedes are not wthn the |ursdcton of the
SC
- Under the OEC, COMELEC has orgna |ursdcton to
determne whether a canddate for an eectve offce negbe
for the offce for whch he fed hs certfcate of canddacy
because of any of the recognzed grounds for dsquafcaton.
- Forner petton
- SC has |ursdcton over the case under (Art IX-A S7 Const )
- SC can take cognzance of ssue of WON COMELEC
commtted grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or
excess of |ursdcton n the chaenged resouton by vrtue of
(ArtVIII S1 Const)
7O! 'P$ is a natural-6orn 'ilipino Citi,en
Facts:
1. FP| was born on 20 August 1939 n Mana, Phppnes.
2. FP| was born to Aan Poe and Besse Keey.
3. Besse Keey and Aan Poe were marred on 16 September
1940.
4. Aan Poe was a Fpno because hs father, Lorenzo Poe, abet a
Spansh sub|ect, was not shown to have decared hs aegance to
Span by vrtue of the Treaty of Pars and the Phppne B of 1902.
atio For the purposes of ctzenshp, an egtmate chd whose
father s Fpno and whose mother s an aen, proof of paternty or
faton s enough for the chd to foow the ctzenshp of the father
COMELEC dd not commt any grave abuse of dscreton n hodng
that FP| s a Fpno ctzen pursuant to Art IV S1 per 3 const. The
provson dd not make any dstncton between egtmate and
egtmate chdren of Fpno fathers.
+etitions are dismissed.
(&!DOV&L-G%#IEE4
"a1 0ourt e:er0ise <u+i0ial power to +isLuali/1 a 0an+i+ate
6e/ore t*e ele0tionK
- Court may not. It w wreck the consttutona rght of the peope
to choose ther canddates.
omual+e,-"ar0os v CO"ELEC
- Mr. |ustce Vcente V. Mendoza, a retred member of ths Court, n
hs Separate Opnon sad, "In my vew, the ssue n ths case s
whether the Commsson on Eectons has the power to dsquafy
canddates on the ground that they ack egbty for the offce to
whch they seek to be eected. I thnk that t has none and that the
quafcatons of canddates may be questoned ony n the event
they are eected, by fng a petton for 4$o .arranto or an eecton
protest n the approprate forum."
- Rung of COMELEC s the same as Mandoza opnon.
- Dsquafyng respondent Poe w be vewed as drected aganst
the "masses," a stuaton not aowed by the Consttuton. The SC
may become ke the Iranan Guardan Counc.Ths Court, as the
ast guardan of democracy, has the duty to protect the rght of our
naton to a genune, free and far eecton.
7*et*er t*e CO"ELEC 0ommitte+ grave a6use o/ +is0retion
in +ismissinG 'ornierAs petition /or +isLuali/i0ation against
respon+ent
- Sacedo v COMELEC - the ony nstance when a petton rasng
the quafcatons of a regstered canddate s before eecton (S78
OEC)
- To |ustfy the canceaton of CoC, fase representaton
mentoned must pertan to matera matter
- There must be deberate attempt to msead, msnform, or
hde fact whch woud render a canddate negbe
- Forner petton brought under R65 RoCP - where COMELEC acted
wth grave abuse of dscreton n |an 23 and Feb 6 resoutons
hodng that "consderng the evdence presented by the pettoner
s not substanta, we decare that the respondent dd not commt
any matera msrepresentaton when he stated n hs CoC that he
s a natura born Fpno ctzen"
Aegatons n the COMELEC petton:
1. Respondent Poe commtted fase matera representaton by
statng n hs Certfcate of Canddacy that he s a natura
born Fpno ctzen; and
2. He knowngy made such fase representaton.
- FP| s not a ctzen because both hs parents are aens.
- Drector Manapat of the Natona Archves fasfed the
marrage contract of FP|s parents and hs fathers brth
certfcate.
- E# #n%$m/#t )ro/at#on 4$# &e%#t, non 4$e negat. - he who
asserts, not he who denes, must prove; S1 R131 RroE;
Borongan v Madrdeo - burden of proof s on the party
assertng the affrmatve of an ssue
- Forner faed to prove aegatons; wrt of certorar can ony
be granted f t can be proven that COMELEC commtted a
grave abuse of dscreton;
-Grave abuse of dscreton - caprcous and whmsca
exercse of |udgment so patent and gross that t amounted
to an evason of postve duty or to a vrtua refusa to
perform the duty en|oned or to act at a n contempaton
of aw
- We cannot dscern from the records any ndcaton that the
COMELEC gravey abused ts dscreton n dsmssng Forners
petton. Indeed, hs avament of the extraordnary wrt of
certorar s grossy mspaced.
Whether the respondent commtted a matera and fase
representaton when he decared n hs CoC that he s a natura-
bron Fpno ctzen
- COMELEC hed that the FP| dd not commt any matera
msrepresentaton n hs CoC because hs father s a Fpno by
vrtue of 3$s sang$#n#s and under the 1935 consttuton.
- Vaes v COMELEC - Phppne aw on ctzenshp adheres to 3$s
sang$#n#s
- FP| s Fpno ctzen, havng been born to a Fpno father
- Pettoners cam that Aan Fernando Poe s a ctzen of Span
because hs
- Marrage Contract wth Pauta Gomez shows that hs parents
are ctzens of Span.
- The marrage certfcate was shown to have been fasfed.
- Forner dd not dspute that Aan Fernando Poe s the father
of FP|
- Aans father, Lorenzo Pou s a Spansh sub|ect and an
nhabtant of the Phppnes on Apr 11, 1899 when Span
ceded the Phppnes (Treaty of Pars, Ph B 1902 and |ones
Law)
- In re Bosque - expraton of the term of 18 months wthout makng
an express decaraton of ntenton to retan ther Spansh
natonaty resuted n the oss of the atter and thereby becomng
sub|ects of the new soveregn n the same manner as the natves of
these sands
- Paanca v Repubc -
- "A person, who was an nhabtant of the Phppne Isands
and a naturazed sub|ect of Span on the 11
th
day of Apr
1899, s a Fpno ctzen, by vrtue of the provsons of Sec. 4
of the Act of Congress on 1 |uy 1902 and of Sec. 2 of the Act
of Congress of 29 August 1916. Under the Consttuton, he s
aso a ctzen of the Phppnes because he was such at the
tme of the adopton of the Consttuton."
- Consttuton dd not specfy n referrng to those whose
fathers are Fpno ctzens as to whether ths ony appes to
egtmate chdren or not.
- E/# le, non &#st#ng$#t ne% nos &#st#ng$ere &e/em$s,
especay f the dstncton has no textua foundaton n the
Consttuton, serves no state nterest, and even mposes an
n|ustce on an nnocent chd. (Fr Bernas)
- To ntroduce a dstncton between egtmacy or egtmacy
n the status of the chd vs--vs the dervaton of hs
ctzenshp from the father defeats the transmssve essence
of ctzenshp n bood reatonshp. (Dean Mern Magaona)
In fne, I reterate that the COMELEC dd not gravey abuse ts
dscreton n renderng ts assaed Resoutons dated |anuary 23,
2004 and February 6, 2004.
73EE'OE, I concur wth |ustce |ose C. Vtug n hs )onen%#a
and wth Senor |ustce Reynato S. Puno n hs Separate Opnon
DISMISSING Forners petton
C&PIO-"O&LE(
Issues 9or esolution:
1) Whether ths Court has orgna and excusve |ursdcton to pass
upon the quafcatons of presdenta canddates;
2) Whether the COMELEC acted wth grave abuse of dscreton
when t ssues ts Resoutons of |an. 23, 2004 and Feb. 6, 2004,
dsmssng the Petton for Dsquafcaton;
3) Whether FP| s a natura-born Fpno and therefore quafed to
seek eecton as Presdent.
1) $uris+i0tion:
- Pettons n G.R. Nos. 161464 and 161634
- Pettoners Tecson et al. and Veez assert that ths Court
has excusve orgna |ursdcton to determne whether FP|
s quafed to be a canddate for Presdent: paragraph 7,
Secton 4 of Artce VII of the Consttuton:
- #*e (upreme Court5 sitting en banc5 s*all 6e t*e
sole <u+ge o/ all 0ontests relating to t*e ele0tion5
returns5 an+ Luali/i0ations o/ t*e Presi+ent or
Vi0e-Presi+ent, and may promugate ts rues for the
purpose.
- refers to ths Courts |ursdcton over eectora contests
reatng to the eecton, returns and quafcatons of the
Presdent, and not to the quafcatons or
dsquafcatons of a presdenta canddate. FP| s st
|ust a canddate; petton: premature.
- Pettoners Tecson et al. and Veez cam that the ssue of
FP|s quafcaton for the Presdency may aso be brought
drecty to ths Court on the bass of Secton 1 of Artce VIII
of the Consttuton through a petton for %ert#orar# under
Rue 65 of the Rues of Court, specay consderng that the
nstant case s one of transcendenta mportance.
- a petton for %ert#orar# under Rue 65 of the Rues of
Court s not avaabe where there s another pan,
speedy and adequate remedy n the ordnary course of
aw-ke n ths case: (to ntervene n the Petton for
Dsquafcaton)
- n determnng whether procedura rues, such as
standng, shoud be reaxed on the ground of
"transcendenta mportance," the foowng shoud be
consdered: the ack of any other party wth a more
drect and specfc nterest n rasng the questons beng
rased. Consderng that the substantve ssues rased by
pettoners Tecson et al. and Veez n G.R. Nos. 161434
and 161634, respectvey, are vrtuay dentca to those
rased by pettoner Forner n G.R. No. 161824, ths
Court s not convnced that the "transcendenta
mportance" of the ssues rased heren |ustfes a drect
resort to ths Court under Rue 65 of the Rues of Court
or the exercse of ts expanded %ert#orar# |ursdcton
under Sec. 1, Artce VIII of the Consttuton.
- Petton n G.R. No. 161824
- ths Court defntey has |ursdcton over the petton for
Certorar questonng the Resoutons of |an. 23, 2004 and
Feb. 6, 2004, ssued by COMELEC: Secton 7 of Art. IX-A of
the Consttuton vests ths Court wth the power of revew
over decsons, orders, or rungs of the COMELEC.
- C2ME5ECGs 1$r#s&#%t#on 2*er the S$/3e%t Matter of the Pet#t#on
for :#s4$al#f#%at#on En&er Se%t#on 7' of the 2mn#/$s Ele%t#on
Co&e.
- not reay a consttutona queston.
I) 7*et*er #*e CO"ELEC &0te+ wit* Grave &6use o/
Dis0retion in Dismissing t*e Petition /or is Luali/i0ation /or
La09 o/ "erit.
- the COMELEC dd ndeed act wth grave abuse of dscreton n
ssung them:
- By resovng to dsmss the petton n the Petton for
Dsquafcaton wthout statng the factua bases therefore:
- Secton 14, Artce VIII of the Consttuton provdes that
"|n|o decson sha be rendered by any court wthout
expressng theren ceary and dstncty the facts and the
aw on whch t s based."
- By resovng to dsmss the Petton for Dsquafcaton wthout
rung categorcay on the ssue of FP|s ctzenshp.
- To |ustfy ts evason of the duty to rue squarey on the
ssue of ctzenshp, the COMELEC rees on ths Courts
rung n Sal%e&o 77 *. Comm#ss#on on Ele%t#ons, and hed
that hed that Forner shoud have presented "proof of
msrepresentaton wth a deberate attempt to msead" on
the part of FP|- confned the ssue n the Petton for
Dsquafcaton to whether FP| "must have known or have
been aware of the fasehood as |aegedy| appearng on hs
certfcate."
- Carpo-Moraes: t s mpossbe for the COMELEC to
determne whether FP| was aware of a fase matera
representaton n hs Certfcate of Canddacy wthout frst
determnng whether such matera representaton (n ths
case, hs cam of natura-born ctzenshp) was fase. The
fact aone that there s a pubc document (#.e., hs brth
certfcate) whch FP| mght have reed upon n averrng
natura-born ctzenshp does not automatcay excude the
possbty that (a) there s other evdence to show that such
averment s fase, and (b) that FP| was aware of such
evdence.
M) 7*et*er 'P$ is a natural-6orn 'ilipino
- Fve cruca factua questons
(1) Whether Lorenzo Pou has been estabshed to be a Fpno
ctzen at the tme of the brth of hs son, Aan F. Poe;
- the evdence presented does not show that Lorenzo Pou
acqured Phppne ctzenshp by vrtue of the Treaty of
Pars or the Organc Acts coverng the Phppne Isands. (no
evdence as to hs resdence, ony prma face evdence.)
(2) Whether Aan F. Poe, the putatve father of FP| was a
Fpno at the tme of the brth of the atter;
- Cam: Aan F. Poe acqured Fpno ctzenshp
ndependenty of hs fathers by vrtue of 3$s sol#, Aan F.
Poe havng been aegedy born n the Phppnes on
November 27, 1916.
- even assumng arg$en&o that Aan F. Poe was born n the
Phppnes on November 27, 1916, such fact, per se, woud
not suffce to prove that he was a ctzen of the Phppne
Isands absent a showng that he was |udcay decared to
be a Fpno ctzen: In "an Chong *. Se%retar+ of 5a/or, ths
Court rued that the prncpe 3$s sol# or acquston of
ctzenshp by pace of brth was never extended or apped
n the Phppne Isands:
(3) Whether FP| s a egtmate or egtmate chd;
- FP|s brth certfcate ndcates that hs parents were
marred, and that he s a egtmate chd. However, the
Marrage Contract of hs putatve parents, Fernando R. Pou
and Besse Keey, s dated September 16, 1940, thereby
ndcatng that he was born out of wedock. Snce, n the
Marrage Contract, the two contractng partes, Aan F. Poe
and Besse Keey, partcpated n ts executon, the entry
theren wth respect to the date of ther marrage shoud be
gven greater weght than the brth certfcate, whch was
executed by a physcan who had to rey on hearsay as
regards FP|s egtmacy.
- FP| was born out of wedock, and was thus an egtmate
chd at brth.
(4) Whether Aan F. Poe has been egay determned to be the
father of FP| (Assumng arg$en&o that Aan F. Poe has been
shown to have acqured Phppne ctzenshp)
- As proof of hs faton, FP| rees upon (1) the stpuaton
by pettoner Forner, both before the COMELEC and ths
Court that Aan F. Poe s ndeed the father of FP|; (2) the
decaraton of Ruby Keey Mangahas; and (3) a certfed
copy of an affdavt of "Fernando R. Poe" for Phppne Army
Personne.
- none of the proofs supped are suffcent proofs of faton
under Artce 172 of the Famy Code.
(5) Whether FP| s a natura-born Fpno Ctzen.
- Carpo-Moraes adopts the rue that an illegitimate5 0*il+
o/ an alien-mot*er who cams to be an offsprng of a
Fpno father may be consdered a natura-born ctzen i/
*e was +ul1 a09nowle+ge+ 61 t*e latter at birt&, thus
eavng the egtmate chd wth noth#ng more to &o to
a%4$#re or )erfe%t h#s %#t#6ensh#) (nothng more to do to
acqure ctzenshp = natura born).
- no evdence has been submtted to show that Aan F. Poe
dd ndeed acknowedge FP| as hs own son at 6irt*
- Snce FP| then was born out of wedock and was not
acknowedged by hs father, the ony possbe Fpno
parent, at t*e time o/ *is 6irt*, the nescapabe
concuson s that he s not a natura-born Phppne ctzen.
Conclusion 73EE'OE, I vote to: (1) DISMISS the pettons n
G.R. Nos. 161434 and 161634 for beng premature, (2) DECLARE
COMELEC Resoutons dated |anuary 23, 2004 and February 6,
2004, rendered n COMELEC SPA No. 04-003 NULL AND VOID, and
(3) DIRECT the COMELEC to cance the Certfcate of Canddacy of
Ronad Aan Keey Poe, a.k.a. Fernando Poe |r., for contanng a
fase matera representaton.
I! E- C3I!G
KAPUNAN; October 1, 1999
'&C#(
- Petton for Admsson to the Ph Bar
- Apr 1964: Vcente D Chng born as the egtmate son of sps Tat
Chng, Chnese ctzen, and Presca Duay, Fpna, n La Unon.
Snce brth, Chng has resded n the Phs
- Durng ths tme, the governng charter s the 1935
Consttuton. Fathers ctzenshp s foowed, wth a rght to
eect ctzenshp upon reachng the age of ma|orty
- |uy 1998: Chng, after graduatng from St. Lous Unversty n
Baguo Cty, fed an appcaton to take the 98 Bar Examnatons.
- Sept 1998: Court aowed Chng to take the exams provded he
must submt proof of hs Ph ctzenshp
- Nov 1998: Chng submtted certfcaton that he s CPA, Voter Cert
from COMELEC, and Cert as a member of the Sanggunang Bayan
of Tubao, La Unon aso from COMELEC.
- Apr 1999: resuts of Bar Exams were reeased and Chng passed.
He was further requred to submt more proof of ctzenshp.
- |uy 1999: Chng fed Manfestaton w/ Affdavt of Eecton of Ph
Ctzenshp and hs Oath of Aegance.
- OSG commented that Chng beng the "egtmate chd of a
Chnese father and a Fpno mother and born under the 1935
Const was a Ch#nese ctzen and contnued to be so, uness upon
reachng the age of ma|orty he eected Ph ctzenshp. If Chng
formay eects Ph ctzenshp, t woud aready be beyond the
reasonabe tme aowed by present |ursprudence
- Two condtons of an effectve eecton of Ph ctzenshp (from
OSG):
1
st
- the mother of the person makng the eecton must be a
Ph ctzen
2
nd
- eecton must be made upon reachng the age of ma|orty
(w/c means a reasona6le time nterpreted by the Sec of
|ustce as 3 yrs, from the Veayo case; n Cuenco, noted that
ths pd not nfexbe, however, hed n the same case that 7 yrs
not reasonabe tme)
- Chng, to support hs cause, nvokes these speca crcumstances:
contnuous and unnterrupted say n the Phppnes, beng a CPA, a
regstered voter, and eected pubc offca
I((%E
1. WON Chng has eected Ph ctzenshp w/n a reasonabe tme
and f so, WON hs ctzenshp has retroacted to the tme he took
the bar.
2. WON Chngs speca crcumstances entte hm to ctzenshp
3ELD
1. No, Chngs eecton was ceary beyond, by any reasonabe
yardstck, the aowabe pd w/n whch to exercse the prvege.
Beng born n Apr 1964, he was aready 35 yrs od when he
comped w/ the requrements of C.A. No 625 n |une 99. He was
aready more then 14 yrs over the age of ma|orty.
Athough the Court s sympathetc of hs pght, controng statues
and |ursprudence compe the Court n ts decson. Aso, Chng has
offered no reason why he deayed hs eecton of Ph ctzenshp,
the atter not beng a tedous and panstakng process.
Ph#l#))#ne %#t#6ensh#) %an ne*er /e treate& l#=e a %ommo&#t+ that
%an /e %la#me& .hen nee&e& an& s$))resse& .hen %on*en#ent. It
shoud be avaed of wth fervor, enthusasm and prompttude.
2. No, the abovementoned speca crcumstances cannot vest n
hm Phppne ctzenshp as the aw specfcay ays down the
requrements for acquston of Phppne ctzenshp by eecton.
0ecision Court denes Vcente D Chngs appcaton for admsson
to the Phppne Bar
.E!G4O! III V 3O%(E O' EPE(E!#&#IVE( ELEC#O&L
#I.%!&L
KAPUNANP May 7, 2001
'&C#(
- Consttutona requrement for members of the House of
Representatves: "no person sha be a Member of the House of
Representatves uness he s a natura born ctzen."
- Teodoro Cruz s a natura born ctzen of the Phppnes. He was
born n Tarac on Apr 27, 1960. On November 5, 1985 he ensted
n the US Marne Corps wthout the consent of the Repubc of the
Phppnes. He took an oath of aegance to the US and as a
consequence he ost hs Fpno Ctzenshp because under the
Commonweath Act no. 63 a Fpno may ose hs ctzenshp by
renderng servce to or acceptng commsson n the armed forces
of a foregn country. Any doubts as to hs ctzenshp at the tme
was setted by hs naturazaton as a US ctzen on |une 5, 1990.
- May 17, 1994 he reacqured hs ctzenshp through repatraton
under RA 2630.
- He was eected as the Representatve of the Second Dstrct of
Pangasnan n 1998 and hs opponent was Bengson.
- Bengson fed a case Ouo Warranto Ad Cauteam wth HRET
camng Cruz, not beng a natura-born ctzen by the contenton
that Arce IV, Sec 2 of the Const defnes natura-born ctzens as
"ctzens from brth .#tho$t ha*#ng to )erform an+ a%t to acqure or
perfect such ctzenshp, was not egbe to be member of the
House.
I((%E(
1. WON Cruz, a natura born Fpno who became an Amercan
ctzen, can st be consdered a natura-born Fpno upon hs
reacquston of Phppne ctzenshp va Repatraton, so that the
queston of WON he s egbe to be a member of the House mght
be addressed
2. - WON the HRET commtted serous erros and grave abuse of
dscreaton amountng to excess of |ursdcton n rung n favour of
Cruz as natura-born ctzen
3ELD
1. Yes.
atio Two ways of acqurng Fpno ctzenshp
o By brth - natura born ctzens
o Naturazaton - Naturazed ctzens (those who become
Fpno ctzens through naturazaton, generay under the
Commonweath Act no. 473. To be naturazed, an appcant
has to prove that he possesses a the quafcatons and
none of the dsquafcatons
- 1987 Consttuton ony provdes for 2 casses of ctzens:
o Natura born
o Naturazed
- Fpno ctzens who have ost ther ctzenshp may reacqure t by
naturazaton, repatraton or by drect act of Congress.
o Naturazaton - mode for acquston and reacquston of
Phppne ctzenshp.
o Repatraton - avaabe for those who have ost ther
ctzenshp due to deserton of the armed forces, servce
n the armed forces of the aed forces n WWII, servce
n the armed forces of the US at any other tme,
marrage of a Fpno woman to an aen, and potca
and economc necessty. Process: takng an oath of
aegance to the RP and regsterng t n the Loca Cv
Regstrar of the pace where the person concerned
resdes or ast resded.
- Repatraton woud resut n the recovery of the orgna
natonaty. He w be restored to hs former status as a natura-
born ctzen. Cruz recovered hs orgna status as a natura-born
ctzen because of hs repatraton.
Note@ 0s &#st#ng$#she& from the length+ )ro%ess of
nat$ral#6at#on, re)atr#at#on s#m)l+ %ons#sts of ta=#ng an oath of
alleg#an%e to the >P an& reg#ster#ng sa#& oath .#th the 5o%al
C#*#l >eg#str+
- 1987 Consttuton does not provde a separate category for
persons who after osng Phppne ctzenshp, subsequenty
reacqures t because they are ether natura born or naturazed
dependng on the reason for the oss of ther ctzenshp and the
mode prescrbed by the appcabe aw for reacquston.
- Cruz was not requred by aw to go through naturazaton
proceedngs n order to reacqure hs ctzenshp, he s perforce a
natura-born Fpno.
2. No.
atio HRET has been empowered by the Const to be the "soe
|udge" of a contests reatng to the ecton, returns and
4$al#f#%at#ons of the members of the House. Courts |ursdcton s
merey to check WON there has been grave abuse; absent such
showng, there s no occason for the Court to exercse ts
correctve power
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
(&!DOV&L-G%#IEE4
Addtona Facts:
- In the 1995 oca eectons, Cruz fed hs certfcate of canddacy
for Mayor decarng hmsef to be a nat$ral#6e& Fpno ctzen
- Thereafter, Cruz ran for Congres, ths tme decarng hmsef as
nat$ral-/orn
- Pettoner and respondent present opposng nterpretaton of the
phrase "from brth" n Art IV, Sec 2 of the Const
- Pettoner avers: means startng from a defnte pont and must
be contnuous, constant and wthout nterrupton
- Respondent contends: refers to the nnate, nherent and
nborn characterstc of beng a "natura-born"
- |. Sandova-Guterrez hods:
- Natura-born ctzens are so by vrtue of brth .#tho$t
)erform#ng an+ a%ts. To repatrate, Cruz had to perform certan
acts before he coud agan become a Fpno ctzen. Therefore,
he does not reaqure natura-born ctzenshp
- The hstory of the Const shows that the meanng and
appcaton of the requrement of beng natura-born have
become more narrow and quafed over the years, more
strngent; and the decson of HRET n the case at bar reverses
the hstorca trend and cear ntendment of the Const, a matter
whch can ony be accompshed through const amendment;
ceary, HRET has acted wth grave abuse of dscreton.
CO""O!7E&L#3 &C# !O. GHM
&n &0t to Provi+e /or t*e &0Luisition o/ t*e Citi,ens*ip 61
!aturali,ation5 an+ to repeal &0ts IFIH an+ MGG;
(e0 1- #itle- >evise+ !aturali,ation Law? (e0 I-
@uali/i0ations- 7*o ma1 6e0ome 0iti,ens o/ t*e P*ilippines
61 naturali,ationK
1. >21 years od at the day of the hearng of the petton
2. resded n the Phppnes for CONTINUOUS perod of >10yrs
3. of good mora character
+ beeves n prncpes underyng the Phppne Consttuton (1935
Const)
+ conducted hmsef n proper and rreproachabe manner durng
entre perod of resdence n the Phppnes n reaton wth
consttuted government and communty wth communty n whch
he s vng
4. (must own rea estate n the Phppnes > P5000) or
Phppne currency or ucratve trade/professon/awfu
occupaton
5. abe to speak and wrte Engsh/Spansh + any one of the
prncpa Phppne anguage
6. enroed hs MINOR chdren of schoo age n any of the
pubc schoos/prvate schoos durng the entre perod of
resdence n the Phppnes requred of hm pror to the
hearng of hs petton
.Schoo:
- recognzed by the Offce of Prvate Educaton of the Phppnes
- teaches Phppne hstory, government and cvcs and
prescrbes t as part of the schoo currcuum
(e0 M- (pe0ial Luali/i0ations- w*en t*e 1J 1ear Luali/i0ation
reLuire+ in (e0I(I) 0oul+ 6e re+u0e+ to a 0ontinuous 5
1earsK
1. had honoraby hed offce under the Government of the
Phppnes/ under that of any of the provnces, ctes,
muncpates, or potca subdvsons thereof |aens,
partcuary Amercan ctzens, were the ones who were
governng the country pror to the Commonweath|
2. estabshed new ndustry/ ntroduced a usefu nventon n
the Phppnes
3. marred to a Fpno woman
4. engaged as a teacher n the Phppnes for >2 yrs
schoo: pubc/recognzed prvate schoo + not estabshed for
excusve nstructon of chdren of persons of partcuar
natonaty/race
5. born n the Phppnes
(e0 G- 7*o are +isLuali/ie+K PersonsQ
a. opposed to organzed government/affated wth any
assocaton or group of persons who uphod and teach
doctrnes opposng organzed govt
b. defendng/teachng the necessty or proprety of
voence/persona assaut/assassnaton for the success and
predomnance of ther deas
c. Poygamsts/beevers of poygamy
d. Convcted of crmes (mora turptude)
e. Sufferng from menta aenaton/ncurabe contagous
dsease
f. Not mnged socay w/ Fpnos, have not evnced a sncere
desre to earn and embrace customs, tradtons, and deas
of Fpnos
g. Ctzens/sub|ects of natons w/whom US and the Phppnes
are at war - durng such war
h. Ctzens/sub|ects of foregn country |OTHER THAN US!|
whose aws dont grant Fpnos r#ght to /e%ome nat$ral#6e&
%#t#6ensCs$/3e%ts
(e0 5. De0laration o/ intention- /ile +e0laration t*at it is *is
6ona /i+e intention to 6e0ome a 0iti,en o/ t*e P*ilippines
- under oath
- 1 year pror to the fng of petton for admsson to Phppne
ctzenshp
of the Bureau of |ustce
-contents+ name
+ age
+ occupaton
+ persona descrpton
+ pace of brth
+ast foregn resdence and aegance
+date of arrva
+name of vesse/arcraft (f any) n whch he came to the
Phppnes
+pace of resdence n the Phppnes at the tme of makng the
decaraton *to be vad: estabsh awfu entry for permanent
resdence + ssued certfcate showng date, pace, and manner of
arrva
*aso state that he had enroed hs mnor chdren n schoo (see
sec2(6))
*2 pctures of hmsef
(e0 8. 7i+ow an+ minor 0*il+ren o/ aliens +1ing a/ter
+e0laration o/ intention not reLuire+ to /ile +e0laration o/
intention
(e0 H. Petition /or 0iti,ens*ip- reLuirements /ile+ wit*
0ompetent 0ourt
*a petton n trpcate
%ontents of petton:
+name and surname
+present and former paces of resdence
+occupaton
+pace and date of brth
+status; f marred and the father, ncude name, age, brthpace
and resdence of wfe and each chd
+approxmate date of hs/her arrva n the Phppnes
+name of the port of debarkaton + name of shp (f
remembered)
+decaraton of quafcatons and non-dsquafcaton
+decaraton that he has comped wth sec. 5
+decaraton of contnuous resdence n RP from date of fng
petton to admsson as RP Ctzen
*2 photographs of pettoner
*petton sgned by appcant + supported by affdavt of at east 2
credbe persons (see provson for requrements)
(e0 ;. Competent 0ourt- CFI of provnce n w/c the pettoner has
resded for at east 1 yr mmedatey precedng the fng of the
petton
(e0 F. !oti/i0ation an+ appearan0e. Tasks of cerk of court
.pubsh petton for 3 consecutve weeks n OG and n one of gen
crcuaton newspapers n the provnce where pettoner resdes
.post copes of pettons n conspcuous paces (contan name,
brthpace and resdence of pettoner, date and pace of arrva,
names of wtnesses, date of hearng the petton)
*hearng sha not be hed w/n 90 days from date of ast
pubcaton of notce
.forward copes of the petton, sentence, naturazaton
certfcate and pertnent data to Department of the Interor, Bureau
of |ustce, Provnca Inspector of the Phppne Constabuary of the
provnce, and |ustce of peace of the muncpaty where pettoner
resdes
(e0 1J. 3earing o/ t*e petition.
*no hearng w/n 30 days precedng any eecton
*pubc hearng
*Soctor-Genera/representatve/provnca fsca appear for
Commonweath at a proceedngs
*upon beef of court of quafcatons and non-dsquafcaton of
pettoner, court order proper naturazaton certfcate n proper
cv regstry (requred n (e0. 1J5 &0t !o. MH5M)
(e0 11. &ppeal- to t*e (C
(e0 1I- Issuan0e o/ t*e Certi/i0ate o/ !aturali,ation- 30 days
after and from date of notce to the partes (n case of appea, SC
confrmed dec), cerk of court ssue naturazaton certfcate
contents of certfcate of naturazaton"
*fe no. of petton
*number of naturazaton certfcate
*sgnature of the person naturazed affxed n the presence of the
cerk of court
*persona crcumstances of the person naturazed
*dates of fng of decaraton of ntenton and petton
*date of decson grantng petton
*name of the |udge who rendered dec
*photograph of pet wth dry sea of court w/c granted petton
*oath decared n open court |refer to the orgna|
(e0 1M. e0or+ .oo9s- cerk of court keep 2 books: (1) record of
petton and decaratons of ntentons n chronoogca order; (2)
record of naturazaton certfcate
(e0 1G. 'ees.
*P30.00 (for recordng of petton and for proceedngs + ssuance
of certfcate)
*P24.00 (for each appea and for connected servces rendered)
sec 15. Effect of naturazaton on wfe and chdren
*on wfe: sha be deemed a ctzen of Phppnes (f |ust marred or
aso naturazed)
*on mnor chdren:
.f born n the Phppnes: Fpno
.f foregn-born but dweng n the Phppnes durng
naturazaton of parent: Fpno
.f foregn-born, not dweng n the Phppnes durng
naturazaton of parent: Fpno durng mnorty, uness
resdes n the Phppnes permanenty and st a mnor,
then egay Fpno upon age of ma|orty
.f foregn-born after naturazaton of parent: Fpno
uness fas to regster and take oath 1 yr after age of
ma|orty
(e0 18. ig*t o/ wi+ow an+ 0*il+ren o/
petitionersRw*oR*aveR+ie+- contnue proceedngs, same ega
effect
(e0 1H. enun0iation o/ title or or+ers o/ no6ilit1- uness w/
express consent of the Natona Assemby
(e0 1;. Can0ellation o/ naturali,ation 0erti/i0ates issue+
*upon moton made n proper proceedngs by Soctor-
Genera/representatve/proper provnca fsca
*canceed by competent |udge on the ff. grounds:
a. naturazaton certfcate obtaned frauduenty/egay
b. person naturazed estabshes permanent resdence outsde
Phppnes w/n 5 yrs after ssuance of naturazaton certfcate
c. petton made on nvad decaraton of ntenton
d. mnor chdren shown to have faed to graduate from schoo n
sec 2 (6) through faut of parents ether by negect to support or
by transferrng them to another schoo(s)
e. naturazed ctzen ony used as a dummy to voate
consttutona or ega provson requrng Phppne ctzenshp
(e0 1F Penalties /or violation o/ t*is &0t- fne < P5,000.00 or
mprsonment< 5 yrs or both, naturazaton canceed
(e0 IJ. Pres0ription- fe compant w/n 5 yrs from
detecton/dscovery of commsson of offense
(e0. I1. egulation an+ 6lan9s.
*Secretary of |ustce: ssue necessary reguatons
*Soctor-Genera, sub|ect to approva of Secretary of |ustce:
naturazaton certfcate banks, etc.
(e0 II. epealing 0lause- Repeas Act. No. 2927 as amended by
Act No. 3448 |Naturazaton Law|
EP%.LIC &C# !O. 5MJ
&n &0t "a9ing &++itional Provisions /or !aturali,ation
- Requres the pubcaton of pettons for ctzenshp (aso requred
by prevous aw, prob. Act 423, beow)
- Court w hear pettons for ctzenshp 6 months after the
pubcaton
- Decsons grantng the appcaton become executory ony after 2
years, and
- The Soctor Genera or hs representatve fnds that durng the
ntervenng tme, appcant has:
NOT eft the Phppnes
Dedcated hmsef contnuousy to awfu cang or
professon
NOT been convcted of any offense or voaton of
govt. rues
NOT commtted any act pre|udca to the nterest of
the naton or contrary to any govt. announced poces
- After the fndng, the order of the court grantng ctzenshp w be
regstered and the oath taken by the appcant before he w be
entted to the prveges of ctzenshp.
- Repeaed nconsstent parts of Act No. 423.
- Approved, |une 16, 1950.
CO""O!7E&L#3 &C# !O. 8M
&n &0t Provi+ing /or t*e 7a1s in w*i0* P*ilippine
Citi,ens*ip ma1 6e lost or rea0Luire+
(e0tion 1. 3ow 0iti,ens*ip ma1 6e lost.
(1) naturazaton n a foregn country;
(2) express renuncaton of ctzenshp;
(3) subscrbng to an oath of aegance to support consttuton or
aws of foregn country upon +21y.o.: a Fpno may not dvest
hmsef of Phppne ctzenshp whe the RP s at war;
(4) renderng servces to/acceptng commsson n, the armed
forces of foregn country: renderng of servce to/the acceptance
of such commsson n, the armed forces of foregn country, and
the takng of an oath of aegance ncdent thereto, wth the
consent of RP, sha not dvest a Fpno of hs Phppne
ctzenshp f e#ther of the ff. s present:
(a) RP has defensve and/or offensve pact of aance wth the
sad foregn country; or
(b) sad foregn country mantans armed forces on Phppne
terrtory w/ consent of RP: Fpno ctzen concerned, at the tme
of renderng sad servce/or acceptance of sad commsson, &
takng the oath of aegance ncdent thereto, states that he
&oes so onl+ #n %onne%t#on .#th h#s ser*#%e to sa#& fore#gn
%o$ntr+: & provded that any Fpno ctzen who s renderng
servce to/or s commssoned n, the armed forces of foregn
country under (a) or (b), sha not be permtted to partcpate
nor vote n any eecton of RP durng perod of servce
to/commsson n, the armed forces of sad foregn country.
automatcay entted to fu en|oyment of cv and potca
rghts as a Fpno ctzen upon hs dscharge;
(5) canceaton of certfcates of naturazaton;
(6) havng been decared by competent authorty, a &eserter of the
AFP n tme of war, uness pardon or granted amnesty; &
(7) woman: marrage to a foregner f, by vrtue of the aws n force
n her husband's country, she acqures hs natonaty.
*** Sec 1 amended by RA 106, secton 1, approved |une 2, 1947
*when dua ctzenshp was aowed at that tme:
.acquston of ctzenshp by natura born Fpno ctzen from
Iberan/democratc Ibero-Amercan countres/ Unted Kngdom f
the aw of that country grants same prvege to ts ctzens -
agreed upon by treaty between the Phppnes and foregn
country from whch ctzenshp s acqured.
(e0tion. I. 3ow 0iti,ens*ip ma1 6e rea0Luire+.
(1) naturazaton: appcant possess none of the dsquafcaton's
prescrbed n sec 2, Act No. 2927 (repeaed by CA 473 - so sec 4)
(2) repatraton of deserters of the Army, Navy or Ar Corp:
Provded, woman by sec 1(7) may be repatrated n accordance
wth the provsons of ths Act after the termnaton of the marta
status;(see PD 725 for more detas)
(3) drect act of the Natona Assemby.
(e0tion M. Pro0e+ure in0i+ent to rea0Luisition o/ P*ilippine
0iti,ens*ip. Appy Act No. 2927 (now CA 473) to the reacquston
of Phppne ctzenshp by naturazaton provded for n the next
precedng sec: Provded, quafcatons and speca quafcatons
prescrbed n sec 3 & 4 of Act 2927 sha not be requred (sorry
guys, I cant fnd a copy of Act 2927 n the net so I dont know what
these sectons are n CA 473): further, appcant.
(1) at east 21 y.o. + resded n RP at east 6 mos. before he appes
for naturazaton;
(2) have conducted hmsef n proper and rreproachabe manner
durng
+the entre perod of hs resdence n RP
+n hs reatons wth the consttuted government
+wth the communty n whch he s vng; and
(3) subscrbes to an oath decarng hs ntenton to renounce
absoutey and perpetuay a fath and aegance to the foregn
authorty/state/soveregnty of whch he was a ctzen or sub|ect.
(e0tion G. epatriation- effected by merel+ ta=#ng the ne%essar+
oath of alleg#an%e to the Common.ealth of the Ph#l#))#nes (>P! an&
reg#strat#on #n the )ro)er %#*#l reg#str+. (used n the Bengzon Case)
(e0tion 5. Smar to Sec 21 of CA 473
2% V DE'E!(O-(&!#I&GO
PADILLA; |anuary 24, 1989
'&C#(
- Petton for Habeas Corpus
- 1971 - Yu was ssued a Portuguese passport n 1971 vad for 5
years & renewed for same perod upon presentment before
Portuguese consuar offcer
- Feb. 10, 1978 - He was naturazed as a Ph. ctzen
- Apr 1980 - sgned commerca documents n Hong Kong
(Companes Regstry of Ta Shun Estate, Ltd.) and he decared hs
natonaty as Portuguese
- |uy 21, 1981 - He apped & was ssued another Portuguese
passport n Tokyo. Passport w expre |uy 20, 1986.
Procedura Facts:
- |uy 4, 1988 - He fed for a petton for habeas corpus. He was
detaned because the Commsson on Immgraton & Deportaton
was processng hs deportaton. CID cams that hs acts are
tantamount to an express renuncaton of hs Phppne ctzenshp.
- |uy 20, 1988 - ora arguments
- Nov. 10, 1988 - SC resouton dened petton for habeas corpus &
resoved ssued on |ursdcton of CID over naturazed Fpno
ctzen & vadty of warrantess arrest & detenton. Yu fed MFR,
dened w/fnaty. Fed urgent moton for ssuance of restranng
order, dened.
- Dec. 5, 1988 - Yu fed moton for carfcaton w/prayer for
restranng order.
- Dec. 7, 1988 - SC ssued TRO. CID ordered to cease & desst from
deportng Yu pendng concuson of hearngs before Board of
Speca Inqury of CID.
- Dec. 13, 1988 - Respondent commssoner fed moton to ft TRO
sayng the commsson aready ssued a summary |udgment of
deportaton aganst Yu on Dec. 2, 88.
- Dec. 13, 1988 - Yu fed an urgent moton for reease from
arbtrary detenton. Opposed vgorousy to ftng of TRO.
- Yu ordered to expan why he shoud st be consdered a Ph
ctzen. He comped. Hs repy reveaed aforementoned
substantve facts.
I((%E
WON the acts of Yu consttute an express renuncaton of hs
Phppne ctzenshp.
3ELD
Yes. Moton for reease from detenton dened. TRO fted.
atio
- Renuncaton - made known dstncty & expcty and not eft to
nterference or mpcaton (BI Commssoners vs. Go Gaano). Hs
resumpton/reacquston of hs Portuguese ctzenshp and passport
and representaton as a Portuguese even after he has acqured
Fpno ctzenshp are proof enough of hs renuncaton.
- He does not dspute the facts. He was gven the opportunty to
show proof of contnued Phppne ctzenshp but he faed. There
s no dena of due process.
- Tra court shoud have |ursdcton over ths case. But due to
pettoners nsstence, SC had to do t.
- Phppne ctzenshp s not a commodty or were to be dspayed
when requred and suppressed when convenent.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C%4 D0on0urE
Yu has faed to overcome presumpton that he has forfeted hs
status as naturazed Fpno by obtanng Portuguese passport.
Passports are generay ssued ony to natonas. No proof of Yus
unequvoca & deberate renuncaton of Ph. Ctzenshp w/ fu
awareness of ts sgnfcance & consequences as provded for n CA
No. 63. Commerca documents sgned are not proof enough of
renuncaton.
'E!&! D+issentE
Summary procedure & peces of documentary evdence are not
enough to reach such decson. Evdence must be cear & express
w/o room for nterference or mpcaton. In a deportaton
proceedng where aen cams ctzenshp w/substanta evdence,
hes entted to have hs status determned by |udca & not an
executve trbuna. He deserves a fu-bown tra under more rgd
rues of evdence n a court proceedng. SC s not a trer of facts.
G%#IEE4 D+issentE
Summary procedure woud not suffce. Somethng as mportant as
denaturazaton shoud be fed & prosecuted n proper tra court n
accordance w/the due process cause. When a person peads
vgorousy that he has not renounced hs ctzenshp, he shoud at
east be gven a fu tra where hs actons may be expored & the
facts fuy ascertaned. Dangerous precedent to aow
admnstratve offcas to rue that one has renounced hs
ctzenshp based on nforma evdence. Mere use of a foregn
passport s not express renuncaton. He may have passport for
other purposes (empoyment, convenence). Some hgh govt
offcas have done acts w/c are more ndcatve of express
renuncaton than mere use of passport or dfferent ctzenshp has
been sgned. SC s not a trer of facts. Yus moraty s besde the
pont. He deserves hs fu day n court.
CO#E( D+issentE
CID fndngs are sub|ect to |udca revew. Loss of Yus Fpno
ctzenshp has not been estabshed. Evdence presented were not
authentcated by proper Phppne consu, thus not substanta and
are nadequate.
PEOPLE V &VE!GO4&
RELOVA; December 7, 1982
'&C#(
- Cr#m#nal CaseK 0))eal from :e%#s#on of C;7 of Camar#nes S$r
- Ansema Avengoza and husband Go Gam, a Chnese, together
wth the formers mother Gavna Avengoza and Rafaea Anfante are
beng charged wth voaton of the Ant-Dummy Law on
transactons for the spouses to own agrcutura ands n the
Phppnes.
- Ansema Avengoza, upon marrage to Go Gam, acqured Chnese
ctzenshp
- The Ant-Dummy Law provdes that ony Fpno ctzens may own
oca agrcutura and.
- Pendng tgaton, Go Gam and Gavna passed away.
- Upon Go Gams passng, Ansema executed an oath of aegance
to the RP and fed t wth the Offce of the Muncpa Treasurer for
the purpose of reacqurng her ctzenshp by repatraton, averrng
by reason whereof that her crmna abty s thereby
extngushed; and that the ssue of the crmna case s rendered
moot and academc
- Tra court dsmssed case prncpay predcated on ts opnon
that Ansema had vady reacqured Phppne ctzenshp
I((%E(
1. WON Ansema reacqured ctzenshp after executng an oath of
aegance to the RP and fng t wth the Muncpa Treasurer
2. f so, WON such reacquston of ctzenshp exempted her from
abty for the voaton of the Ant-Dummy Law
3ELD
1. No.
atio Mere takng of oath of aegance nsuffcent for
reacquston of Fpno ctzenshp. Woud-be repatrate shoud
show concusve proof that she has the quafcatons to be so
repatrated. Ansema became an aen by reason of her awfu
marrage to a Chnese ctzen; however ths does not necessary
mean that she was a Fpno ctzen pror to such marrage.
2. No.
atio Even had she been consdered repatrated, ke an aen who
became a naturazed Fpno ctzen, her repatraton w not
exempt her from crmna abty for voaton of the Ant-Dummy
Law.
$&O V EP%.LIC
VASOUEZ; March 29, 1983
'&C#(
- Modesta |ao cams to be a Phppne ctzen because she was
born of a Chnese father and an terate Fpna mother who were
not egay marred. - She marred a Chnese man and therefore ost
her Phppne ctzenshp but he s now dead.
- Her handcapped mother erroneousy regstered her as an aen
and she was ssued an Aen Certfcate of Regstraton (ACR).
- She s camng back her Ph. ctzenshp, by way of a petton for
repatraton fed n CFI of Davao.
- CFI ssued an order decarng pettoner as "|udcay repatrated,"
and ordered canceed her ACR.
- Provnca Fsca n behaf of the Repubc, appeaed the case.
I((%E
WON the |udca decree by the RTC was necessary for repatraton.
3ELD
atio Proceedngs to decare a person as "|udcay repatrated"
are a compete nuty. There s no aw requrng or authorzng that
repatraton shoud be effected by a |udca proceedng.
easonin; In 5#m *. >e)$/l#%, (7 SC>0 7'(, t was hed that
"there s no proceedng estabshed by aw or the rues by whch
any person camng to be a ctzen may get a decaraton n a court
of |ustce to that effect or n regard to hs ctzenshp." A that s
needed for a femae ctzen of the Ph. who ost her ctzenshp to
an aen to reacqure her Ph. ctzen, upon the termnaton of her
marta status, "s for her to take necessary oath of aegance to
the Repubc of the Ph. and to regster the sad oath n the proper
cv regstry."
0isposition Decson appeaed from s revoked and set asde. 5
|ustces concur.
!biter Pettoners cam of Ph. ctzenshp pror to her marrage
for beng aegedy an egtmate chd of a Chnese father and a
Fpna mother may not be estabshed n an acton where the
mother or her hers are not partes. 7t #s the %ons#stent r$le #n th#s
3$r#s&#%t#on that Ph#l. %#t#6ensh#) ma+ not /e &e%lare& #n a non-
a&*ersar+ s$#t .here the )ersons .hose r#ghts are affe%te& /+ s$%h
a &e%larat#on are not )art#es, s$%h as an a%t#on for &e%larator+
rel#ef, )et#t#on for 3$&#%#al re)atr#at#on, or an a%t#on to %an%el
reg#strat#on as an al#en.
VILL&VICE!CIO V L%).&!
MALCOLM; March 25, 1919
'&C#(
- Mana Mayor, |usto Lukban, wantng to extermnate vce, ordered
the cosng of the ctys red ght dstrct. The brothes were cosed
and the workers (170 women) were rounded up and kept confned
to ther houses n the dstrct by the poce for a tte more than a
week. On the nght of Oct.25, 1918, the women were forcby
husted aboard the steamers Correg#&or and Negros and sent off to
Davao to work as aborers wthout ther consent, wthout
opportunty to consut wth frends/famy or to defend ther rghts.
They reached Davao 4 days ater and were met by Francsco Saes,
governor of Davao and by hacendero Fecano Ygo and Rafae
Casto, etc.
- Durng ther voyage, the womens reatves and frends ntated
an appcaton for habeas corpus, aegng that |usto Lukban, aong
wth Anton Hohmann (the poce chef), and others deprved the
women of ther berty. The court awarded the wrt of habeas
corpus (w of hc) and ordered Lukban and co. to brng the women
before the court. Athough they returned wth none of the women,
they were gven another chance. The court ssued another order
ths tme cang for the respondents to produce a of the women
not n Mana. The respondents were ony abe to brng forward 8
women and chaenged the ssuance of the wrt.

I((%E(
1. Re: the proper grantng of the wrt:
a. WON the pettoners had standng
b. WON the S.C. erred n assumng |ursdcton
c. WON the women were actuay restraned of ther berty
2. WON there was compance wth the court orders
3. On contempt of court
3ELD
1a. Yes
atio When t s s mpossbe for a party to sgn an appcaton for
the w of hc, another person may submt t n hs/her behaf.
easonin; It was mpossbe for the women to have sgned a
petton for habeas corpus wth the way ther expuson was
conducted. They were frst soated from socety and then shpped.
It was consequenty proper for the wrt to be submtted by persons
n ther behaf.
16 No
atio The w of hc may be granted by the Supreme Court or any
|udge thereof enforcbe anywhere n the Phppnes. The SC can
decde upon where the wrt sha be made returnabe to (whether
before the SC or before a ower court).
easonin; The CFI of Davao was not n sesson. The case nvoves
partes from dfferent parts of the country. Habeas Corpus was
devsed as a s)ee&+ and effe%t$al remedy to reeve persons from
unawfu restrant.
10. Yes
atio The forcbe takng, soaton, and transfer of the women s
consttutve of deprvaton of freedom of ocomoton.
easonin; The essenta ob|ect and purpose of the wrt of habeas
corpus s to nqure nto a manner of nvountary restrant as
dstngushed from vountary and to reeve a person from such
restrant f t s ega. Any restrant whch w precude freedom of
acton s suffcent.
2. 1
st
or+er- No. Respondents were not abe to brng the women
before the court on the day named. The court coud have sent the
respondents to |a however, the court forebore drastc acton
because t dd not want the pubc to see a cash between executve
offcas and the |udcary and because t wanted to gve the
respondents another chance to demonstrate ther good fath and to
mtgate ther wrong.
I
n+
or+er- Yes. Respondents (through better effort) were abe to
produce 8 women. The mandate caed for a of the women not n
Mana. However, the court decded that there was substanta
compance, notng the effort (pacards were posted, poce heped,
free shppng to Mana was provded) and the fact that they had a
sncere desre to see the unhappy ncdent fnay cosed.
M. atio Ony Lukban s guty of contempt. Hs ntentons were
commendabe, hs methods were unawfu. An offcers faure to
produce the body of a person n obedence to a wrt of habeas
corpus, when he has power to do so, s contempt commtted n the
face of the court.
easonin; He was prmary responsbe for settng forth ths
whoe chan of events and had under hs power as head of the cty
government to factate the return of the women to Mana but
faed. The rest of the respondents other than Lukban are not guty
of contempt. Some were merey foowng the orders of ther
superors or merey fufng a duty. Another was merey drawn nto
the case through mscommuncaton.
0isposition No further acton on the w of hc. Lukban found n
contempt of court and sha pay Php 100 wthn 5 days. Rest of
respondents found not to be n contempt of court.
)%OD& $&L&!DO!I
MORAN; March 26, 1949
'&C#(
Kuroda, a hgh rankng |apanese army offca s beng charged by
the Mtary Commsson wth faure to perform dutes as
commander n preventng crmes/atroctes aganst cvans, and
POWs. In defense, he s aegng that Executve Order No. 68 (EO68)
whch estabshed a Nat. War Crmes Offce s unconsttutona and
that 2 prosecutng attorneys, Hussey and Port (both Amercan)
have no authorty to practce aw n the country. As such, the
respondents shoud be prohbted from proceedng wth ths case.
I((%E(
1. WON EO68 s unconsttutona
2. Re: Attys. Hussey and Port
A. WON they are quafed to practce n accordance wth the Rues
of Court
B. WoN ther appontment as prosecutors s voatve of the
Consttuton
3ELD
1. atio The Presdent as Commander n Chef s fuy empowered
to consummate an unfnshed aspect of war whch s the tra and
punshment of war crmnas through the ssuance and enforcement
of EO68.
easonin; EO68 was ssued by the Presdent to estabsh a Nat.
War Crmes Offce and provde for rues and reguatons n tryng
accused war crmnas. It conforms to the generay accepted
prncpes/poces of nternatona aw, ncudng the Hague
Conventon and the Geneva Conventon, whch are part of the aw
of the naton. Its promugaton was an exercse of the Presdent of
hs powers as Commander n Chef of the whoe armed forces. In
Yamashta v. Tyer, the court hed that "the power to create a
mtary commsson for the tra and punshment of war crmnas s
an aspect of wagng war. A mtary commsson has |ursdcton so
ong as a technca state of war contnues."
2A. atio The Mtary Commsson s speca mtary trbuna
governed by a speca aw and not by the Rues of Court.
easonin; There s nothng n EO68 whch requres that counse
appearng before sad commssons must be attys. quafed to
practce aw n the Ph. n accordance wth the Rues of Court.
2B. No
atio The appontment of the 2 Amercan attorneys s not
voatve of our natona soveregnty.
easonin; It s ony far and proper that the US, whch has
submtted the vndcaton of crmes aganst her govt. and her
peope to a trbuna of our naton, shoud be aowed representaton
n the tra of those very crmes.
0isposition The Mtary Commsson havng been convened by
vrtue of a vad aw, wth |ursdcton over the crmes charged
whch fa under the provsons of Executve Order No. 68, and
havng |ursdcton over the person of the pettoner by havng sad
pettoner n ts custody, ths Court w not nterfere wth the due
processes of such Mtary Commsson. Petton dened. Wth costs
&e of#%#o.
IC3O!G V 3E!&!DE4 &!D (&"IE!#O
LABRADOR; May 31, 1957
'&C#(
- In|uncton and Mandamus
- The Legsature enacted RA 1180 entted "An Act to Reguate the
Reta Busness." It prohbts aens and assocatons, partnershps,
or corporatons, whch are not whoy owned by ctzens, to engage
drecty or ndrecty n the reta trade. In effect t natonazes the
reta busness.
- +rocedure Lao Ichong, n hs own behaf and n behaf of other
aen resdents, corporatons, and partnershps adversey affected
by RA 1180 fed a petton for In|uncton and Mandamus aganst
|ame Hernandez, Secretary of Fnance and Marceno Sarmento,
Cty Treasurer of Mana.
- +reliminar( consideration o9 le;al principles involved
A. Poce Power
- the most postve and actve of a governmenta processes, the
most essenta, nsstent and mtabe
- necessary esp. n a modern democratc framework
B. Equa Protecton Cause
- aganst undue favor and ndvdua or cass prvege, as we as
hoste dscrmnaton or the oppresson of nequaty; t requres
that a persons sha be treated ake, under ke crcumstances and
condtons
- s not nfrnged by egsaton whch appes ony to those persons
fang wthn a specfed cass, f t appes ake to a persons wthn
such cass, and reasonabe grounds exsts for makng dstncton
between those who fa wthn such cass and those who do not.
- Crtera for Test of EPC
1. presence of pubc nterest and wefare
2. exstence of reasonabe reaton between purposes and
means
3. exstence of reasonabe bass for dstncton and cassfcaton
made
C. Due Process cause
- has to do wth reasonabeness of egsaton enacted n pursuance
of the poce power
- Ouestons for test:
1. Is there s a pubc nterest/purpose?
2. Is the Act s reasonaby necessary for the accompshment of
the egsatures purpose; s t not unreasonabe, arbtrary or
oppressve?
3. Can the ams conceved be acheved by the means used or s
t merey an un|ustfed nterference wth prvate nterest?
I((%E(
1. WON RA 1180 denes to aen resdents the equa protecton of
the aws.
2. WON RA 1180 deprves aen resdents of ther berty and
property wthout due process of aw.
3. WON the tte of the Act s mseadng or deceptve, as t
conceas the rea purpose of the b, whch s to natonaze the
reta busness and prohbt aens from engagng theren.
4. WON RA 1108 voates nternatona and treaty obgatons of the
Repubc of the Phppnes.
3ELD
1. No. The act does not transcend the mt of equa protecton
estabshed by the Consttuton f there s a queston of pubc
nterest nvoved or pursued and the cassfcaton or dstncton
used by the egsature, n ths case between natonas and aens,
s a0tual5 real an+ reasona6le, and a persons of one cass are
treated ake, and as t cannot be sad that cassfcaton s patenty
unreasonabe and unfounded.
easonin;
a. Based on e,)er#en%e of the country, aen retaer has shown
dsregard for hs customers and the peope on whom he makes hs
proft. Aens ack sprt of oyaty and enthusasm for the country.
Aen partcpaton n the reta trade has been attended by
ntoerabe practces ke the ff:
- hoardng essenta commodtes
- voatng prce contro aws
- boycottng honest merchants and traders who woud not cater
or yed to ther demands
- beeved to have evaded tax aws
- brbng pubc offcas
/. E%onom#% reason - aen retaer never reay makes a genune
contrbuton to natona ncome and weath snce the gans and
profts he makes are not nvested n ndustres that woud hep the
countrys economy and ncrease natona weath.
%. )re%e&ents
Smth Be & Co. vs. Natvdad, Gbbon vs. Ongden Commonweath
vs. Hana, Anton vs. Van Wnke, Tempar vs. Mchgan State Board
of Examners
- Essentay hed that the dfference n status between ctzens
and aens consttutes a bass for reasonabe cassfcaton n the
exercse of poce power.
Takahash vs. Fsh and game Commsson, Fraser vs. McConway &
Tarey
- hed that the dstncton between aens and ctzens s not
vad because the aws were found to be arbtrary, unreasonabe
or caprcous, or were the resut or product of raca antagonsm
and hostty, and there was no queston of pubc nterest
nvoved or pursued.
I. No. There s due process f the aws passed are seen to have
reasonabe reaton to a proper egsatve purpose, the means are
reasonaby necessary for the accompshment of the purpose, and
not unduy oppressve upon ndvduas.
easonin;
a. leg#t#ma%+ of the )$r)ose of the la.
- Its purpose s to prevent persons who are not ctzens of the
Phppnes from havng a strange hod upon our economc fe\
- Freedom and berty are not rea and postve f the peope are
sub|ect to the economc contro and domnaton of others,
especay f not of ther own race or country.
b Nat#onal#st#% )rote%t#*e )ol#%+ la#& &o.n #n the Const#t$t#on
- Secton 8 of Artce XIV provdes that "no franchse, certfcate, or
any other form of authorzaton for the operaton of a pubc utty
sha be granted except to ctzens of the Phppnes"
%. Pro*#s#ons of la. not $nreasona/le
- The egsature s prmary the |udge of the necessty of an
enactment or of any of ts provsons, and every presumpton s n
favor of ts vadty, and though the Court may hod vews
nconsstent wth the wsdom of the aw, t may not annu the
egsaton f not n excess of the egsatve power.
M. No. The provsons of the aw are ceary embraced n the tte.
The genera rue s for the use of genera terms n the tte of the
b and the tte need not be an ndex to the entre contents of the
aw.
easonin;
a. The term reguate s a broader term than ether prohbton or
natonazaton. Both of these have aways been ncuded wthn
the term reguaton.
G. No treaty has actuay been entered nto on the sub|ect and the
poce power may not be curtaed or surrendered by any treaty or
any other conventona agreement.
GO!4&LE( V 3EC3&!OV&
CONCEPCION; October 22, 1963
'&C#(
- Respondent Exec. Sec. authorzed mportaton of foregn rce and
created rce procurement commttee. Gonzaes, a rce panter and
Presdent of Ioo Paay and Corn Panters Assocaton, fed petton.
+rocedure Case s an orgna acton for prohbton wth
premnary n|uncton to restran mpementaton of decson of
Exec. Sec. to mport rce. Respondents were requred to fe answer
and hearng was set.
- on WON respondents are actng wthout |ursdcton or n excess of
|ursdcton
Pet#t#onerGs stan&@
- Yes, bec. RA 3452 expcty prohbts mportaton of rce and corn
by Rce and Corn Admnstraton and any other govt agency.
>es)on&entsG stan&@
- Pettoner has no suffcent nterest to fe petton.
- Pettoner has not exhausted a admnstratve remedes
avaabe before comng to court.
- Pettoners acton s not suffcent and not governed by RA 3452
because mportaton was authorzed by Presdent as Commander n
Chef for mtary stock pe purposes. As such, Pres must prepare
for threats wthout watng for any speca authorty.
- Aso, they say ts not under RA 3452 bec. the RAs prohbt
mportaton of rce and corn by "government agency" and not the
government tsef.
- Even f the proposed mportaton voated the RAs, t can st be
permtted because t s for the beneft of the peope.
- The Phs s aready under executve agreements wth contracts
for purchase of rce wth Vetnam and Burma. In case of confct
between the RAs and the contracts, the contracts shoud preva
because t came ater. These contracts have been consummated
bec. the Phs. has aready pad.
I((%E
WON respondents are actng wthout |ursdcton or n excess of
|ursdcton
3ELD
- RA 3452 says that the govt pocy s to purchase basc foods
drecty from farmers n Phs. Pettoner has suffcent nterest.
- Case at bar nvoves queston whch s a purey ega one. It fas
under the exempton from the doctrne of exhauston of
admnstratve remedes.
- The proposed mportaton s governed by RA 2207 and RA 3452
bec t covers "a mportatons of rce and corn nto the Phs."
- RA 2207 and 3452 aso appes to mportatons of the government
tsef bec. RA 2207 taks about mports authorzed by the Presdent,
by and on behaf of government. RA 3452 aso ndcates that ony
prvate partes may mport rce under ts provsons. These RAs are
ony n addton to Commonweath Act No. 138 whch says that n
a purchases by govt, nc. those for armed forces, preference s
gven to materas produced n the Phs.
- The "beneft of the peope" argument cant be accepted because
there s no oca rce shortage. And the mportaton s sad to be for
stockpe of Army, not for the cvan popuaton.
- The contracts w/ Vetnam and Burma are not executve
agreements. Even f they were, they are unawfu, beng aganst
the RAs. The aeged consummaton does not render ths case
academc. The contracts may have aready been entered nto and
the payment may have been made but the actua mportaton has
not yet taken pace.
0isposition- For ack of requste ma|orty, n|uncton prayed for s
DENIED.
- It s decared that Exec. Sec. has no power to authorze
mportaton n queston and he exceeded |ursdcton n grantng
authorty. The mportaton s not sanctoned by aw and s contrary
to ts provsons.
&((OCI&#IO! O' ("&LL L&!DO7!E( V (ECE#&2 O'
D&
CRUZ; |uy 14, 1989
'&C#(
- The Consttuton n 1935 mandated the pocy of soca |ustce to
"nsure the we-beng and economc securty of a the peope,"
especay the, ess prveged.
- In 1973, the new Consttuton affrmed ths goa addng
specfcay that "the State sha reguate the acquston,
ownershp, use, en|oyment and dsposton of prvate property and
equtaby dffuse property ownershp and profts. Sgnfcanty,
there was aso the specfc n|uncton to "formuate and mpement
an agraran reform program amed at emancpatng the tenant
from the bondage of the so."
- The 1987 Consttuton, besdes echong these sentments, aso
adopted one whoe and separate Artce XIII on Soca |ustce and
Human Rghts. One of ts sectons:
- SEC. 4. The State sha, by aw, undertake an agraran reform
program founded on the rght of farmers and reguar farmworkers,
who are andess, to own drecty or coectvey the ands they t
or, n the case of other farmworkers, to receve a |ust share of the
fruts thereof To ths end, the State sha encourage and undertake
the |ust dstrbuton of a agrcutura ands, sub|ect to such
prortes and reasonabe retenton mts as the Congress may
prescrbe, takng nto account ecoogca, deveopmenta, or equty
consderatons and sub|ect to the payment of |ust compensaton. In
determnng retenton mts, the State sha respect the rght of
sma andowners. The State sha further provde ncentves for
vountary andsharng.
- R.A, No. 3844, otherwse known as the Agrcutura Land Reform
Code, had aready been enacted by the Congress of the Phppnes
on August 8, 1963, n ne wth the above-stated prncpes. Ths
was substantay superseded amost a decade ater by P.D. !o.
IH, whch was promugated on October 21, 1972, aong wth
marta aw, to provde for the compusory acquston of prvate
ands for dstrbuton among tenant-farmers and to specfy
maxmum retenton mts for andowners.
- On |uy 17, 1987, Presdent Corazon C. Aquno ssued E.O. !o.
II;, decarng fu and ownershp n favor of the benefcares of
P.D. No. 27 and provdng for the vauaton of st unvaued ands
covered by the decree as we as the manner of ther payment.
Ths was foowed on |uy 22, 1987 by Presi+ential Pro0lamation
!o. 1M1, nsttutng a comprehensve agraran reform program
(CARP), and E.O. !o. IIF, provdng the mechancs for ts
mpementaton.
- Wth ts forma organzaton, the revved Congress of the
Phppnes (formay convened on |uy 27, 1987) took over
egsatve power from the Presdent and started ts own
deberatons, ncudng extensve pubc hearngs, on the
mprovement of the nterests of farmers. The resut, after amost a
year of sprted debate, was the enactment of .&. !o. 885H,
otherwse known as the Compre*ensive &grarian e/orm Law
o/ 1F;;, whch Presdent Aquno sgned on |une 10, 1988. Ths aw,
whe consderaby changng the earer mentoned enactments,
nevertheess gves them suppetory effect nsofar as they are not
nconsstent wth ts provsons.
I((%E(
1. WON pettons are |ustcabe.
2. WON P.D. No. 27, Presdenta Procamaton No. 131, E.O. Nos.
228 and 229 and R.A. 6657 contravene the Consttuton on the
grounds nter aa of separaton of powers, due process, equa
protecton and the consttutona mtaton that no prvate property
sha be taken for pubc use wthout |ust compensaton.
Sub ssues
a. The determnaton of |ust compensaton may be made ony by a
court of |ustce and not by the Presdent of the Phppnes.
b. The |ust compensaton contempated by the B of Rghts s
payabe ony n money or n cash but not n the form of bonds or
other thngs of vaue.
c. In consderng rentas as advance payment on the and, E.O. No.
228 deprves the pettoners of ther property rghts as protected by
due process.
d. The equa protecton cause s voated when the burden of
sovng the agraran probems s paced on the owners ony of
agrcutura ands.
e. In decarng the benefcares under P.D. No. 27 to be the owners
of the ands occuped by them, E.O. No. 228 gnored |udca
prerogatves and so voated due process.
f. The power to provde for a Comprehensve Agraran Reform
Program as decreed by the Consttuton beongs to Congress and
not the Presdent. Athough pettoners agree that the Presdent
coud exercse egsatve power unt the Congress was convened,
they contend that she coud do so ony to enact emergency
measures durng the perod.
g. The money needed to create the P50 bon speca fund under
Proc. No. 131 s #n f$t$ro, not #n esse, .e., t has yet to be rased
and cannot be approprated at that tme.
h. The sugar panters argued that they are a separate group wth
probems excusvey ther own and by beng umped n the same
egsaton wth other farmers, ther rght to equa protecton has
been voated.
. There was a faure to estabsh by cear and convncng evdence
the necessty for the exercse of the powers of emnent doman,
and the voaton of the fundamenta rght to own property.
|. The pettoners aso decry the penaty for non-regstraton of the
ands, whch s the expropraton of the sad and for an amount
equa to the government assessor's vauaton of the and for tax
purposes. On the other hand, f the andowner decares hs own
vauaton, he s un|usty requred to mmedatey pay the
correspondng taxes on the and, n voaton of the unformty
rue.
28
k. E.O. No. 229 voates the consttutona requrement that a b
sha have ony one sub|ect, to be expressed n ts tte.
3ELD
1. D- Yes. The Court w assume |ursdcton over a consttutona
queston ony f t s shown that the essenta requstes of a |udca
nqury nto such a queston are frst satsfed but even f they are
not covered by the defnton, t s st wthn the wde dscreton of
the Court to wave the requrement and so remove the mpedment
28
Ths was not dscussed drecty but may be construed as beng under No. 1 above. It w st be the courts
who w decde what |ust compensaton woud be.
to ts addressng and resovng the serous consttutona questons
rased.
Ia. The determnaton made by the DAR s ony premnary uness
accepted by a partes concerned. Otherwse, the courts of |ustce
w st have the rght to revew wth fnaty the sad determnaton
n the exercse of what s admttedy a |udca functon. (Sec. 16f)
I6. It cannot be dened that the tradtona medum for the
payment of |ust compensaton s money and no other. And so,
conformaby, has |ust compensaton been pad n the past soey n
that medum. However, we do not dea here wth the tradtona
exercse of the power of emnent doman.
29
Ths s not an ordnary
expropraton where ony a specfc property of reatvey mted
area s sought to be taken by the State from ts owner for a specfc
and perhaps oca purpose. What we dea wth here s a
revoutonary knd of expropraton.
I0. When E.O. No. 228, categorcay stated n ts Secton 1 that:
A quafed farmer-benefcares are now deemed fu owners as of
October 21, 1972 of the and they a%4$#re& by vrtue of P.D. No. 27.
It was obvousy referrng to ands aready vady acqured under
the sad decree, after proof of fu-fedged membershp n the
farmers' cooperatves and fu payment of |ust compensaton.
Hence, t was aso perfecty proper for the Order to aso provde n
ts Secton 2 that the "ease rentas pad to the andowner by the
farmer-benefcary after October 21, 1972 (pendng transfer of
ownershp after fu payment of |ust compensaton), sha be
consdered as advance payment for the and.
I+. Equa protecton smpy means that a persons or thngs
smary stuated must be treated ake both as to the rghts
conferred and the abtes mposed. The argument that not ony
andowners but aso owners of other propertes must be made to
share the burden of mpementng and reform must be re|ected.
There s a substanta dstncton between these two casses of
owners that s ceary vsbe except to those who w not see.
30
29
The power of emnent doman s one of the three nherent powers of the State. It s the power "to forcby
acqure prvate ands ntended for pubc use upon payment of |ust compensaton to the owner." It s nherent
because t exsts wthout need for egsaton, .e., even f t s not sanctoned by any aw or even the
Consttuton, the State may exercse t. Why? Because these powers are necessary for a state to exst. The other
two are poce power and taxaton.
Ie. The CARP Law condtons the transfer of possesson and
ownershp of the and to the government on recept by the
andowner of the correspondng payment or the depost by the DAR
of the compensaton n cash or LBP bonds wth an accessbe bank.
Unt then, tte remans wth the andowner. No outrght change of
ownershp s contempated ether.
I/. The power of Presdent Aquno to promugate Proc. No. 131 and
E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 was authorzed under Secton 6 of the
Transtory Provsons of the 1987 Consttuton. It s not correct to
say that these measures ceased to be vad when she ost her
egsatve power for, ke any statute, they contnue to be n force
uness modfed or repeaed by subsequent aw or decared nvad
by the courts. A statute does not pso facto become noperatve
smpy because of the dssouton of the egsature that enacted t.
Sgnfcanty, the Congress she s aeged to have undercut has not
re|ected but n fact substantay affrmed the chaenged measures
and has specfcay provded that they sha be suppetory to R.A.
No. 6657 whenever not nconsstent wth ts provsons.
Ig. Proc. No. 131 s not an appropraton measure even f t does
provde for the creaton of sad fund, for that s not ts prncpa
purpose. An appropraton aw s one the prmary and specfc
purpose of whch s to authorze the reease of pubc funds from
the treasury. The creaton of the fund s ony ncdenta to the man
ob|ectve of the procamaton, whch s agraran reform. Secton 24
and Secton 25(4) of Artce VI, are not appcabe. Wth partcuar
reference to Secton 24, ths obvousy coud not have been
comped wth for the smpe reason that the House of
Representatves, whch now has the excusve power to ntate
appropraton measures, had not yet been convened when the
procamaton was ssued. The egsatve power was then soey
vested n the Presdent of the Phppnes, who emboded, as t
were, both houses of Congress.
I*. No evdence has been submtted to the Court that the
requstes of a vad cassfcaton have been voated. Cassfcaton
has been defned as the groupng of persons or thngs smar to
30
Franky, I dont ke the way ths ponente argues. Hes ke sayng, now I dont want to expan why. If you cant
see the reasonng ts your faut. Anyway, were nfabe remember? Hs next sentence: "here #s no nee& to
ela/orate on th#s matter. Tsk.
each other n certan partcuars and dfferent from each other n
these same partcuars. To be vad, t must conform to the
foowng requrements: (1) t must be based on substanta
dstnctons; (2) t must be germane to the purposes of the aw; (3)
t must not be mted to exstng condtons ony; and (4) t must
appy equay to a the members of the cass. The Court fnds that
a these requstes have been met by the measures here
chaenged as arbtrary and dscrmnatory.
Ii. The power of expropraton s by no means absoute. The
mtaton s found n the consttutona n|uncton that "prvate
property sha not be taken for pubc use wthout |ust
compensaton" and n the abundant |ursprudence that has evoved
from the nterpretaton of ths prncpe. Bascay, the requrements
for a proper exercse of the power are: (1) pubc use and (2) |ust
compensaton.
31
Some of the pettoners nvoked ther rght of maxmum retenton
under Art. XIII, Sec. 4 of the Consttuton and under P.D. 316 whch
was promugated n mpementaton of P.D. 27.
I<. R.A. No. 6657 does provde for such mts now n Sec. 6 of the
aw, whch n fact s one of ts most controversa provsons. (Sec 6:
Ma, )er lan&o.ner #s he%. ( he% ma+ /e a.ar&e& to ea%h %h#l& at
least 1 +rs ol& an& a%t$all+ t#ll#ng or &#re%tl+ manag#ng the lan&!
I9. It s setted that the tte of a b does not have to be a
cataogue of ts contents and w suffce f the matters
emboded n the text are reevant to each other.
0ecision
WHEREFORE, the Court hods as foows:
1. R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and
229 are SUSTAINED aganst a the consttutona ob|ectons rased
n the heren pettons.
2. Tte to a exproprated propertes sha be transferred to the
State ony upon fu payment of compensaton to ther respectve
owners.
3. A rghts prevousy acqured by the tenant-farmers under P.D.
No. 27 are retaned and recognzed.
31
There was a shft n sub|ect after ths. He tacked the argument on why the State dd not dstrbute pubc
ands ony by pontng out the Consttutons "the |ust dstrbuton of all agrcutura ands" cause. Then he pays
the potca queston card on the ssue of why the dstrbuton woud be prvate ands f#rst.
4. Landowners who were unabe to exercse ther rghts of retenton
under P.D. No. 27 sha en|oy the retenton rghts granted by R.A.
No. 6657 under the condtons theren prescrbed.
5. Sub|ect to the above-mentoned rungs, a the pettons are
DISMISSED, wthout pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. (Unanmous court)
L%4 '&"( V (ECE#&2 O' D&
PARAS; December 4, 1990
'&C#(
- Petton for prohbton to revew the decson of the Secretary of
the Department of Agraran Reform
- 6/10/88: Pres. Aquno approved RA 6657 or the Comprehensve
Agraran Reform Law whch ncudes the rasng of vestock, swne
and poutry
1/2/89: Sec. of Agraran Reform (SAR) promugated Gudenes and
Procedures Impementng Producton and Proft Sharng for RA 6657
(S13 & S32)
- 1/9/89: SAR promugated Rues and Reguatons mpementng
S11 (commerca farms)
-Luz Farms, pettoner, s a corporaton engaged n
vestock/poutry, adversey affected by RA 6657
-petton prays that RA be decared unconsttutona; t s aso
prayed that a premnary n|uncton be ssued to en|on the
enforcement of the sad aw (n|uncton dened)
8/24/89: court granted moton for reconsderaton on n|unctve
reef
-Luz Farms questons the foowng provsons of RA 6657:
S3(b): ncudes rasng of vestock n defnton of "Agrcutura
Enterprse/Actvty"
S11: defnes "commerca farms" as "agrcutura ands devoted
to commerca vestock, poutry and swne rasng
S13: cas for producton-sharng pan (dstrbute 3% of gross
saes & 10% of gross profts to workers as addtona
compensaton)
S16(d) & 17: vests n DAR authorty to determne compensaton
to be pad for ands covered by RA 6657
S32: spes out producton-sharng pan n S13
-the consttutona provson under consderaton s A13, S4,
"Agraran and Natura Resources Reform"
whch grants farmers and farm-workers who are andess, the rght
to drecty or coectvey own the and they are tng
-vestock and poutry rasng s dfferent from crop farmng n that
and s not a prmary nput n the former
I((%E
WON S3(b), 11, 13 & 32 of RA 6657 are consttutona nsofar as
sad aw ncudes the ra#s#ng of l#*esto%=, )o$ltr+ an& s.#ne n ts
coverage as we as n ts Impementng Rues and Gudenes
3ELD
Instant petton GRANTED. S3(b), 11, 13 & 32 of RA 6657 are
consttutona nsofar as sad aw ncudes the ra#s#ng of l#*esto%=,
)o$ltr+ an& s.#ne n ts coverage as we as n ts Impementng
Rues and Gudenes are hereby decared nu and vod for beng
unconsttutona and the wrt of premnary n|uncton ssued s
hereby made permanent
atio the queston rased s one of consttutona constructon; n
construng any ambguous provsons, the courts may ook to the
debates of the concon
-the transcrpts of the 1986 concon ceary show that the meanng
of the word "agrcutura" (ts dctonary meanng asde) was never
meant to ncude vestock and poutry ndustres n ts coverage;
there s no reason to ncude vestock and poutry ands n agraran
reform
-S13 & 32 cang for producton-sharng s confscatory and s thus
voatve of due process
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
(&"IE!#O
-agrees that petton be granted but not that man ssue s one of
const constructon and nterpretaton
A13, S4: "..n case of other farm workers, to receve a |ust share of
the fruts thereof."-ths phrase provdes a possbe coverage of
vestock, poutry and swne
-every presumpton shoud be nduged n favor of the
consttutonaty of a statute
ISSUE: WON assaed provsons voate equa protecton cause of
the const
-ceary, vestock & poutry ands and crop & tree farms are not
smary stuated, hence the ncuson of the former n CARP woud
be voatve of the equa protecton cause
G&CI& V EBEC%#IVE (ECE#&2
CRUZ; December 2, 1991
'&C#(
+etitioner c&allen;es #7A=$ on t&e ;round t&at:
- It defeats the consttutona pocy of deveopng a sef-reant and
ndependent natona economy effectvey controed by Fpnos
and the protecton of Fpno enterprses aganst unfar foregn
competton and trade practces
- He cams that the aw abdcates a reguaton of foregn
enterprses n ths country and gves them unfar advantages over
oca nvestments whch are practcay ebowed out n ther own
and wth the compcty of ther own government
- Under Secton 5 of the sad aw a foregn nvestor may do
busness n the Phppnes or nvest n a domestc enterprse up to
100% of ts capta wthout need of pror approva
o A that t has to do s regster wth the Securtes and
Exchange Commsson or the Bureau of Trade Reguaton and
Consumer Protecton n the case of a snge propretorshp
o "The SEC or BTRCP, as the case may be, sha not mpose any
mtatons on the extent of foregn ownershp n an enterprse
addtona to those provded n the Act"
- Under Secton 7, "non-Phppne natonas may own up to one
hundred percent (100%) of domestc market enterprses uness
foregn ownershp theren s prohbted or mted by exstng aw or
the Foregn Investment Negatve Lst under Secton 8 hereof."
- However, the system of negatve st under Secton 8 abandons
the postve aspect of reguaton and exercse of authorty over
foregn nvestments. In effect, t assumes that so ong as foregn
nvestments are not n areas covered by the st, such nvestments
are not detrmenta to but are good for the natona economy.
o Lst A - merey enumerate areas of actvtes aready reserved
to Phppne natonas by mandate of the Consttuton and
specfc aws
o Lst B - contan areas of actvtes and enterprses aready
reguated accordng to aw and ncudes sma and medum-
szed domestc market enterprses or export enterprses whch
utze raw materas from depetng natura resources wth
pad-n equty capta of ess than the equvaent of
US$500,000.00; meanng, SMEs are for Fpnos. Or even,
Fpnos are not encouraged to go bg.
o Lst C - contan areas of nvestment m whch "exstng
enterprses aready serve adequatey the needs of the
economy and the consumers and do not need further foregn
nvestments."; However, exstng enterprses must be
quafed as Fpno, f not, t sha protect foregn enterprses
too
- Secton 9 s aso attacked, because f a Phppne natona
beeves that an area of nvestment shoud be ncuded n st C, the
6ur+en is on *im to s*ow t*at t*e 0riteria enumerate+ in
sai+ se0tion are met
- Artces 2, 32, & 35 of the Omnbus Investments Code of 1982 are
done away wth by RA 7042.
- By repeang Artces 49, 50, 54 and 56 of the 1987 Omnbus
Investments Code, RA No. 7042 further abandons the reguaton of
foregn nvestments by dong away wth mportant requrements for
dong busness n the Phppnes.
- The Transtory provsons of RA 7042, whch aow practcay
unmted entry of foregn nvestments for three years, sub|ect ony
to a supposed Transtory Foregn Investment Negatve Lst, not ony
competey dereguates foregn nvestments but woud pace
Fpno enterprses at a fata dsadvantage n ther own country.
.ol<4en ans:ers:
- phrase "wthout need of pror approva" appes to equty
restrctons aone
o pror to the effectvty of RA 7042, Artce 46 of
the Omnbus Investments Code of 1987 (EO No. 226),
provded that a non-Phppne natona coud, wthout need of
pror authorty from the Board of Investments (BOI), nvest n:
(1) any enterprse regstered under Book I (Investments wth
Incentves); and (2) enterprses not regstered under Book I, to
the extent that the tota nvestment of the non-Phppne
natona dd not exceed 40% of the outstandng capta
o On the other hand, under Artce 47 thereof, f an
nvestment by a non-Phppne natonas n an enterprse not
regstered under Book I was such that the tota partcpaton
by non-Phppne natonas n the outstandng capta thereof
exceeded 40%, pror authorty from the BOI was requred.
- Wth the ntroducton of the Negatve Lst under Sectons 8 & 15,
the areas of nvestments not open to foregn nvestors are aready
determned and outned; hence, regstraton wth the SEC or
BTRCP, as the case may be, s now the nta step to be taken by
foregn nvestors.
- Ths regstraton consttutes reguaton and exercse of authorty
over foregn nvestments. Under SEC and BTRCP rues and
reguatons, foregn nvestors must frst compy wth certan
requrements before they can be ssued a cense to do busness n
the Phppnes.
- Secton 7 of RA 7042 aows non-Phppne natonas to own up to
100% of domestc market enterprses ony n areas of nvestments
outsde the prohbtons and mtatons mposed by aw to protect
Fpno ownershp and nterest.
- The Foregn Investment Negatve Lst under Secton 8 reserves to
Fpnos senstve areas of nvestments. Lst C prohbts foregn
nvestors from engagng n areas of actvtes where exstng
enterprses aready serve adequatey the needs of the economy
and the consumer.
o The Act opens the door to foregn nvestments ony after
securng to Fpnos ther rghts and nterests over the
natona economy.
o Lst A - The provsons of the Consttuton and other specfc
aws reguate or mt the extent of foregn ownershp n
enterprses engaged n areas of actvty reserved for Fpnos
o Lst B - contans areas aready reguated pursuant to aw
aready makes t cear that t s reguatory. It channes efforts
at promotng foregn nvestments to bgger enterprses where
there s an acute ack of Fpno capta; scheme s for foregn
nvestments to suppement Fpno capta n bg enterprses.
o Lst C - to aow heathy competton, Actvtes whch do not
adequatey meet-the needs of the consumers shoud not be
ncuded n st C; f not, consumers woud be at the mercy of
unscrupuous producers
o Foregn Corporatons under a vad cense pror to the
enactment of RA 7042 necessary come wthn the protecton
of the aw.
- Secton 9 provdes for the crtera to be used by NEDA n
determnng the areas of nvestment for ncuson n Lst C
o Petton for ncuson theren requres "a pubc hearng at
whch affected partes w have the opportunty to show
whether the pettoner ndustry adequatey serves the
economy and the consumers."
o Provson s desgned to protect the consumers as not a
exstng enterprses satsfy the crtera ncuson n Lst C.
- Regardng the repeang of provsons of the Omnbus Investment
Code
o purposey removed because the determnaton of the areas of
nvestment open to foregn nvestors s made easy by the
Foregn Investment Negatve Lst formuated and
recommended by NEDA foowng the process and crtera
provded n Sectons 8 & 9 of the Act
- Re the Transtory Foregn Investment Negatve Lst
o t practcay ncudes the same areas of nvestment reserved
to Fpno under Secton 5", and the "SEC sha dsaow
regstraton of the appyng non-Phppne natona f the
exstng |ont venture enterprses, partcuary the Fpno
partners theren, can reasonaby prove they are capabe to
make the nvestment needed for the domestc market
actvtes to be undertaken by the competng appcant.
.enator +aterno as Intervenor:
- the over-a strategy emboded n the Act to deveop a sef-reant
economy, as we as the provsons desgned to promote fu
empoyment for Fpnos
- suggests that the consttutona chaenge shoud be re|ected
outrght for noncompance wth the requstes of a |udca nqury
nto a consttutona queston, to wt: (1) there must be an actua
case or controversy; (2) the consttutona queston must be rased
by a proper party; (3) the consttutona queston must be rased at
the earest opportunty; and (4) the resouton of the consttutona
queston must be necessary to the decson of the case.
I((%E(
1. WON there s actua controversy
2. WON pettoners have ega standng
3. WON consttutonaty s mota of the case
4. WON ths entas a potca queston
3ELD
1. There s at ths pont no actua case or controversy,
partcuary because of the absence of the mpementng rues
that are supposed to carry the Act nto effect
a. A controversy must be one that s approprate or
"rpe" for determnaton, not con|ectura or antcpatory
2. The pettoner, as a ctzen and taxpayer, and partcuary as
a member of the House of Representatves, comes under the
defnton that a proper party s one who has sustaned or s n
danger of sustanng an n|ury as a resut of the act companed
of.
3. The consttutona queston has not been rased tardy but
n fact, as |ust remarked, prematurey.
- The consttutona chaenge must be re|ected for faure to show
that there s an ndubtabe ground for t, not to say even a
necessty to resove t.
a. Pocy of the courts s to avod rung on consttutona
questons and to presume that the acts of the potca
departments are vad n the absence of a cear and
unmstakabe showng to the contrary. To doubt s to sustan.
b. based on the doctrne of separaton of powers whch
en|ons upon each department a becomng respect for the
acts of the other departments
c.theory s that as the |ont act of Congress and the Presdent of
the Phppnes, a aw has been carefuy studed and
determned to be n accordance wth the fundamenta aw
before t was fnay enacted.
- the cause of unconsttutonaty has not been proved by the
pettoner
d. Act does not voate any of the consttutona
provsons the pettoner has mentoned
4. What we see here s a debate on the wsdom or the effcacy
of the Act, but ths s a matter on whch we are not competent to
rue.
a. In Angara v Eectora Commsson: "the |udcary does
not pass upon questons of wsdom, |ustce or expedency of
egsaton."
b. aowed ony "to sette actua controverses nvovng
rghts whch are egay demandabe and enforceabe," 5 and
may not annu an act of the potca departments smpy
because we fee t s unwse or mpractca.
c.There s no rreguarty aso, that shows that there has been a
grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of
|ursdcton on the part of any branch or nstrumentaty of the
Government.
0ecision Petton dsmssed.
C&L&L&!G vs. 7ILLI&"(
LAUREL; December 2, 1940
'&C#(
- The Secretary of Pubc Works and Communcatons (PWC)
approved wth modfcaton the recommendaton that orgnated
from the Natona Traffc Commsson (NTC), whch was favoraby
ndorsed by the Drector of Pubc Works (PW), that Rosaro Street
and Rza Avenue be cosed to traffc of anma-drawn vehces,
between the ponts and durng the hours from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., for
a perod of one year from the date of the openng of the Cogante
Brdge to traffc; that the Mayor of Mana and the Actng Chef of
Poce of Mana have enforced and caused to be enforced the rues
and reguatons thus adopted; that as a consequence of such
enforcement, a anma drawn vehces are not aowed to pass
and pck up passengers n the paces above-mentoned to the
detrment not ony of ther owners but of the rdng pubc as we.
- Commonweath Act No. 548 gves the Drector of Pubc Works,
wth the approva of the Secretary of the Pubc Works and
Communcatons the authorty to promugate rues and reguatons
to reguate and contro the use of and traffc on natona roads.
+rocedure Maxmo Caang, n hs capacty as prvate ctzen and
as a taxpayer of Mana, fed a petton for a wrt of prohbton
aganst the Charman of NTC, Drector of PW, Actng Secretary of
PWC, Mayor of Mana and Actng Chef of Poce of Mana.
I((%E(
1. WON Commonweath Act No. 548 s unconsttutona because t
consttutes an undue deegaton of egsatve power.
2. WON the rues and reguatons promugated consttute an
unawfu nterference wth egtmate busness or trade and abrdge
the rght to persona berty and freedom of ocomoton.
3. WON the rues and reguatons companed of nfrnge the upon
the consttutona precept regardng the promoton of soca |ustce
to nsure the we-beng of a the peope.
3ELD
1. No.The Legsature cannot deegate power to make aw; but t
can make a aw to deegate a power to determne some fact or
state of thngs upon whch the aw makes, or ntends to make, ts
own acton depend.
easonin;
1. a&heren%e to )re%e&ent
Rub vs. Provnca Board of Mndoro, Wayman vs. Southard - t was
hed here that dscreton may be deegated to executve
departments or subordnate offcas the executon of certan acts,
fna on questons of fact.
2. te,t$al #nter)retat#on of Common.ealth 0%t No. 4'
The provson that "..the Drector of Pubc Works, wth the
approva of the Secretary of the Pubc Works and
Communcatons, sha promugate rues and reguatons to
reguate and contro the use of and traffc on natona roads.", s
an a+ministrative functon whch cannot be drecty dscharged
by the Natona Assemby.
(. )ra%t#%al#t+
The compextes of modern governments, the mutpcaton of the
sub|ects of govt reguatons, and the ncreased dffcuty n
admnsterng the aw gve rse to the adopton, wthn certan
mts, the deegaton of greater powers by the egsatve and
vestng a arger amount of dscreton n admnstratve and
executve offcas, not ony n the executon of the aws, but aso
n the promugaton of certan rues and reguatons.
2. No. The state may enact aws that may nterfere wth persona
berty, wth property, and wth busness and occupaton f the sad
aws are ntended to promote the wefare of the pubc. (poce
power of the State)
easonin;
1. )re%e&ents (US vs. Gomez, Dobbns vs. Los Angees &
Peope vs. Pomar)
2. Para&o, - The apparent curtament of berty s precsey
the very means of nsurng ts preservaton
3. No. Soca |ustce s promoted f the greatest good s brought
about to the greatest number.
.&(CO V P3ILIPPI!E &"%(E"E!# &!D G&"I!G
COPO&#IO!
PARAS; May 14, 1991
'&C#(
- PAGCOR was created by vrtue of PD 1067-A and was granted
franchse under PD 1067-B to estabsh, operate and mantan
gambng casnos. PAGCOR proved to be a potenta source of
revenue. Thus, PD 1399 was passed for PAGCOR to fuy attan ts
ob|ectves. PD 1869 was passed ater on to enabe
PAGCOR/government to reguate and centraze a games of
chance, gvng t terrtora |ursdcton a over the Phppnes.
PAGCOR became 3
rd
argest source of govt revenue, next to BIR
and Bureau of Customs. It sponsored soco-cutura and chartabe
pro|ects and at that tme empoyed 4,494 empoyees n ts 9
casnos.
+rocedure Ths s petton seekng to annu the PAGCOR charter -
PD 1869
I((%E(
Pro0e+ural Issue
WON pettoners, as taxpayers and practcng awyers can queston
and seek the annument of PD 1869
(u6stantive IssueCs
WON PD 1869 shoud be annued based on the ff grounds:
1. t s aegedy contrary to moras, pubc pocy and order
2. t waved and ntruded nto the Mana Cty governments rght to
mpose taxes and cense fees
3. t voates equa protecton cause n that t egazes PAGCOR
but outaws other forms of gambng and vces
4. t voates trend of government away from monopostc and
crony economy
3ELD
Pro%e&$ral 7ss$e@
- Consderng transcendenta pubc nterest and the Courts duty
to check on mts of other branches of govt, SC brushed asde
techncates of procedure and took cognzance of the petton.
S$/stant#*e 7ss$es@
1. Gambng, uness aowed by aw, s prohbted. But prohbton
does not mean that govt cant reguate t n exercse of poce
power. Poce power s "state authorty to enact egsaton that
may nterfere wth persona berty or property n order to promote
genera wefare." PAGCOR has been benefca, not |ust to govt,
but to socety as we.
2. Mana, beng a mere muncpa corporaton, has no nherent
rght to mpose taxes, ts power to tax must aways yed to a
egsatve act. Muncpa corporatons are mere creatures of
Congress, therefore Charter of Mana s sub|ect to contro by
Congress. If Congress can grant a muncpa corporaton the power
to tax, t can aso provde exemptons or even take back the power.
Aso, Manas power to mpose cense fees on gambng has ong
been revoked. The power s now vested excusvey on natona
government.
Loca governments, too, have no power to tax nstrumentates of
natona government, such as PAGCOR. PAGCOR s exempt from
oca taxes.
The power of oca govt to mpose taxes and fees s aways sub|ect
to mts w/c Congress may provde. It cant be voatve, but
consstent wth prncpe of oca autonomy.
Loca autonomy doesnt make oca govt soveregn w/n state; t
smpy means decentrazaton. The oca govt has been descrbed
as a potca subdvson of state consttuted by aw and has
substanta contro of oca affars. It can ony be an ntra soveregn
subdvson of a soveregn naton, t cant be an mperum n
mpero.
3. Equa protecton doesnt precude cassfcaton of ndvduas
who may be accorded dff. treatment as ong as cassfcaton s not
unreasonabe/arbtrary. The fact that some gambng actvtes
(e.g. sweepstakes, ottery, races, cockfghtng, etc.) are egazed
whe others are prohbted does not render appcabe aws such as
PD 1869 unconsttutona.
Whether or not PD 1869 s a wse egsaton s up for Congress to
determne. But as of now, every aw has n ts favor the
presumpton of consttutonaty. For a aw to be nufed, there
must be a showng of cear and unequvoca breach of Consttuton.
4. If PD 1869 runs counter to govt poces, t s for Executve to
recommend to Congress ts repea or amendment. |udcary does
not sette pocy ssues.
0isposition Petton s DISMISSED.
OPO(& V '&C#O&!
DAVIDE; |uy 30, 1993
'&C#(
- The overarchng theme of the case deas wth the preventon the
msappropraton or mparment of Phppne ranforests and arrest
the unabated hemorrhage of the countrys vta fe support
systems and contnued rape of Mother Earth.
- In 1991 a case was fed by mnors (represented by ther parents)
and the Phppne Ecoogca Network (PENI) aganst the then
Secretary of the Department of Envronment and Natura Resources
(DENR), Fugenco Factoran, |r. who was substtuted by the new
secretary, Ange Acaa. The compant was nsttuted to be a
taxpayers cass sut as t aeges that a ctzens of the Phppnes
are entted to beneft, use and en|oyment of the countrys vrgn
tropca ranforests. The sut aso aeges that ths sut represents
peope who are sharng the same sentment towards the
preservaton of our natura resources (snce not a of them coud
go before the court). Furthermore, ths was aso asserted to be
representatve of the current generaton and generaton that are
yet to be born.
- The sut cas for two prmary actons that orders the Department
of Envronment and Natura Resources (DENR), ts agents,
representatves, and those actng on ts behaf to, 1. Cance a
exstng tmber cense agreements n the country and 2. to cease
and desst from recevng, acceptng, processng, and renewng or
approvng new tmber cense agreements.
- The sut starts off wth statement of facts regardng the country,
the countrys sands, ts natura resources, and scentfc evdences
pontng to the requrement for the country to mantan a baanced
and heathfu ecoogy (54% shoud be use for forest cover and 46%
for agrcutura, resdenta, ndustra, commerca, and other uses).
They asserted that deforestaton resuted n, a. water shortages b.
sanzaton c. massve eroson and oss of so fertty d. extncton
of some of the countres fora and fauna e. dsturbance and
dsocaton of ndgenous cutures f. staton of rvers and seabed g.
drought h. ncreasng veocty of typhoon wnds . foodng of
owands |. staton and shortenng of the fe span of dams k.
reducton of earths capacty to process carbon doxde.
- Intay the petton was dsmssed on the grounds of ack of cause
of acton, of beng potca queston, and of causng the mparment
of contracts. The pettoners fed for certorar hence ths case.
They contend that there s a cause of acton usng artces 19, 20,
and 21 of the Cv Code (the rght to a sound envronment), Secton
4 of Executve Order No. 192 that cas for the creaton of the
Department of Envronment and Natura Resources (DENR) to
safeguard the peopes rght to a heathfu envronment, Secton 3
of Presdenta Decree No. 1151 ( Phppne Envronmenta Pocy),
and Secton 16, Artce II of the 1987 Consttuton that recognzes
the rght of the peope to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy. As we
as the concept of generatona genocde n Crmna Law and the
concept of mans naenabe rght to sef-preservaton and sef-
perpetuaton n natura aw.
I((%E(
1. Locus Stand: WON the case s a cass sut?
2. WON mnors can assert that they represent other generatons
and those succeedng thers?
3. Merts: WON the respondent |udge commtted grave abuse of
dscreton amountng to ack of |ursdcton by decarng the
pettoners to have no ega rght?
4. Whether or not grantng the petton woud voate the non-
mparment cause found n the Consttuton?
3ELD
1. Yes t s a cass sut because the sub|ect matter of the compant
s of common and genera nterest to a ctzens of the Phppnes
and that t woud be mpractcabe to brng them a to court. The
pantffs n ths case are numerous and representatve enough to
ensure that a nterests s protected.
2. Yes they can, foowng the concept of ntergeneratona
responsbty. Every generaton has a responsbty to the next to
preserve the rhythm and harmony for the fu en|oyment of a
baanced and heathfu envronment.
3. Yes respondent |udge commtted grave abuse of dscreton
amountng to ack of |ursdcton because t faed to recognze the
ega rght of the pettoners whch s the rght to a baanced and
heathfu ecoogy that s ncorporated n the 1987 Consttuton
under Secton 16 Artce II.
- Moreover, ths rghts need not be wrtten n the Consttuton for
ths deas wth rghts that are assumed from the very ncepton oh
humanknd. The reason why t was wrtten was because the
framers feared that wthout a mandate as stated n the state
poces future generatons woud nhert nothng to sustan fe. It s
cear then that there s a ega rght for a baanced heathfu
ecoogy and the rght to heath. Gven that t coud aso be sad that
ths rght s further supported by Executve Order No. 192 and the
Admnstratve Code of 1987 makng the cause of acton exstent.
4. No t does not voate the non-mparment cause because
censes are not contracts, propertes or a property rght that s
protected by the due process cause of the Consttuton. As the
court hed n "an *. :#re%tor of ;orestr+, a cense s merey a
permt or prvege to do what otherwse woud be unawfu and s
not a contract. It s not rrevocabe. The Chef Executve may vady
amend, modfy, repace, or rescnd censes when natona nterests
so requre.
Gven that t s not a contract, the non-mparment cause cannot be
nvoked.
- Even f the censes are contracts, the acton stated n the case
st does not affect t gven that no aw or acton by the Chef
Executve to amend, modfy, repace, or rescnd censes so t s
coud not as of the moment be nvoked. And furthermore, f there
woud be a aw passed t woud not be consdered as a voaton of
the non-mparment cause as the very nature of the aw deas wth
the exercsng of the poce power of the state to advance the rght
of the peope to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy. The non-
mparment cause yeds to the poce power of the state.
0ecision Petton s granted. Pettoners may amend compant to
mpead as defendants the hoders or grantees of the questoned
tmber cense agreements.
DEC( V (&! DIEGO
'&C#(
- decded en banc, unanmous decson
- Respondent Roberto Rey C. San Dego s a BS Zooogy graduate
from UE. He has taken the NMAT four tmes and funked t as many
tmes. Hs appcaton to take a ffth examnaton was dened by
pettoner DECS on the bass of the "three-funk rue" under MECS
Order #12, Seres of 1972.
San Dego fed a petton for mandamus at the Vaenzuea RTC,
nvokng hs consttutona rghts to academc freedom and quaty
educaton. In an amended compant, he rased the addtona
grounds of due process and equa protecton and aso chaenged
the consttutonaty of the aforementoned order.
- Pendente te, wth the agreement of both partes, he was aowed
to take a ffth attempt at NMAT. Ths attempt he aso faed.
- RTC decson reeased 4 |uy 1989 granted the petton and
decared the chaenged order nvad. It hed that the pettoner
had been deprved of hs rght to pursue a medca educaton
through an arbtrary exercse of the poce power.
I((%E
WON a person who has thrce faed the Natona Medca Admsson
Test (NMAT) s entted to take t agan.
Or, WON the three-funk rue s a proper exercse of the poce
power of the State
3ELD
atio Measures, such as admsson exams and the three funk
rue, desgned to gauge the academc preparaton of an
appcant fa wthn the vad exercse of the poce power of
the State.
easonin;
1. use o/ pre0e+ent- In "a/lar#n *. 9$t#erre6, unanmous Court
uphed the consttutonaty of the NMAT as a measure ntended to
mt the admsson to medca schoos ony to those who have
ntay proved ther competence and preparaton for a medca
educaton.
- analog1- Tabarn case & case at bar - ssue s academc
preparaton of the appcant. Admsson test and the three-funk
rue are both vad measures n the reguaton of the medca
professon. The reguaton of the practce of medcne n a ts
branches s a reasonabe method of protectng the heath and
safety of the pubc. Ths power to reguate and contro the
practce of medcne aso ncudes the power to reguate
admsson to the ranks of those authorzed to practce medcne.
2. The poli0e power o/ t*e (tate is vali+l1 e:er0ise+ i/
- (a) the nterests of the pubc generay, as dstngushed from
those of a partcuar cass, requre the nterference of the State
<law/ul su6<e0t>; &
(b) the means empoyed are reasonaby necessary to the
attanment of the ob|ect sought to be accompshed, not unduy
oppressve upon ndvduas <law/ul met*o+>
- #*e 0ase at 6ar 0omplies wit* t*is reLuisites...
<sub|ect> It s the rght and ndeed the responsbty of the State
to nsure that the medca professon s not nftrated by
ncompetents to whom patents may unwary entrust ther ves
and heath.
<method> The three-funk rue s ntended to nsuate the
medca schoos and utmatey the medca professon from the
ntruson of those not quafed to be doctors.
3. #*e rig*t to Lualit1 e+u0ation is !O# a6solute. The
Consttuton aso provdes that "every ctzen has the rght to
choose a professon or course of study, sub|ect to far, reasonabe
and equtabe admsson and academc requrements."
- It s not enough to smpy nvoke the rght to quaty educaton
as a guarantee of the Consttuton: one must show that he s
entted to t because of hs preparaton and promse.
4. What the eLual prote0tion 0lause requres s equaty among
equas. A aw does not have to operate wth equa force on a
persons or thngs to be conformabe to Artce III, Secton 1 of the
Consttuton.
- A substanta dstncton exsts between medca students and
other students who are not sub|ected to the NMAT and the three-
funk rue. The medca professon drecty affects the very ves of
the peope, unke other careers whch, for ths reason, do not
requre more vgant reguaton. The accountant, for exampe,
whe beongng to an equay respectabe professon, does not
hod the same decate responsbty as that of the physcan and
so need not be smary treated.
- There woud be unequa protecton f some appcants who have
passed the tests are admtted and others who have aso quafed
are dened entrance.
Note Whe every person s entted to aspre to be a doctor, he
does not have a consttutona rght to be a doctor. The Court
suggests the noton of appropriate 0alling. It s tme ndeed that
the State took decsve steps to reguate and enrch our system of
educaton by drectng the student to the course for whch he s
best suted as determned by nta tests and evauatons.
0ecision Petton s granted. Decson of Vaenzuea RTC reversed.
Costs aganst prvate respondent San Dego.
C&I!O V I!(%L& GOVE!"E!#
MALCOLM; February 23, 1909
'&C#(
- An appea to revew the |udgment of the Supreme Court of the
Phppne Isands whch affrmed a |udgment of the Court of Frst
Instance of the Provnce of Benguet, dsmssng an appcaton for
the regstraton of certan and.
- Mateo Carno, an Igorot, fed an appcaton for the regstraton of
a certan and n the Provnce of Benguet. For more than 50 years
before the Treaty of Pars, n 1899, the appcant and hs ancestors
had hed the and as owners. Hs grandfather had ved upon t and
mantaned fences suffcent for the hodng of catte. Hs father had
cutvated parts and had used parts for pasturng catte. He had
receved the and from hs father n accordance wth Igorot customs
and had used t for pasture. They a had been recognzed as
owners of the and by the Igorots. No document of tte, however,
had ssued from the Spansh crown and athough I, n 1893-1894,
and agan n 1896-1897, he made appcaton for one under the
roya decrees then n force, nothng has come of t. In 1901, he fed
a petton, aegng ownershp, under the mortgage aw, and the
ands were regstered to hm, that process estabshng ony a
possessory tte.
- Appcant cams that he now owns the and, and s entted to
regstraton under the Phppne Commssons Act No,496 of 1902,
whch estabshed a court for that purpose wth |ursdcton
throughout the Phppne Archpeago, and authorzed n genera
terms appcatons to be made by persons camng to own the and.
- The government cams that Span had tte to a the and n the
Phppnes except so far as t saw ft to permt prvate ttes to be
acqured; that there was no prescrpton aganst the crown and
that, f there was, a decree of |une 25, 1880, requred regstraton
wthn a mted tme to make the tte good; that the appcants
and was not regstered, and therefore became pubc and; that he
Unted States succeeded to the tte of Span, and that the he has
no rghts that the Phppne government s bound to respect.
I((%E
WON the appcant owns the and
3ELD
- Yes. By the Organc Act of |uy 1, 1902, a the property and rghts
acqured by the Unted States are to be admnstered for the
benefts of the nhabtants of the Phppnes. Thus, when, as far
back as testmony or memory goes, the and has been hed by
ndvduas under a cam of prvate ownershp, t sha be presumed
to have been hed n the same way before the Spansh conquest,
and never to have been pubc and.
- Under the aws of Span, there s no cear proof that he does not
own the and. Span dd not assume to convert a the natve
nhabtant of the Phppnes nto trespassers or even nto tenants at
w. The fact was that ttes were admtted to exst that owed
nothng to the powers of Span.
- Roya Cedua of October 15, 1754 - Where such possessor sha
not be abe to produce tte deeds, t sha be suffcent f they sha
show that ancent possesson, as vad tte by prescrpton. As
prescrpton, even aganst the Crown, was recognzed by the aws
of Span, the court sees no suffcent reason to admt that t was
recognzed n the Phppnes n regard to ands over whch Span
had ony a paper soveregnty.
- Decree of |une 25, 1880 - For prvate ownershp, there must have
been a grant by competent authorty. For a ega effects, those
who have been n possesson for certan tmes sha be deemed
owners. For cutvated and, 20 years; for uncutvated, 30 years.
When ths decree went nto effect, the appcants father was owner
of the and by the very terms of the decree. Ths beng the case
and the fact that hs possesson was not unawfu (no attempt at
any such proceedngs aganst hm or hs father was ever made),
the reguaton for the regstraton of roya and wrongfuy occuped
does not appy to hm. Moreover, the decree was not cacuated to
the mnd of an Igorot Chef the noton that ancent famy
possessons were n danger, f he had read every word of t.
0isposition |udgment reversed. Law and |ustce requre that the
appcant shoud be granted what he seeks, and shoud not be
deprved of what by practce and beef of those among whom he
ve, was hs property.
%.I V POVI!CI&L .O&D O' "I!DOO
MALCOLM; February 28, 1919
'&C#(
- Rub and varous other Manguanes n the Provnce of Mndoro
were ordered by the provnca governor of Mndoro to remove ther
resdence from ther natve habtat and to estabsh themseves on
a reservaton at Tgbao n the Provnce of Mndoro and to reman
there, or be punshed by mprsonment f they escaped. Ths
reservaton, as appears from the resouton of the provnca board,
extends over an area of 800 hectares of and, whch s
approxmatey 2,000 acres, on whch about three hundred
Manguanes are confned. One of the Manguanes, Dabaos,
escaped from the reservaton and was taken n hand by the
provnca sherff and paced n prson at Caapan, soey because he
escaped from the reservaton. The Manguanes sued out a wrt of
habeas corpus n ths court, aegng that they are deprved of ther
berty n voaton of aw.
- The return of the Soctor-Genera aeges that on February 1,
1917, the provnca board of Mndoro adopted resouton No. 25
sgned by the provnca governor, Hon. |uan Morente, |r.. The aws
prmary ob|ectve s the advancement of the wefare of the non-
Chrstan peope of Mndoro. In one of the Whereas causes, t was
stated that the provnca governor s of the opnon that the sto of
Tgbao on Lake Nau|an s a pace most convenent for the
Mangyanes to ve on. Pursuant to the Governors powers under
secton 2077 of the Admnstratve Code, 800 hectares of pubc
and n the sto of Tgbao on Nau|an Lake was seected as a ste for
the permanent settement of Mangyanes n Mndoro sub|ect to the
approva of the Honorabe Secretary of the Interor. Under the
resouton of the Provnca Board, any Mangyan who sha refuse to
compy wth ths order sha upon convcton be mprsoned not
exceedng sxty days n accordance wth secton 2759 of the
revsed Admnstratve Code. The resouton of the provnca board
of Mndoro coped n paragraph 1 and the executve order of the
governor of the same provnce coped n paragraph 3, were
necessary measures for the protecton of the Mangyanes of
Mndoro as we as the protecton of pubc forests n whch they
roam, and to ntroduce cvzed customs among them.
I((%E(
1. WON the Mangyans were deprved of due process when ther
berty to choose ther homes were mted by the aw.
2. WON the Legsature exceeded ts authorty n enactng the aw
mandatng the forcbe transfer of the Mangyanes.
3ELD
1. NO. None of the rghts of the ctzen can be taken away except
by due process of aw. Dane Webster, n the course of the
argument n the Dartmouth Coege Case before the Unted States
Supreme Court, snce a cassc n forensc terature, sad that the
meanng of "due process of aw" s, that "every ctzen sha hod hs
fe, berty, property, and mmuntes under the protecton of the
genera rues whch govern socety." To consttute "due process of
aw," as has been often hed, a |udca proceedng s not aways
necessary. In some nstances, even a hearng and notce are not
requste, a rue whch s especay true where much must be eft to
the dscreton of the admnstratve offcers n appyng a aw to
partcuar cases. (See McGehee, Due Process of Law, p. 371.)
Nether s due process a statonary and bnd sentne of berty.
"Any ega proceedng enforced by pubc authorty, whether
sanctoned by age and custom, or newy devsed n the dscreton
of the egsatve power n furtherance of the pubc good whch
regards and preserves these prncpes of berty and |ustce must
be hed to be due process of aw." (Hurtado vs. Caforna |1883|,
110 U. S., 516.) "Due process of aw" means smpy * * * "frst, that
there sha be a aw prescrbed n harmony wth the genera powers
of the egsatve department of the Government; second, that ths
aw sha be reasonabe n ts operaton; thrd, that t sha be
enforced accordng to the reguar methods of procedure
prescrbed; and fourth, that t sha be appcabe ake to a the
ctzens of the state or to a of a cass." (U. S. vs. Lng Su Fan
|1908|, 10 Ph., 104, affrmed on appea to the Unted States
Supreme Court.1) "What s due process of aw depends on
crcumstances t vares wth the sub|ect-matter and necesstes of
the stuaton." (Moyer vs. Peabody |1909|, 212 U. S., 82.)
- There s no doubt n my mnd that ths peope has not a rght
concepton of berty and does not practse berty n a rghtfu way.
They understand berty as the rght to do anythng they w-gong
from one pace to another n the mountans, burnng and
destroyng forests and makng ega cagns thereon. Not knowng
what true berty s and not practcng the same rghtfuy, how can
they aege that they are beng deprved thereof wthout due
process of aw?
- But does the Consttutona guaranty that no person sha be
deprved of hs berty wthout due process of aw appy to a cass of
persons who do not have a correct dea of what berty s and do
not practce berty n a rghtfu way?
- To say that t does w mean to sancton and defend an erroneous
dea of such cass of persons as to what berty s. It w mean, n
the case at bar, that the Government shoud not adopt any
measures ookng to the wefare and advancement of the cass of
persons n queston. It w mean that ths peope shoud be et
aone n the mountans and n a permanent state of savagery
wthout even the remotest hope of comng to understand berty n
ts true and nobe sense. In deang wth the backward popuaton,
ke the Manguanes, the Government has been paced n the
aternatve of ether ettng them aone or gudng them n the path
of cvzaton. The atter measure was adopted as the one more n
accord wth humanty and wth natona conscence.
- The Mangyans w utmatey become a heavy burden to the State
and on account of ther gnorance they w commt crmes and
make depredatons, or f not they w be sub|ected to nvountary
servtude by those who may want to abuse them.. They understand
berty as the rght to do anythng they w-gong from one pace to
another n the mountans, burnng and destroyng forests and
makng ega cagns thereon. To aow them to successfuy
nvoke that Consttutona guaranty at ths tme w eave the
Government wthout recourse to pursue the works of cvzng them
and makng them usefu ctzens. They w thus be eft n a
permanent state of savagery and become a vunerabe pont of
attack by those who doubt, may chaenge the abty of the naton
to dea wth our backward brothers.
- Further, one cannot hod that the berty of the ctzen s unduy
nterfered wth when the degree of cvzaton of the Manguanes s
consdered. They are restraned for ther own good and the genera
good of the Phppnes. Nor can one say that due process of aw,
has not been foowed. To go back to our defnton of due process
of aw and equa protecton of the aws, there exsts a aw; the aw
seems to be reasonabe; t s enforced accordng to the reguar
methods of procedure prescrbed; and t appes ake to a of a
cass.
2. NO. Consdered, therefore, purey as an exercse of the poce
power, the courts cannot fary say that the Legsature has
exceeded ts rghtfu authorty. It s, ndeed, an unusua exercse of
that power. But a great maady requres an equay drastc remedy.
- As a pont whch has been eft for the end of ths decson and
whch n case of doubt, woud ead to the determnaton that
secton 2145 s vad, s the atttude whch the courts shoud
assume towards the setted pocy of the Government. In a ate
decson wth whch we are n fu accord, Gambe vs. Vanderbt
Unversty (200 Southwestern Reporter, 510) the Chef |ustce of
the Supreme Court of Tennessee wrtes:
We can see no ob|ecton to the appcaton of pubc pocy as a
rato decdend. Every reay new queston that comes before
the courts s, n the ast anayss, determned on that theory,
when not determned by dfferentaton of the prncpe of a
pror case or ne of cases, or by the ad of anaoges furnshed
by such pror cases. In baancng confctng soutons, that one
s perceved to tp the scaes whch the court beeves w best
promote the pubc wefare n ts probabe operaton as a
genera rue 2145 of the Admnstratve Code does not deprve a
person of hs berty wthout due process of aw and does not
deny to hm the equa protecton of the aws, and that
confnement n reservatons n accordance wth sad secton
does not consttute savery and nvountary servtude. We are
further of the opnon that secton 2145 of the Admnstratve
Code s a egtmate exerton of the poce power, somewhat
anaogous to the Indan pocy of the Unted States. Secton
2145 of the Admnstratve Code of 1917 s consttutona.
0ecision Pettoners are not unawfuy mprsoned or restraned of
ther berty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not ssue.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C&(O!
- The egsatve and admnstratve hstory of the Phppne Isands
ceary dscoses that the standard of cvzaton to whch a specfc
trbe must be found to have advanced, to |ustfy ts remova from
the cass embraced wthn the descrptve term "non-Chrstan," as
that term s used n the Phppne statute-book, s that degree of
cvzaton whch resuts n a mode of fe wthn the trbe, such that
t s feasbe and practcabe to extend to, and enforce upon ts
membershp the genera aws and reguatons, admnstratve,
egsatve, and |udca, whch contro the conduct of the admttedy
cvzed nhabtants of the Isands; a mode of fe, furthermore,
whch does not fnd expresson n trba customs or practces whch
tend to brutaze or debauch the members of the trbe ndugng n
such customs or practces, or to expose to oss or per the ves or
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1(0
property of those who may be brought n contact wth the members
of the trbe.
- So the standard of cvzaton to whch any gven number or group
of nhabtants of a partcuar provnce n these Isands, or any
ndvdua member of such a group must be found to have
advanced, n order to remove such group or ndvdua from the
cass embraced wthn the statutory descrpton of "non-Chrstan,"
s that degree of cvzaton whch woud naturay and normay
resut n the wthdrawa by such persons of permanent aegance or
adherence to a "non-Chrstan" trbe had they at any tme adhered
to or mantaned aegance to such a trbe; and whch woud quafy
them whether they resde wthn or beyond the habtat of a "non-
Chrstan" trbe, not ony to mantan a mode of fe ndependent of
and apart from that mantaned by such trbe, but a mode of fe as
woud not be nmca to the ves or property or genera wefare of
the cvzed nhabtants of the Isands wth whom they are brought
n contact.
- The contenton that n ths partcuar case, and wthout
chaengng the vadty of the statute, the wrt shoud ssue
because of the faure to gve these pettoners as we as the rest of
the ffteen thousand Manguanes by the reconcentraton order an
opportunty to be heard before any attempt was made to enforce t,
begs the queston and s, of course, tantamount to a contenton
that there s no authorty n aw for the ssuance of such an order.
"OI
- I reaze that a +issenting opinion 0arries little weig*t, but
my sense of |ustce w not permt me to et ths decson go on
record wthout expressng my strong dssent from the opnon of
|ustce Macom, concurred n by a ma|orty of the court. I sha not
attempt to anayze the opnon or to go nto the questons n deta.
I sha smpy state, as brefy as may be the ega and human sde
of the case as t presents tsef to my mnd.
- #*e "anguianes are not a separate state. They have no
treaty wth the Government of the Phppne Isands by whch they
have agreed to ve wthn a certan dstrct where they are
accorded excusve rghts. They are ctzens of the Phppne
Isands. Legay they are Fpnos. They are entted to a the rghts
and prveges of any other ctzen of ths country. And when the
provnca governor of the Provnce of Mndoro attempted to take
them from ther natve habtat and to hod them on the tte
reservaton of about 800 hectares, he deprved them of ther rghts
and ther berty wthout due process of aw, and they were dened
the equa protecton of the aw. The ma|orty opnon says "they are
restraned for ther own good and the genera good of the
Phppnes." They are to be made to accept the cvzaton of the
more advanced Fpnos whether they want t or not. They are
backward and defcent n cuture and must be moved from ther
homes, however humbe they may be and "brought under the
bes" and made to stay on a reservaton. Are these pettoners
charged wth any crme? There s no menton n the return of the
Soctor-Genera of the Phppne Isands of any crme havng been
commtted by these "peacefu, tmd, prmtve, sem-nomadc
peope."
- It has been sad that ths s a government of aws and not of men;
that there s no arbtrary body of ndvduas; that the consttutona
prncpes upon whch our government and ts nsttutons rest do
not eave room for the pay and acton of purey persona and
arbtrary power, but that a n authorty are guded and mted by
these provsons whch the peope have, through the organc aw,
decared sha be the measure and scope of a contro exercsed
over them. In partcuar the fourteenth amendment, and especay
the equa protecton cause, thereof, forbds that the ndvdua sha
be sub|ected to any arbtrary exercse of the powers of
government; t was ntended to prohbt, and does prohbt, any
arbtrary deprvaton of fe or berty, or arbtrary spoaton of
property.
- As we have seen, a statute whch makes a purey arbtrary or
unreasonabe cassfcaton, or whch snges out any partcuar
ndvdua or cass as the sub|ect of hoste and dscrmnatng
egsaton, s ceary unconsttutona as beng opposed to the
fourteenth amendment and especay to the equa protecton
cause thereof. Ths s a pan case, and requres no further
dscusson." (Vo. 4, Encycopeda of U. S. Supreme Court Reports,
p. 366.) When we consder the nature and the theory of our
nsttutons of government, the prncpes upon whch they are
supposed to rest, and revew the hstory of ther deveopment, we
are constraned to concude that they do not mean to eave room
for the pay and acton of purey persona and arbtrary power.
Soveregnty tsef s, of course, not sub|ect to aw, for t s the
author and source of aw; but n our system, whe soveregn
powers are deegated to the agences of government, soveregnty
tsef reman wth the peope by whom and for whom a
government exsts and acts. And the aw s the defnton and
mtaton of power. It s, ndeed, qute true, that there must aways
be odged somewhere, and n some person or body, the authorty
of fna decson; and, n many cases of mere admnstraton the
responsbty s purey potca, no appea yng except to the
utmate trbuna of the pubc |udgment, exercsed ether n the
pressure of opnon or by means of the suffrage. But the
fundamenta rghts to fe, berty, and the pursut of happness,
consdered as ndvdua possessons, are secured by those maxms
of consttutona aw whch are the monuments showng the
vctorous progress of the race n securng to men the bessngs of
cvzaton under the regn of |ust and equa aws, so that, n the
famous anguage of Massachusetts B of Rghts, the Government
of Commonweath 'may be a government of aw and not of men.'
For the very dea that one man may be compeed to hod hs fe,
or the means of vng, or any matera rght essenta to the
en|oyment of fe, at the mere w of another, seems to be
ntoerabe n any country where freedom prevas, as beng the
essence of savery tsef." (Yek Wo vs. Hopkns, 118 U. S., 374.)
- It s sad that the present aw s an od Act beng n substance Act
No. 547 of the Phppne Commsson. But t has never been
brought before ths court for determnaton of ts consttutonaty.
No matter how benefcent the motves of the awmakers f the aw
tends to deprve any man of fe, berty, or property wthout due
process of aw, t s vod. In my opnon the acts companed of
whch were taken n conformty wth secton 2145 of the
Admnstratve Code not ony deprve these Manguanes of ther
berty, wthout due process of aw, but w n a probabty deprve
them of ther fe, wthout due process of aw. Hstory teaches that
to take a sem-nomadc trbe from ther natve fastnesses and to
transfer them to the narrow confnes of a reservaton s to nvte
dsease and sufferng and death.
- From my ong experence n the Isands, I shoud say that t woud
be a crme of tte ess magntude to take the Ifugaos from ther
mountan homes where they have recamed a wderness and
made t a and of beauty and frutfuness and to transfer them to
the more ferte, unoccuped, maara nfested vaeys whch they
ook down upon from ther feds-than t woud be to order ther
decaptaton en masse. There can be no dena that the Ifugaos are
"non-Chrstans," or "wd trbes" and are n exacty the same
category as the Manguanes. If the Manguanes may be so taken
from ther natve habtat and reconcentrated on a reservaton-n
effect an open ar |a-then so may the Ifugaos, so may the
Tnguanes, who have made more progress than the Ifugaos, and so
may the Moros.
- There are "non-Chrstan" n neary every provnce n the
Phppne Isands. A of the thrty-nne governors upon the pror
approva of the head of the department have the power under ths
aw to take the non-Chrstan nhabtants of ther dfferent provnces
from ther homes and put them on a reservaton for "ther own
good and the genera good of the Phppnes," and the courts w
grant them no reef. These unfortunate ctzens of the Phppne
Isands woud hod ther berty, and ther ves, may be sub|ect to
the unreguated dscreton of the provnca governor. And who
woud be safe? After the reservaton s once estabshed mght not
a provnca governor decde that some potca enemy was a non-
Chrstan, and that he woud be safer on the reservaton. No matter
what hs educaton and cuture, he coud have no tra, he coud
make no defense, the |udge of the court mght be n a dstant
provnce and not wthn reach, and the provnca governor's fat s
fna.
- There can be no dena that the Ifugaos are "non-Chrstans," or
"wd trbes" and are n exacty the same category as the
Manguanes. If the Manguanes may be so taken from ther natve
habtat and reconcentrated on a reservaton-n effect an open ar
|a-then so may the Ifugaos, so may the Tnguanes, who have
made more progress than the Ifugaos, and so may the Moros.
- I thnk ths Court shoud decare that sectons 2145 and 2759 of
the Admnstratve Code of 1917 are unconsttutona, nu and vod,
and that the pettoners are egay restraned of ther berty, and
that they have been dened the equa protecton of the aws, and
order the respondents mmedatey to berate a of the pettoners.
PI#-OG V PEOPLE
FERNAN; October 11, 1990
'&C#(
- Appea from the decson of the Court of Appeas
- There was a communa and n Laog, Mant, Mt. Provnce caed
the ta+an. It was owned by the toma+an group whose members
were descendants of the orgna owners thereof named |akot and
Pang-o. One of ther descendants, Pe-ey Cuaad, was requested
by the toma+an to act n ther behaf n seng the 400-sqm
resdenta porton of the ta+an, n order that the toma+an woud
have somethng to butcher and eat durng a ceebraton caed ato.
The sae was made n consderaton of P1,500 and was made n
favor of Edward Pasteng, whose house had been but thereon. It
was agreed that the unregstered property woud be regstered
under Sec. 194 of the Revsed Admnstratve Code as amended by
Act No. 3344. Besdes Cuaad, severa members of the tomayan
affxed ther sgnatures or thumb marks on the notarzed deed of
sae. Thereafter, Pasteng decared the property as hs own for
taxaton purposes and pad taxes thereon.
- In 1983, whe Pasteng was out huntng, Erkey Pt-og (aka Mary
Pt-og) and her companons destroyed the fence erected by
Pasteng and cut down and took away the sugarcane worth P1,000
and the banana fruts vaued at P100 found n the area. Pasteng
reported the matter to the poce. Three days ater, the poce fed
a compant for theft aganst Erkey Pt-og n the Muncpa Tra
Court of Bontoc.
- Pt-og peaded not guty of theft on the ground that the tayan
beonged to her, her father Lobchoken beng a descendant |akot.
She dd not decare the and for taxaton purposes because no one
n the toma+an was aowed to decare the and as hs own.
However, any member of the tomayan coud make mprovements
on the and and cam them as hs own. Anyone who abandoned the
and woud be succeeded ony by other members. No person
outsde the tomayan coud succeed to the cutvaton of the ta+an.
- Lobchoken, panted sugarcane n the tayan n Loag and when he
ded, hs wdow Pdchoy and ther chdren contnued cutvatng the
and. They aso but a granary thereon. The and was ater gven to
Pt-og by Pdchoy for cutvaton. Thereafter, the famy aowed
Pasteng to bud a house behnd the pace where Pt-og and her
famy used to have a house because Edward was Erkey's unce
beng the brother of her father. Erkey panted the bananas and
avocado trees n the area and harvested the sugarcane. No one
had ever prevented her from cuttng the sugarcane and the other
pants.
The muncpa tra court dscredted Pt-og's story emphaszng
that her cam of contnuous occupaton and possesson of the and
was baseess as she had "no papers to show" or prove such cam.
It found that an the eements of theft under Artce 308 of the RPC
were present and accordngy rendered the |udgment of convcton.
- On appea, the Court of Appeas affrmed the decson of the
ower courts wth the foowng fndngs and observatons:
- Pastengs cam of ownershp s documented by a Deed of
Conveyance, a pubc document whch was executed between hm
and the members of the tomayan group. The vadty of ths pubc
document has never been questoned by any one of the prevous
owners beongng to the tomayan group. Furthermore, the tax
decaratons n the name of and the reaty tax payments by,
Pasteng, athough not concusve proofs of ownershp, are,
nevertheess, )r#ma fa%#e evdence of hs possesson of the and n
queston. In contrast to these documentary evdence, pettoner
offers nothng better than her bare cam. The persona property
taken by accused-pettoner not beng hers but those of Pasteng,
and she ganed from the takng thereof wthout the consent of the
owner, accused-pettoner s guty of the crme of theft.

Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1((
I((%E(
1. WON Pt-og had crmna ntent n takng the sugarcane and the
bananas.
2. WON the present case s crmna or cv n nature.
3ELD
1. Erkey Pt-og coud not have had crmna ntent because she took
the sugarcane and bananas beevng them to be her own.
- Edward Pasteng reed heavy on hs documentary evdence to
prove ownershp over the sugarcane and bananas. A carefu study
of these documents, n con|uncton wth the testmona evdence
extant n the record, however, dscoses matters whch put a coud
of doubt upon Pt-ogs cupabty. The deed of sae descrbes the
property as contanng an area of 400 sqm, whe the tax
decaratons show that the property contans an area of 12 sqm.
The testmones presented by the prosecuton and the defense
show that the areas cutvated by Pasteng and Pt-og were
ad|acent and so cose to each other that the possbty of confuson
as to who panted whch pants s not remote. In fact, before the
fng of ths case, Pt-og had sued Pasteng's son, Donato, who
aegedy cut down bananas she had panted n the area. The fact
that Edward had but a fence around the area he camed as hs
does not necessary prove that he encosed ony the 400 square
meters he had purchased from the toma+an. After a, he had
decared as hs own for taxaton purposes 112 square meters more
than the area he bought.
- There s on record a survey pan of the 512 square-meter area
camed by Edward but there are no ndcatons theren of the exact
area nvoved n ths case. Proof on the matter, however, s
mportant for t means the Identfcaton of the rghtfu owner of the
stoen propertes. It shoud be emphaszed that to prove the crme
of theft, t s necessary and ndspensabe to ceary Identfy the
person who, as a resut of a crmna act, wthout hs knowedge and
consent, was wrongfuy deprved of a thng beongng to hm.
2. The ega ssues that must be roned out wth regard to cams of
ownershp over the tayan shoud be threshed out n an approprate
cv acton.
- Obter dcta reated to Artce II Secton22 re Indgenous
Communty
- We see ths case as exempfyng a cash between a cam of
ownershp founded on customs and tradton and another such
cam supported by wrtten evdence but nonetheess based on the
same customs and tradton. when a court s beset wth ths knd of
case, t can never be too carefu More so n ths case, where the
accused, an terate trbeswoman who cannot be expected to
resort to wrtten evdence of ownershp, stands to ose her berty
on account of an oversght n the court's apprecaton of the
evdence.
0isposition Erkey Pt-og s ACOUITTED for ack of proof beyond
reasonabe doubt that she commtted the crme of theft. No costs.
)ILO(.&2&!5 I!C V "O&#O
MENDOZA; November 16, 1995
'&C#(
- Pettoners seek reconsderaton of our decson n ths case
Pettoners contend that the decson n the frst case has aready
setted
(1) whether pettoner Kosbayan, Inc. has a standng to sue and
(2) whether under ts charter (R.A. No. 1169, as amended) the
Phppne Charty Sweepstakes Offce can enter nto any form of
assocaton or coaboraton wth any party n operatng an on-ne
ottery, and these questons can no onger be reopened.
- Pettoners argue that the two |ustces who changed ther votes
dd not act accordng to aw and that the two new appontees
regardess of the merts of the case must of necessty agn
themseves wth a the Ramos appontees who were dssenters n
the frst case and consttute the new ma|orty n the second otto
case.
- SC sad the decson n the frst case was a spt decson: 7-6. Wth
the retrement of one of the orgna ma|orty (Cruz, 1.) and one of
the dssenters (Bdn, 1.) t was not surprsng that the frst decson
n the frst case was ater reversed.
- SC cted the case of ;el#%#ano *. 04$#nas (also a s)l#t &e%#s#on!
.h#%h .as o*ert$rne& #n Peo)le *. Lang.
I((%E(
1. WON the consttutona poces and prncpes (Art II Sec 5 ,Sec
12, Sec 13, Sec 17) nvoked by the pettoners may be resorted to
for strkng down aws or offca actons whch are nconsstent wth
them
2. WON the pettoners have standng to sue on consttutona
grounds, gven that the Consttuton guarantees to peopes
organzatons "effectve and reasonabe partcpaton at a eves of
soca, potca and economc decson makng (Art XIII Sec 16).
3. WON, as setted n the frst case, the PCSO under ts charter (R.A.
No. 1169, as amended) cannot enter nto any form of assocaton or
coaboraton wth any party n operatng an on-ne ottery.
3ELD
1. NO. As aready stated, however, these provsons are not sef-
executng. They do not confer rghts whch can be enforced n the
courts but ony provde g$#&el#nes for leg#slat#*e or e,e%$t#*e
a%t#on. By authorzng the hodng of ottery for charty, Congress
has n effect determned that consstenty wth these poces and
prncpes of the Consttuton, the PCSO may be gven ths
authorty. That s why we sad wth respect to the openng by the
PAGCOR of a casno n Cagayan de Oro, "the moraty of gambng
s not a |ustcabe ssue. Gambng s not ega )er se. . . . 7t #s left
to Congress to &eal .#th the a%t#*#t+ as #t sees f#t." (Magta|as v.
Pryce Propertes Corp., Inc., 234 SCRA 255, 268 |1994|).
2. NO. It s noteworthy that pettoners do not queston the vadty
of the aw aowng otteres. It s the contract entered nto by the
PCSO and the PGMC whch they are assang. Ths case, therefore,
does not rase ssues of consttutonaty but ony of contract aw,
whch pettoners, not beng prves to the agreement, cannot rase.
- Kosbayan's status as a peope's organzaton does not gve t the
requste personaty to queston the vadty of the contract n ths
case. The Consttuton provdes that "the State sha respect the
roe of ndependent peope's organzatons to enabe the peope to
pursue and protect, wthn the democratc framework, ther
egtmate and coectve nterests and aspratons through peacefu
and awfu means," that ther rght to "effectve and reasonabe
partcpaton at a eves of soca, potca, and economc decson-
makng sha not be abrdged." (Art. XIII, 15-16)
- These provsons have not changed the tradtona rue that ony
real )art#es #n #nterest or those .#th stan&#ng, as the case may be,
may nvoke the |udca power. The |ursdcton of ths Court, even n
cases nvovng consttutona questons, s mted by the "case and
controversy" requrement of Art. VIII, 5. Ths requrement es at
the very heart of the |udca functon. It s what dfferentates
decson-makng n the courts from decson-makng n the potca
departments of the government and bars the brngng of suts by
|ust any party.
- Pettoners' rght to sue as ta,)a+ers cannot be sustaned because
ths case does not nvove ega dsbursement of pubc funds. Nor
as %on%erne& %#t#6ens can they brng ths sut because no specfc
n|ury suffered by them s aeged. As for the pettoners, who are
members of Congress, ther rght to sue as leg#slators cannot be
nvoked because they do not compan of any nfrngement of ther
rghts as egsators.
3. Indeed n the frst case t was hed that the PCSO under ts
charter (R.A. No. 1169, as amended) cannot enter nto any form of
assocaton or coaboraton wth any party n operatng an on-ne
ottery HOWEVER THE OUESTIONS RAISED IN THIS CASE ARE LEGAL
OUESTIONS AND THE CLAIMS INVOLVED ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE INVOLVED IN THE PRIOR CASE BETWEEN
THE PARTIES. AS ALREADY STATED, THE ELA IS SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THE CONTRACT OF LEASE DECLARED VOID IN
THE FIRST CASE.
Aso, the Court noted n ts decson that the provsons of the frst
contract, whch were consdered to be features of a |ont venture
agreement, had been removed n the new contract.
V&L"O!#E V .EL"O!#E5 $
CORTES; February 13, 1989
'&C#(
- Pettoners are meda practtoners who wsh to confrm reports
that certan members of the Batasang Pambansa, ncudng some
members of the opposton, were granted "cean" oans from the
GSIS before the February 1986 eectons. Pettoner Vamonte fed
a speca cv acton for mandamus wth premnary n|uncton,
prayng that respondent Bemonte, n hs capacty as GSIS Genera
Manager, be drected to:
1. Furnsh pettoners wth a st of the names of the members of
the defunct Batasang Pambansa who were abe to secure "cean"
oans from the GSIS mmedatey pror to the February 7, 1986
eectons through the ntercesson of then-Frst Lady Imeda Marcos.
2. Furnsh pettoners wth certfed true copes of the documents
evdencng sad oans.
3. Aow pettoners access to pubc records for the sub|ect
nformaton.
I((%E(
+rocedural: Have pettoners faed to exhaust admnstratve
remedes?
.ubstantive:
1. Does the nformaton sought by pettoners fa under "matters of
pubc concern"?
2. Does a confdenta reatonshp exst between GSIS and ts
borrowers?
3. Are oan transactons of the GSIS, beng merey ncdenta to ts
nsurance functon, prvate n nature?
3ELD
+rocedural: No. The prncpe of exhauston of admnstratve
remedes s sub|ect to setted exceptons, among whch s when
ony a queston of aw s nvoved. The ssue rased by pettoners,
whch requres the nterpretaton of the scope of the consttutona
rght to nformaton, can be passed upon by the court more
competenty than GSIS or ts Board of Trustees.
.ubstantive:
1. Yes. The pubc nature of GSIS funds and the pubc offce hed by
the aeged borrowers make the nformaton sought ceary a matter
of pubc nterest and concern.
2. No. The rght to prvacy beongs to the ndvdua n hs prvate
capacty and not to pubc and governmenta agences ke the
GSIS. The rght cannot be nvoked by |urdca enttes, as a
corporaton has no rght to prvacy n ts name. The entre bass of
the rght to prvacy s an n|ury to the feengs and sensbtes of
the party and a corporaton woud have no such ground for reef.
However, even the concerned borrowers themseves may not
succeed f they chose to nvoke ths rght. Pubc fgures, most
especay those hodng responsbe postons n government, en|oy
a more mted rght to prvacy as compared to ordnary ndvduas,
ther actons beng sub|ect to coser pubc scrutny.
3. No. The "consttuent-mnstrant" dchotomy characterzng
government functon has ong been repudated. The government,
whether carryng out ts soveregn attrbutes or runnng some
busness, dscharges the same functon of servce to the peope.
That the GSIS was exercsng a propretary functon n grantng the
oans woud not |ustfy the excuson of the transactons from the
coverage and scope of the rght to nformaton. Transactons
entered nto by the GSIS, a government-controed corporaton
created by speca egsaton, are wthn the ambt of the peopes
rght to be nformed pursuant to the consttutona pocy of
transparency n government deangs.
Pettons are entted to access to the documents sub|ect to
reasonabe reguatons. The petton s hed to be mertorous as
to the 2
nd
and 3
rd
aternatve acts sought by pettoners.
The same cannot be sad, however, of the 1
st
act sought.
Athough ctzens are entted to "access to offca records", the
Consttuton does not accord them a rght to compe custodans
of pubc records to prepare sts, abstracts, summares and the
ke n ther desre to acqure nformaton on matters of pubc
concern. It s essenta for a wrt of mandamus to e that the
appcant has a we-defned, cear and certan rght to the thng
demanded and that t s the mperatve duty of the defendant to
perform the act requred.
C3&VE4 V PE(IDE!#I&L CO""I((IO! O! GOOD
GOVE!"E!#
PANGANIBAN; December 9, 1998
'&C#(
- These are the man questons rased n ths orgna acton seekng
(1) to prohbt and "en|on respondents |PCGG and ts charman|
from prvatey enterng nto, perfectng and/or executng any
agreement wth the hers of the ate Presdent Ferdnand E. Marcos
x x x reatng to and concernng the propertes and assets of
Ferdnand Marcos ocated n the Phppnes and/or abroad -
ncudng the so-caed Marcos god hoard"; and (2) to "compe
respondents to ma=e )$/l#% a negotatons and agreement, be
they ongong or perfected, and a documents reated to or reatng
to such negotatons and agreement between the PCGG and the
Marcos hers."
- Pettoner Francsco I. Chavez, former soctor genera, brought
ths acton n response to news reports n September 1997 referrng
to (1) the aeged dscovery of bons of doars of Marcos assets
deposted n varous coded accounts n Swss banks, and (2) the
reported executon of a compromse between the government
(through PCGG) and the Marcos hers, on how to spt or share
these assets. Actng on a moton of pettoner, the Court ssued a
temporary restranng order dated March 23, 1998, en|onng
respondents, ther agents and/or representatves from "enterng
nto, or perfectng and/or executng any agreement wth the hers
of the ate Presdent Ferdnand E. Marcos reatng to and
concernng ther -gotten weath. On August 19, 1998, Gora,
Cenan, Scaret and Teresa, a surnamed |opson, fed before the
Court a moton for nterventon. They aver that they are "among
the 10,000 camants whose rght to cam from the Marcos famy
and/or the Marcos estate s recognzed by the decson n 7n re
Estate of ;er&#nan& Mar%os".
I((%E(
+rocedural:
1. WON the pettoner has the personaty or ega standng to fe
the nstant petton; and
2. WON ths Court s the proper court before whch ths acton may
be fed.
.ubstantive:
1. WON ths Court coud requre the PCGG to dscose to the pubc
the detas of any agreement, perfected or not, wth the
Marcoses; and
2. WON there exst any ega restrants aganst a compromse
agreement between the Marcoses and the PCGG reatve to the
Marcoses -gotten weath.
3ELD
+rocedural:
1. Yes. When the ssue concerns a pubc rght and the ob|ect of
mandamus s to obtan the enforcement of a pubc duty, the
peope are regarded as the rea partes n nterest; and because t
s suffcent that pettoner s a ctzen and as such s nterested
n the executon of the aws, he need not show that he has
any ega or speca nterest n the resut of the acton.
2. Yes. Secton 5, Artce VIII of the Consttuton expressy confers
upon the Supreme Court or#g#nal |ursdcton over pettons for
certorar, )roh#/#t#on, man&am$s, quo warranto and habeas
corpus. The argument of respondent that pettoner shoud have
propery sought reef before the Sandganbayan n whch
enforcement of the compromse agreements was pendng
resouton seems to have mert, f pettoner was merey seekng
to en|on the enforcement of the compromse and/or to compe the
PCGG to dscose to the pubc the terms contaned n sad
Agreements. However, pettoner s here seekng the pubc
dscosure of "a negotatons and agreement, be they ongong or
perfected, and documents reated or reatng to such negotatons
and agreement between the PCGG and the Marcos hers". In
other words, the petton s not merey confned to the
Agreements that have aready been drawn, but kewse to any
other ongong or future undertakng towards any settement on the
aeged Marcos oot. The core ssue bos down to the precse
nterpretaton, n terms of scope, of the twn consttutona
provsons on "pubc transactons".
.ubstantive:
1. Yes. There s no doubt that the recovery of the Marcoses aeged
-gotten weath s a matter of pubc concern and mbued wth
pubc nterest. "I-gotten weath", by ts very nature, assumes a
pubc character. The assets and propertes referred to supposedy
orgnated from the government tsef. To a ntents and purposes,
therefore, they beong to the peope. Consderng the ntent of the
framers of the Consttuton that "transactons" contempates
ncuson of negotatons eadng to the consummaton of a
transacton, t s ncumbent upon the PCGG and ts offcers, as we
as other government representatves, to dscose suffcent pubc
nformaton on any proposed settement they have decded to take
up wth the ostensbe owners and hoders of -gotten weath.
2. Yes. A cursory perusa of the Genera and Suppementa
Agreements between the PCGG and the Marcos hers reveas
serous ega faws.
) Whe a compromse n cv suts s expressy authorzed by aw,
there s no smar genera sancton as regards crmna abty. The
authorty must be specfcay conferred. In the present case, the
power to grant crmna mmunty was conferred on PCGG by
Secton 5 of EO No. 14 as amended by EO No. 14-A. However, the
Agreements do not conform to the requrements of EO Nos. 14 and
14-A. Crmna mmunty cannot be granted to the Marcoses, who
are the )r#n%#)al &efen&ants n the spate of -gotten weath cases
now pendng before the Sandganbayan. The provson s appcabe
many to .#tnesses who provde nformaton or testfy aganst a
respondent, defendant or accused n an -gotten weath case.
) Under Item No. 2 of the Genera Agreement, the PCGG commts
to exempt from a forms of taxes the property to be retaned by
the Marcos hers. Ths s a cear voaton of the Consttuton. The
power to tax and to grant tax exemptons s vested n Congress
and, to a certan extent, n the oca egsatve bodes. The PCGG
has absoutey no power to grant tax exemptons, even under the
cover of ts authorty to compromse -gotten weath cases. Even
grantng that Congress enacts the aw exemptng the Marcoses
from payng taxes on ther propertes, such aw w defntey
not pass the test of the equa protecton cause under the B of
Rghts. Any speca grant of exempton n favor ony of the Marcos
hers w consttute cass egsaton. It w aso voate the
consttutona rue that "taxaton sha be unform and equtabe".
) The government bnds tsef under the Genera Agreement to
cause the dsmssa of a cases aganst the Marcos hers, pendng
before the Sandganbayan and other courts. Ths s a drect
encroachment on |udca powers, partcuary n regard to
crmna |ursdcton. We setted s the doctrne that once a case
has been fed before a court of competent |ursdcton, the matter
of ts dsmssa or pursuance es wthn the fu dscreton and
contro of the |udge. |ursdcton, once acqured by the tra court, s
not ost despte a resouton, even by the |ustce secretary, to
wthdraw the nformaton or to dsmss the compant. Thus, the
PCGG cannot guarantee the dsmssa of a such crmna cases
aganst the Marcoses pendng n the courts, for sad dsmssa s not
wthn ts soe power and dscreton.
v) The government aso waves a cams and countercams,
"whether past, present, or future, matured or nchoate," aganst
the Marcoses. Ths a-encompassng stpuaton s contrary to aw.
Under the Cv Code, an acton for future fraud may not be waved.
Ths s a papabe voaton of the due process and equa protecton
guarantees of the Consttuton. It effectvey ensconces the
Marcoses beyond the reach of the aw.
v) The Agreements do not provde for a defnte or determnabe
perod wthn whch the partes sha fuf ther respectve
prestatons. It may take a fetme before the Marcoses submt an
nventory of ther tota assets.
v) The Agreements do not state wth specfcty the standards for
determnng whch assets sha be forfeted by the government and
whch sha be retaned by the Marcoses. Whe the Suppementa
Agreement provdes that the Marcoses sha be entted to 25 per
cent of the $356 mon Swss deposts (ess government recovery
expenses), such sharng arrangement pertans ony to the sad
depost. No smar spttng scheme s defned wth respect to the
other propertes. Nether s there, anywhere n the Agreements, a
statement of the bass for the 25-75 percent sharng rato.
v) The absence of then-Presdent Fde Ramos approva of the
prncpa Agreement, an express condton theren, renders the
compromse ncompete and unenforceabe. Nevertheess, even f
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1('
such approva were obtaned, the Agreements woud st not be
vad.
E(OL%#IO!
PANGANIBAN; May 19, 1999
'&C#(
Ma. Imeda Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdnand R. Marcos II and Irene
Marcos-Araneta fed before the court a moton for eave to
ntervene and a moton for parta reconsderaton, aegng that
they were partes and sgnatores to the Genera and Suppementa
Agreements whch ths Court decared "NULL AND VOID for beng
contrary to aw and the Constuton." They cam to "have a ega
nterest n the matter n tgaton, or n the success of ether of the
partes or an nterest aganst both as to warrant ther nterventon."
They add that ther excuson from the nstant case resuted n a
dena of ther consttutona rghts to due process and to equa
protecton. They aso the rase the "prncpe of herarchca
admnstraton of |ustce" to mpugn the Courts cognzance of
pettoners drect acton before t.
I((%E(
+rocedural:
WON the Moton for Leave to Intervene shoud be aowed.
.ubstantive:
1. WON the excuson of the movants from the proceedngs
regardng the Agreements to whch they were partes and
sgnatores was a dena of "ther property rght to contract wthout
due process of aw";
2. WON the Court voated the prncpe of herarchca
admnstraton of |ustce by rung upon the vadty of the
Agreements;
3. WON the ssue of rght to nformaton rased by pettoner was
rendered moot and academc by the submsson by the movants of
the Moton for Approva of Compromse Agreements to the
Sandganbayan;
4. WON there was ratfcaton of the Agreements by parta
mpementaton; and
5. WON the ssue rased by pettoner presented an actua case and
a |ustcabe queston.
3ELD
+rocedural:
No. Secton 2, Rue 19 of the Rues of Court, provdes that a moton
to ntervene shoud be fed before rendton of |udgment.
Interventon can no onger be aowed n a case aready termnated
by fna |udgment.
.ubstantive:
1. No. A contract that voates the Consttuton and the aw s nu
and vod a/ #n#t#o and vests no rghts and creates no obgatons. In
ega terms, the movants have reay no nterest to protect or rght
to assert n ths proceedng. Moreover, the movants are merey
ncdenta, not #n&#s)ensa/le, partes to the nstant case. The
petton of Francsco I. Chavez sought to enforce a consttutona
rght aganst the PCGG and to determne whether the atter has
been actng wthn the bounds of ts authorty.
2. No. The prncpe of herarchy of the courts generay appes to
cases nvovng factua questons, s#n%e the S$)reme Co$rt #s
not a tr#er of fa%ts. Inasmuch as the petton at bar nvoves ony
consttutona and ega questons concernng pubc nterest, the
Court resoved to exercse prmary |ursdcton on the matter.
3. No. The Chavez petton was not confned to the concuded
terms contaned n the Agreements, but kewse concerned other
ongong and future negotatons and agreements, perfected or not.
It was therefore not rendered moot and academc smpy by the
pubc dscosure of the sub|ect Agreements.
4. No. The PCGGs grant to the camants mother of access rghts
to one of ther sequestered propertes cannot ratfy the
Agreements. Beng nu and vod, they are not sub|ect to
ratfcaton.
5. Yes. Mandamus, over whch ths Court has orgna |ursdcton, s
a proper recourse for a ctzen to enforce a pubc rght. There s
no potca queston nvoved. The power and authorty of the PCGG
to compromse s not the ssue. But, ceary, by voatng the
Consttuton and the aws, the PCGG gravey abused ts dscreton.
.&GO!G &L2&!(&!G "&)&.&2&! (.&2&!) V 4&"O&
BUENA; October 10, 2000
'&C#(
- Ths s a consodaton of 5 pettons assang the consttutonaty
of the Vstng Forces Agreement. ("r#*#a@ S# Prof "e ang %o$nsel
)ara sa #/ang )et#t#oners!
- March 14, 1947 - The Phppnes and USA forged a Mtary Bases
Agreement, formazng, among others, the use of nstaatons n
the Phppne terrtory by US mtary personne.
- August 30, 1951 - The Phppnes and USA entered nto a Mutua
Defense Treaty. Under the treaty, the partes agreed to respond to
any externa armed attack on ther terrtory, armed forces, pubc
vesses and arcraft.
- 1991- RP-US Mtary Base Agreement expred. Senate re|ected
proposed RP-US Treaty of Frendshp, Cooperaton and Securty.
(9oo&/+eI /$t M$t$al :efense "reat+ st#ll #n effe%t.!
- February 10, 1998 - Presdent Ramos approved Vstng Forces
Agreement, after a seres of conferences and negotatons.
- October 5, 1998 - Presdent Estrada, through Secretary of Foregn
affars, ratfed VFA.
- May 27, 1999- Senate passed Resouton No. 18, concurrng wth
the ratfcaton of the VFA. (Aho %on%$rre&@ ;ernan, 2)le, :r#lon,
-#a6on, "ata&, Ca+etano, 04$#no-2reta, -ar/ers, 1a.ors=#,
Magsa+sa+ 1r, 2smeMa, ;la*#er, :efensor-Sant#ago, Pon%e-Enr#le,
Sotto, >e*#lla, Coseteng, 8onasan. "otalN17. Aho re3e%te&@
9$#ngona, >o%o, 2smeMa 777, P#mentel, 5egar&a-5e*#ste. "otalN!
- The VFA provdes for the mechansm for reguatng crcumstances
and condtons under whch US Armed Forces and defense
personne may be present n the Phppnes. The VFA s an
agreement whch defnes treatment of US troops and personne
vstng the Phppnes. It also de9ines t&e ri;&ts o9 t&e 5. and
t&e +&il ;overnment in t&e matter o9 criminal 'urisdiction,
movement o9 vessel and aircra9t, importation and
e)portation o9 eBuipment, materials and supplies.
I((%E(
1. WON the pettoners have ega standng as concerned ctzens,
taxpayers, or egsators to queston the consttutonaty of the
VFA.
2. WON the VFA s governed by the provsons of Sec 21, Artce VII
(%on%$rren%e of 2C( of the mem/ers of the Senate! or Sec 25 Art
XVIII of the Consttuton (fore#gn m#l#tar+ /ases, troo)s, or fa%#l#t#es
not allo.e& #n the Ph#ls e,%e)t $n&er a treat+ &$l+ %on%$rre& #n /+
Senate, an& .hen Congress re4$#res, rat#f#%at#on /+ a ma3or#t+ of
*otes %ast /+ the )eo)le #n a nat#onal referen&$m, an& re%ogn#6e&
as a treat+ /+ the other %ontra%t#ng State!
3. WON VFA consttute an abdcaton of Phppne soveregnty.
a. WON the Phppne Courts w be deprved of ther
|ursdcton to hear and try offenses commtted by the US
Mtary personne.
b. WON the Supreme Court w be deprved of ts |ursdcton
over offenses punshabe by recuson perpetua or hgher.
4. Was there grave abuse of dscreton on the part of the Presdent,
and of the Senate n ratfyng/concurrng wth the VFA?
5. WON the VFA voates Sec 1 Artce III (e4$al )rote%t#on %la$se!,
Sec 8 Artce II ()roh#/#t#on aga#nst n$%lear .ea)ons!, and Sec 28(4)
Artce VI (ta,at#on! of the 1987 Consttuton.
3ELD
1. No (and Yes). As taxpayers, pettoners have NO ega standng
as there are no pubc funds rased by taxaton n the case. Aso,
pettoner-egsators do not possess the requste lo%$s stan&# as
there s absence of cear showng of any drect n|ury to ther
person or to the nsttuton to whch they beong. HOWEVER, the
ssues rased n the pettons are of paramount mportance and of
consttutona sgnfcance. It s of TRANSCENDENTAL mportance,
so the Court brushes asde procedura barrers and takes
cognzance of the pettons.
2. It s governed by .O#3 provsons. (e0tion I5 &rti0le BVIII
appes as t specfcay deas wth treates nvovng foregn
mtary bases, troops, or factes. ("he OorG #s #m)ortant to ta=e
note as #t s#gn#f#es #n&e)en&en%e of one th#ng from the others.
"h$s, #t %an 3$st /e an agreement %o*er#ng onl+ troo)s P not /ases
Ql#=e the V;0. 0lso, Se%t#on 2 0rt#%le RV777 ma=es no &#st#n%t#on
.hether the troo)s or fa%#l#t#es .#ll /e Htrans#entJ or H)ermanentJ,
so the V;0 #s %o*ere& /+ th#s )ro*#s#on!. On the other hand,
(e0tion I1 &rti0le VII fnd appcabty wth regard to the ssue
and for the soe purpose of determnng the number of votes
requred to obtan the vad concurrence of the Senate (Se% 21 0rt
V77 re4$#res 2C( of the mem/ers of the Senate, .h#le Se% 2 0rt
RV777 3$st sa+s H&$l+ %on%$rre& #n /+ the SenateJ .#th no s)e%#f#e&
n$m/er!.
- Were the requrements of Secton 25 Art XVIII comped wth?
Secton 25 Art XVIII requres the foowng condtons:
a) t must be under a treaty. -- Comped wth. We treat
VFA as a treaty.
b) the treaty must be duy concurred n by the Senate,
and so requred by the Congress, ratfed by a ma|orty of the
votes cast by the peope n a natona referendum. -- Comped
wth. 17 of 23 Senators concurred (Senator 9lor#a 0rro+o .as
ele%te& VP!. Requrement of ratfcaton n a natona
referendum unnecessary snce Congress has not requred t.
c) recognzed as a treaty by the other contractng State
(US).-- Comped wth. Ambassador Hubbards etter states that
t*e V'& is 6in+ing on t*e %( govAt and that n nternatona
ega terms such agreement s a treaty.
- A treaty, as defned by the Venna Conventon on the Law of
Treates, s an "nternatona nstrument concuded between States
n wrtten form and governed by the nternatona aw, whether
emboded n a snge nstrument or n two or more reated
nstruments."
- In nternatona aw, there s no dfference between treates and
executve agreements n ther bndng effect upon states
concerned, as ong as the negotatng functonares have remaned
wthn ther powers.
3. Secton 2 Artce II of the Consttuton decares that the "xxx
Phppnes adopts the generay accepted prncpes of nternatona
aw as part of the aw of the and xxx" (th#s &oesnGt reall+ ans.er
the #ss$e a/o*e, /$t the )onente &#&nGt reall+ &#s%$ss an ans.er
A2N the V;0 #s an a/&#%at#on of so*ere#gnt+.. oh .ellI here
goesI)
- Wth the ratfcaton of the VFA, t becomes obgatory and
ncumbent on our part to be bound by the terms of the agreement.
As a member of the famy of natons, the Phppnes agrees to be
bound by generay accepted rues for the conduct of ts
nternatona reatons. We cannot ready pead the Consttuton as
a convenent excuse for non-compance wth our obgatons,
dutes and responsbtes under nternatona aw.
- Artce 13 of the Decaraton of Rghts and Dutes of States
adopted by the Internatona Law Commson 1949 provdes that
every state has a duty to carry out n good fath ts obgatons.
Artce 26 of the Conventon: )a%ta s$nt ser*an&a.
4. Was there grave abuse of dscreton on the part of the Presdent,
and of the Senate n ratfyng/concurrng wth the VFA? !o.
- Grave abuse of dscreton mpes such caprcous and whmsca
exercse of |udgment as s equvaent to ack of |ursdcton, or,
when the power s exercsed n an arbtrary or despostc manner.
- The Consttuton vests the power to enter nto treates or
Internatona agreements n the Presdent, sub|ect ony to the
concurrence of the members of Senate. The negotaton of the VFA
and the ratfcaton of the agreement are excusve acts of the the
Presdent, n the awfu exercse of hs vast executve and
dpomatc powers granted by the Consttuton.
- As to the power to concur wth treates, the Consttuton odges
the same wth the Senate aone. Thus once the Senate performs
that power, or exercses ts prerogatve wthn the boundares
prescrbed by the Consttuton, the concurrence cannot be vewed
to consttute an abuse of power.
0ecision Pettons Dsmssed
11 concurrng, 3 dssentng, 1 take no part.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P%!O D+issentE
- Most sgnfcant ssue s whether the VFA voates Sec 25 Art XVIII
of the Consttuton (see re4$#rements a/o*e!.
- POINT 1: Respondents cam that the requrements do not appy
as the VFA contempates a temporary vst of the troops, whe the
provson appes to a permanent presence of foregn troops.
The sad temporary nature of the VFA cannot stand. Nether the
VFA nor the Mutua Defense Treaty between RP and US provdes
the sghtest suggeston on the duraton of the vsts. VFA does not
provde for a specfc and mted perod of effectvty.
- POINT 2: The requrement that t be "recognzed as a treaty by the
other contractng state" s crysta cear and was put there by the
framers norder not to repeat the anomaous asymmetry of the
1947 Mtary bases agreement where we recognzed t as a treaty
but the US treated t as an executve agreement.
- The VFA s equvaent to a soe executve agreement n the US.
The Court w be standng on unstabe ground f t paces a soe
executve agreement ke the VFA on the same consttutona
pateau as a treaty, as there are st questons on the consttutona
bass and ega effects of soe executve agreements under the US
aw.
- "Wth the coud of uncertanty st hangng on the exact ega
force of soe executve agreements under the US consttutona aw,
ths Court must strke a bow for the soveregnty of our country by
drawng a brght ne between the dgnty and status of a treaty n
contrast wth a soe executve agreement. However we may wsh t,
The VFA as a soe executve agreement cannot cmb to the same
ofty heght that the dgnty of a treaty can reach. Consequenty, t
fas short of the requrement set by Sec 25 Art XVIII of the 1987
Consttuton that the agreement aowng the presence of foregn
mtary troops on Ph so must be recognzed as a treaty by the
other contractng state. I vote to grant the pettons."
)ILO(.&2&!5 I!C. V G%I!GO!&5 $.
DAVIDE; May 5, 1994
'&C#(
Nature: Speca cv acton for prohbton and n|uncton, prayng
for a TRO and premnary n|uncton, to prohbt and restran
mpementaton of "Contract of Lease" between PCSO and PGMC n
connecton wth on-ne ottery system a.k.a. "otto".
1. Pursuant to Secton 1 of ts charter (RA 1169), PCSO decded
to estabsh an onne ottery system for the purpose of
ncreasng ts revenue base and dversfyng ts sources of
funds. Sometme before March 1993, after earnng that PCSO
was nterested n operatng an on-ne ottery system, .er<a1a
Group .er*a+, a mutnatona company n Maaysa, /e%ame
#ntereste& to offer #ts ser*#%es an& reso$r%es to PCS2 and
organzed wth some Fpno nvestors n March 1993 a
corporaton known as the Phppne Gamng Management
Corporaton (PGMC).
2. Before August 1993, PCSO fnay formay ssued a Request
for Proposa (RFP) for the Lease of Contract of an on-ne ottery
system for PCSO. Consderng the ctzenshp requrement n the
RFP ("Lessor sha be a domestc corporaton, wth at east 60%
of ts shares owned by Fpno sharehoders"), PGMC cams that
Ber|aya Group undertook to reduce ts equty stakes n PGMC to
40%, by seng 35% out of the orgna 75% foregn
stockhodngs to oca nvestors.
3. Aug. 15, 1993, PGMC submtted ts bd to PCSO. The bds
were evauated by the Speca Pre-Ouafcaton Bds and
Awards commttee (SPBAC) for the on-ne ottery and ts Bd
Report was thereafter submtted to the Offce of the Presdent.
(Ths was preceded by compants from the Commtte's
Charperson, Dr. Mta Pardo de Tavera.)
4. Oct. 21, 1993, the Offce of the Presdent announced that t
had gven PGMC the go-sgna to operate the countr's on-ne
ottery system. Announcement was pubshed n Mana Tmes,
PDI, and Mana Standard on Oct. 29.
5. Nov. 4, 1993, KILOSBAYAN sent an open etter to Presdent
Ramos strongy opposng the settng up of an on-ne otttery
system on the bass of serous mora and ethca consderatons.
KILOSBAYAN reterated ts vgorous opposton to "otto" at the
meetng of the Commttee on Games and Amusements of the
Senate on Nov. 12, 1993
6. Nov. 19, 1993, the meda announced that despte the
opposton, Maacanang w push through wth operaton of
otto, that t s actuay PCSO whch w operate the ottery whe
wnnng corporate bdders merey essors.
7. Dec. 1, 1993, KILOSBAYAN requested copes of a
documents pertanng to the ottery award from Executve
Secretary Teofsto Gungona, |r., who nformed KILOSBAYAN
that the documents w be transmtted before the end of the
month. However on the same date, an agreement denomnated
as "Contract of Lease" was fnay executed by PCSO and PGMC.
8. Consderng the dena by the Offce of the Presdent of ts
protest and the statement of Assstant Executve Secretary
Renato Corona that "ony a court n|uncton can stop
Maacaang," and the mmnent mpementaton of the Contract
of Lease n February 1994, KILOSBAYAN, wth ts co-pettoners,
fed on 28 |anuary 1994 ths petton.
PETITIONERS' CLAIM
- Pettoners cam that PCSO cannot vady enter nto the assaed
Contract of Lease wth the PGMC because t s an arrangement
wheren the PCSO woud hod and conduct the on-ne ottery
system n "coaboraton" or "assocaton" wth the PGMC, n
voaton of Secton 1(B) of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Bg.
42, whch prohbts the PCSO from hodng and conductng charty
sweepstakes races, otteres, and other smar actvtes "n
coaboraton, assocaton or |ont venture wth any person,
assocaton, company or entty, foregn or domestc." And that
there are terms and condtons of the Contract "showng that
respondent PGMC s the actua otto operator and not respondent
PCSO."

- The pettoners aso pont out that the Contract of Lease requres
or authorzes PGMC to estabsh a teecommuncatons network that
w connect a the muncpates and ctes n the terrtory.
However, PGMC cannot do that because t has no franchse from
Congress to construct, nsta, estabsh, or operate the network
pursuant to Secton 1 of Act No. 3846, as amended.
- Moreover, PGMC s a 75% foregn-owned or controed corporaton
and cannot, therefore, be granted a franchse for that purpose
because of Secton 11, Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton.
Furthermore, snce "the subscrbed foregn capta" of the PGMC
"comes to about 75%, as shown by paragraph EIGHT of ts Artces
of Incorporaton," t cannot awfuy enter nto the contract n
queston because a forms of gambng - and ottery s one of
them - are ncuded n the so-caed foregn nvestments negatve
st under the Foregn Investments Act (R.A. No. 7042) where ony
up to 40% foregn capta s aowed.
- Fnay, the pettoners nsst that the Artces of Incorporaton of
PGMC do not authorze t to estabsh and operate an on-ne ottery
and teecommuncatons systems.
RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS
- Prvate respondent PGMC asserts that "(1) |t| s merey an
ndependent contractor for a pece of work and (2) as such
ndependent contractor, PGMC s not a co-operator of the ottery
franchse wth PCSO, nor s PCSO sharng ts franchse, 'n
coaboraton, assocaton or |ont venture' wth PGM.
- Fnay, t states that the executon and mpementaton of the
contract does not voate the Consttuton and the aws; that the
ssue on the "moraty" of the ottery franchse granted to the PCSO
s potca and not |udca or ega, whch shoud be ventated n
another forum; and that the "pettoners do not appear to have the
ega standng or rea nterest n the sub|ect contract and n
obtanng the reefs sought."
- Executve Secretary Teofsto Gungona, |r., Assstant Executve
Secretary Renato Corona, and the PCSO mantan that the contract
of ease n queston does not voate Secton 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as
amended by B.P. Bg. 42, and that the pettoner's nterpretaton of
the phrase "n coaboraton, assocaton or |ont venture" n Secton
1 s "much too narrow, straned and uttery devod of ogc" for t
"gnores the reaty that PCSO, as a corporate entty, s vested wth
the basc and essenta prerogatve to enter nto a knds of
transactons or contracts as may be necessary for the attanment of
ts purposes and ob|ectves." What the PCSO charter "seeks to
prohbt s that arrangement akn to a "|ont venture" or partnershp
where there s "communty of nterest n the busness, sharng of
profts and osses, and a mutua rght of contro," a characterstc
whch does not obtan n a contract of ease." They further cam
that the estabshment of the teecommuncatons system
stpuated n the Contract of Lease does not requre a congressona
franchse because PGMC w not operate a pubc utty
- They aso argue that the contract does not voate the Foregn
Investment Act of 1991; that the Artces of Incorporaton of PGMC
authorze t to enter nto the Contract of Lease; and that the ssues
of "wsdom, moraty and proprety of acts of the executve
department are beyond the ambt of |udca revew."
Fnay, they aege that the pettoners have no standng to
mantan the nstant sut.
I((%E(
+rocedural: WON the pettoners have ocus stand.
.ubstantive: WON the Contract of Lease s ega and vad n ght
of RA 1169 as amended by BP Bg. 42, whch prohbts PCSO from
hodng and conductng otteres "n coaboraton, assocaton, or
|ont venture wth any person, assocaton, company, or entty,
whether domestc or foregn."
3ELD
1. The premnary ssue on the lo%$s stan&# of the pettoners
shoud, ndeed, be resoved n ther favor. A party's standng before
ths Court s a procedura techncaty whch t may, n the exercse
of ts dscreton, set asde n vew of the mportance of the ssues
rased. In the andmark Emergen%+ Po.ers Cases, ths Court
brushed asde ths techncaty because "the transcendenta
mportance to the pubc of these cases demands that they be
setted prompty and defntey, brushng asde, f we must,
techncates of procedure.'
- The Court found the nstant petton to be of transcendenta
mportance to the pubc. The ramfcatons of such ssues
mmeasuraby affect the soca, economc, and mora we-beng of
the peope even n the remotest barangays of the country and the
counter-productve and retrogressve effects of the envsoned on-
ne ottery system are as staggerng as the bons n pesos t s
expected to rase. The ega standng then of the pettoners
deserves recognton and, n the exercse of ts sound dscreton,
ths Court hereby brushes asde the procedura barrer whch the
respondents tred to take advantage of
2. Contract of Lease s vod for beng contrary to aw. PGMC s not
ony a Lessor, PCSO n the east w be conductng otteres " n
coaboraton or assocaton" and n the most "n |ont vernture"
wth PGMC. The manegera and technca expertse of PGMC are
ndespensbe to the operaton of the on-ne ottery system,
whereas PCSO ony has ts franchse to offer.
- By the excepton expcty made n paragraph B, Secton 1 of ts
charter, the PCSO cannot share ts franchse wth another by way of
coaboraton, assocaton or |ont venture. Nether can t assgn,
transfer, or ease such franchse.
- It s a setted rue that "n a grants by the government to
ndvduas or corporatons of rghts, prveges and franchses, the
words are to be taken most strongy aganst the grantee .... |o|ne
who cams a franchse or prvege n derogaton of the common
rghts of the pubc must prove hs tte thereto by a grant whch s
ceary and defntey expressed, and he cannot enarge t by
equvoca or doubtfu provsons or by probabe nferences.
Whatever s not unequvocay granted s wthhed. Nothng passes
by mere mpcaton."
- Whether the contract n queston s one of ease or whether the
PGMC s merey an ndependent contractor shoud not be decded
on the bass of the t#tle or &es#gnat#on of the contract but by the
ntent of the partes, whch may be gathered from the provisions
of the contract tsef. 0n#m$s hom#n#s est an#ma s%r#)t#. The
ntenton of the party s the sou of the nstrument.
- A carefu anayss and evauaton of the provsons of the contract
and a consderaton of the contemporaneous acts of the PCSO and
PGMC ndubtaby dscose that the contract s not n reaty a
contract of ease under whch the PGMC s merey an ndependent
contractor for a pece of work, but one where the statutory
proscrbed %olla/orat#on or asso%#at#on, n the east, or 3o#nt
*ent$re, at the most, exsts between the contractng partes.
(Collaboration #s &ef#ne& as the a%ts of .or=#ng together #n a 3o#nt
)ro3e%t. #ssociation means the a%t of a n$m/er of )ersons #n
$n#t#ng together for some s)e%#al )$r)ose or /$s#ness. 1oint
venture #s &ef#ne& as an asso%#at#on of )ersons or %om)an#es
3o#ntl+ $n&erta=#ng some %ommer%#al enter)r#seK ;enerall( all
contribute assets and s&are ris@s. !
- The contemporaneous acts of the PCSO and the PGMC revea that
the PCSO had nether funds of ts own nor the expertse to operate
and manage an on-ne ottery system, and that athough t wshed
to have the system, t woud have t "at no expense or rsks to the
government." Because of these serous constrants and
unwngness to bear expenses and assume rsks, the PCSO was
candd enough to state n ts RFP that t s seekng for "a sutabe
contractor whch sha bud, at ts own expense, a the factes
needed to operate and mantan" the system; excusvey bear "a
capta, operatng expenses and expanson expenses and rsks."
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C%4 D0on0urringE
- PGMC s pany a partner of PCSO n voaton of the aw no
matter how the assstance s caed or the contract denomnated.
P&DILL& D0on0urringE
- Contract of Lease between PCSO and PGMC s a |ont venture
because each part contrbutes ts share n the enterprse pro|ect.
PGMC contrbutes the factes, technoogy and expertse, whe
PCSO contrbutes the market through the deaers and n the totaty
the mass of Fpno gambng eements. PGMC w get ts 4.9% of
gross recepts; the resdue of the whoe exercse w go to PCSO,
ths s a |ont venture pan and smpe.
"ELO D+issentingE
- Ths case does not nvove a chaenge on the vadty of a statute
nor an attempt to restran expendture of pubc funds. The contract
nvoves strcty corporate money.
- By consderng ths case as a taxpayer's sut coud not cure the
ack of ocus stand on the part of the pettoners. The contract does
not nvove an ega dsbursement of pubc funds. No pubc fund
rased by taxaton s nvoved.
P%!O D+issentingE
- Courts are nether free to decde a knds of cases dumped nto
ther aps nor are they free to open ther doors to a partes or
enttes camng a grevance.
- It s cear that the requrement of ocus stand has not been
|ettsoned by the Consttuton for t st commands courts n no
uncertan terms to sette onl+ Ha%t$al %ontro*ers#es #n*ol*#ng r#ghts
.h#%h are legall+ &eman&a/le an& enfor%ea/leJC
- Ratonae for the standard of ocus stand s to assure a vgorous
adversary presentaton of the case, and perhaps more mportanty
to warrant the |udcary's overrung the determnaton of a
coordnate, democratcay eected organ of government.
)ILO(.&2&!5 I!C.5 E# &L. V(. "O&#O
MENDOZA; |uy 17, 1995

'&C#(
- As a resut of our decson n G.R. No. 113375 (Kosbayan,
Incorporated v. Gungona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994) nvadatng the
Contract of Lease between the Phppne Charty Sweepstakes
Offce (PCSO) and the Phppne Gamng Management Corp.
(PGMC) on the ground that t had been made n voaton of the
charter of the PCSO, the partes entered nto negotatons for a new
agreement that woud be "consstent wth the atter's |PCSO|
charter . . . and conformabe to ths Honorabe Court's aforesad
Decson."
- On |anuary 25, 1195 the partes sgned an Equpment Lease
Agreement (thereafter caed ELA) whereby the PGMC eased on-
ne ottery equpment and accessores to the PCSO n consderaton
of a renta equvaent to 4.3 % of the gross amount of tcket sae
derved by the PCSO from the operaton of the ottery whch n no
case sha be ess than an annua renta computed at P35,000.00
per termna n Commerca Operaton. The renta s to be computed
and pad b-weeky. In the event the b-weeky rentas n any year
fa short of the annua mnmum fxed renta thus computed, the
PCSO agrees to pay the defcency out of the proceeds of ts current
tcket saes. (Pars. 1-2)
Under the aw, 30% of the net recepts from the sae of tckets s
aoted to charty. (R.A. 1169, (B) )
The term of the eases s eght (8) years, commencng from the
start of commerca operaton of the ottery equpment frst
devered to the essee pursuant to the agreed schedue. (Par. 3)
- In the operaton of the ottery, the PCSO s to empoy ts own
personne. (Par. 5) It s responsbe for the oss of, or damage to,
the equpment from any cause and for the cost of ther
mantenance and repar. (Pars. 7-8) Upon the expraton of the
eases, the PCSO has the opton to purchase the equpment for the
sum of P25 mon.
- A copy of the ELA was submtted to the Court by the PGMC n
accordance wth ts manfestaton n the pror case. On February 21,
1995 ths sut was fed seekng to decare the ELA nvad on the
ground as the Contract of Leases nufed n the frst case.
Pettoners seek the decaraton of the amended ELA as nu and
vod.
- The PCSO and PGMC fed a separate comments n whch they
queston the pettoners' standng to brng sut. The Kosbayan, In.
s an organzaton descrbed n ts petton as "composed of cvc-
sprted ctzens, pastors, prests, nuns and ay eaders who are
commtted to the cause of truth, |ustce, and natona renewa." Its
trustees are aso sung n ther ndvdua and coectve capactes
as "taxpayers and concerned ctzens." The other pettoners (Sen.
Fredde Webb, Sen. Wgberto Taada and Rep. |oker P. Arroyo) are
members of the Congress sung as such and as "taxpayer and
concerned ctzens."
- Respondents queston the rght of pettoners to brng ths sut on
the ground that, not beng partes to the contract of ease whch
they seek to nufy, they have no persona and substanta nterest
key to be n|ured by the enforcement of the contract. Pettoners
on the other hand contend that the rung n the prevous case
sustanng ther standng to chaenge the vadty of the frst
contract for the operaton of ottery s now the "aw of the case".
and therefore the queston of ther standng can no onger be
reopened.
- Pettoners kewse nvoke the foowng Prncpes and State
Poces set forth n Art. II of the Consttuton:
The mantenance of peace and order, the protecton of fe, berty,
and property, and the promoton of the genera wefare are
essenta for the empoyment by a the peope of the bessngs of
democracy. (5)|
The natura and prmary rght and duty of the parents n the rearng
of the youth for cvc effcency and the deveopment of mora
character sha receve the support of the Government. (12)
The State recognzes the vta roe of the youth n naton budng
and sha promote ther physca, mora, sprtua, nteectua, and
soca we-beng. It sha ncucate n the youth patrotsm and
naconasm, and encourage ther nvovement n pubc and cvc
affars.
The state sha gve prorty to educaton, scence and technoogy,
arts, cuture, and sports to foster patrotsm and natonasm,
acceerate soca progress, and promote tota human beraton and
deveopment. (17)
(Memorandum for Pettoners, p. 7)
I((%E(
1. Does Kosbayan et. a. have standng to sue?
2. Does the decson n Kosbayan v. Gungona consttute the "aw
of the case", thus precudng respondents from assang the ega
standng of pettoners?
3. May the provsons under the Decaraton of Prncpes and State
Poces be ready nvoked by any person n the absence of
Congressona egsaton (.e., sef-executng)?
3ELD
atio
1. A rung n a prevous case s bndng ony nsofar as the specfc
ssue n that case s concerned. Partes may be the same but cases
are not.
2. Provsons under the Decaraton of Prncpes and States are not
sef-executng.
4eneral easonin;
- Nether the doctrne of stare decss nor that of "aw of the case",
nor that of concusve of |udgment poses a barrer to a
determnaton of pettoners' rght to mantan ths sut.
- Stare decss s usuay the wse pocy. But n ths case, concern
for stabty n decsona aw does not ca for adherence to what
has recenty been ad down as the rue. The prevous rung
sustanng pettoners' nterventon may tsef be consdered a
departure from setted rungs on "rea partes n nterest" because
no consttutona ssues were actuay nvoved. |ust fve years
before that rung ths Court had dened standng to a party who, n
questonng the vadty of another form of ottery, camed the rght
to sue n the capacty of taxpayer, ctzen and member of the Bar.
(Vamonte v. Phppne Charty Sweepstakes, G.R. No. 78716, Sept .
22, 1987) Ony recenty ths Court hed that members of Congress
have standng to queston the vadty of presdenta veto on the
ground that, f t true, the egaty of the veto woud mpar ther
prerogatve as members of Congress. Conversey f the compant s
not grounded on the mparment of the powers of Congress,
egsators do not have stndng the queston the vadty of any aw
or offca acton (Phppne Consttuton Assocaton v Enrquez, 235
SCRA 506 (1994))
- There s an addtona reason for a reexamnaton of the rung on
standng. The votng on pettoners' standng n the prevous case
was a narrow one, wth seven (7) members sustanng pettoners'
standng and sx (6) denyng pettoners' rght to brng the sut. The
ma|orty was thus a tenuous one that s not key to be mantaned
n any subsequent tgaton. In addton, there have been changes
n the members of the Court, wth the retrement of |ustces Cruz
and Bdn and the appontment of the wrter of ths opnon and
|ustce Francsco. Gven ths fact t s hardy tenabe to nsst on the
mantenance of the rung as to pettoners' standng.
.peci9ic easonin;
1. NO. The queston whether the pettoners have standng to
queston the Equpment or ELA s a ega queston. As w presenty
be shown, the ELA, whch the pettoners seek to decare nvad n
ths proceedng, s essentay dfferent from the 1993 Contract of
ease entered nto by the PCSO wth the PGMC. Hence the
determnaton n the pror case (G.R. No. 113375) that the
pettoner had standng to chaenge the vadty of the 1993
Contract of Lease of the partes does not precude determnaton of
ther standng n the present sut.
- Not ony s pettoners' standng a ega ssue that may be
determned agan n ths case. It s, strcty speakng, not even the
ssue n ths case, SINCE STANDING IS A CONCEPT IN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HERE NO CONSTITUTIONAL OUESTION
IS ACTUALLY INVOLVED.
32
The ssue n ths case s whether
32
CO""E!# O' .2&!R($- #*e logi0 o/ t*e Court in t*is 0ase now 6e0omes 0learer- #*e 0on0ept o/
legal stan+ing is a 0onstitutional law 0on0ept w*i0* is I!&PPLIC&.LE I! C&(E( 73EE #3EE &E
!O CO!(#I#%#IO!&L I((%E( &I(ED. In 0ases w*ere no 0onstitutional issues are raise+ t*e
governing prin0iple s*oul+ 6e t*e 0on0ept o/ >real part1 in interest? in t*e ules o/ Court.
pettoners are the "rea partes n nterest" wthn the meanng of
Rue 3, 2 of the Rues of Court whch requres that "Every acton
may be prosecuted and defended n the name of the rea party n
nterest."
- Notng ths dstncton, pettoners have not shown that they are
the rea party n nterest. They have not demonstrated that the
Contract entered nto by the PCSO woud drecty n|ure or affect
ther rghts.
2. NO. Pettoners argue that nqury nto ther rght to brng ths
sut s barred by the doctrne of "aw of the case." We do not thnk
ths doctrne s appcabe consderng the fact that whe ths case
s a seque to G.R. No. 113375, t s not ts contnuaton: The
doctrne appes ony when a case s before a court a second tme
after a rung by an appeate court.
- The aw of the case, as apped to a former decson of an
appeate court, ,merey expresses the practce of the courts n
refusng to reopen what has been decded. It dffers from res
|udcata n that the concusve of the frst |udgment s not
dependent upon ts fnaty. The frst |udgment s generay, f not
unversay, not fna, It reates entrey to questons of aw, and s
confned n ts questons of aw, and s confned n ts operaton to
subsequent proceedngs n the same case . . . ." (Muncpaty of
Daet v. Court of Appeas, 93 SCRA 503, 521 (1979) )
- It foows that snce the present case s not the same one tgated
by he partes before n G.R. No. 113375, the rung there cannot n
any sense be regarded as "the aw of ths case." The partes are the
same but the cases are not.
- Nor s nqury nto pettoners; rght to mantan ths sut forecosed
by the reated doctrne of "concusveness of |udgment." Accordng
to the doctrne, an ssue actuay and drecty passed upon the and
determned n a former sut cannot agan be drawn n queston n
any future acton between the same partes nvovng a dfferent of
acton. (Peaosa v. Tuason , 22 Ph. 303, 313 (1912); Hers of
Roxas v. Gado, 108. 582 (1960))
- It has been hed that the rue on concusveness of |udgment or
precuson of ssues or coatera estoppe does not appy to ssues
of aw, at east when substantay unreated cams are nvoved.
(Montana v. Unted States, 440 U.S. 147, 162, 59 L. Ed. 2d 210 ,
222 (1979); BATOR, MELTZER, MISHKIN AND SHAPIRO, THE
FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 1058, n. 2 (3rd Ed.,
1988)) Foowng ths rung t was hed n Commssoner v. Sunnen,
333 U.S. 591, 92 L. Ed. 898 (1947) that where a taxpayer assgned
to hs wfe nterest n a patent n 1928 and n a sut t was
determned that the money pad to hs wfe for the years 1929-
1931 under the 1928 assgnment was not part of hs taxabe
ncome, ths determnaton s not precusve n a second acton for
coecton of taxes on amounts to hs wfe under another deed of
assgnment for other years (1937 to 1941). For ncome tax
purposes what s decded wth respect to one contract s not
concusve as to any other contract whch was not then n ssue,
however smar or dentca t may be. The rue on coatera
estoppe. t was hed, "must be confned to stuatons where the
matter rased n the second sut s dentca n a respects wth that
decded n the frst precedng and where the controng facts and
appcabe ega rues reman unchanged." (333 U.S. at 599-600, 92
L. Ed. at 907) Consequenty, "f the reevant facts n the two cases
are separate even though they may be smar or dentca,
coatera estoppe does not govern the ega ssues whch occur n
the second case. Thus the second proceedng may nvove an
nstrument or transacton dentca wth but n a form separabe
form, the one deat wth n the frst proceedng. In that stuaton a
court s free n the second proceedng to make an ndependent
examnaton of the ega matters at ssue. . . ." (333 U.S. at 601, 92
L. Ed. at 908)
3. NO. These are not, however, sef executng provsons, the
dsregard whch can gve rse to a cause of acton n the courts.
- They do not embody |udcay enforceabe consttutona rghts
but gudenes for egsaton. Thus, whe consttutona poces are
nvoked, ths case nvoves bascay questons of contract aw.
More specfcay, the queston s whether pettoners have ega
rght whch has been voated.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
'ELICI&!O D+issentE
- I fnd mysef regretfuy qute unabe to |on the ma|orty opnon
wrtten by my dstngushed brother n the Court, Mendoza, |.
- I |on the penetratng dssentng opnons wrtten by my esteemed
brothers Regaado and Davde, |r., ||. In respect of the matter of
ocus stand, I woud aso reterate the concurrng opnon I wrote on
that sub|ect n the frst Kosbayan case.1 A the factors whch, to
my mnd, pressed for recognton of ocus stand on the part of
pettoners n the frst Kosbayan case, st exst and demand, wth
equa weght and nsstence, such recognton n the present or
second Kosbayan case, I fear that the Court may we have
occason n the future profoundy to regret the doctrna ba and
chan that we have today camped on our own mbs.
P&DILL& D0on0urE
- I |on the ma|orty n votng for the dsmssa of the petton n ths
case. It s the duty of the Supreme Court to appy the aws enacted
by Congress and approved by the Presdent, (uness they are
voatve of the Consttuton) even f such aws run counter to a
Member's persona convcton that gambng shoud be totay
prohbted by aw.
- In my separate concurrng opnon n the frst otto case (G.R. No.
113375), expressed the vew that the rue on ocus stand, beng
merey a procedura rue, shoud be reaxed, as the ssue then was
of paramount natona nterest and mportance, namey, the egaty
of a ease contract nto by PCSO wth PGMC whereby the former
sought an "on-ne hgh-tech" ottery, undenaby a form of
gambng, the terms of whch ceary ponted to an "assocaton,
coaboraton or |ont venture" wth PGMC.
EG&L&DO D+issentE
- Be that as t may, snce the ma|orty opnon has now evoved
other ad|ectve theores whch are represented to be ether
dfferent from or ramfcatons of the orgna "standng to sue"
ob|ecton rased n the frst otto case. I w hazard my own humbe
observatons thereon.
1. There s, ntay, the savo aganst the adopton of the "aw of
the case" doctrne n the orgna ma|orty ponenca. It s contended
that ths doctrne requres, for ts appcabty, an ssue nvoved n
a case orgnatng from a ower court whch s frst resoved by an
appeate court, that case beng then remanded to the court of
orgn for further proceedngs and wth the pror resouton by the
hgher court of that ssue beng the "aw of the case" n any other
proceedng n or a subsequent appea from the same case. It s
nsnuated that sad doctrne exsts ony under such a scenaro.
- It may be conceded that, n the context of the cted cases wheren
ths doctrne was apped, two "appeas" are generay nvoved and
the ssue resoved n the frst appea cannot be reexamned n the
second appea. If so, then what s necessary chaenged n the frst
recourse to the hgher court s ether an nterocutory order of the
court a quo eevated on an orgna acton for certorar or an
appeaabe ad|udcaton whch nonetheess dd not dspose of the
entre case beow because t was ether a speca proceedng or an
acton admttng of mutpe appeas.
- That s the present regementary stuaton n the Phppnes
whch, unfortunatey, does not appear to have been taken nto
account when the doube-appea procedure nvoved n one
partcuar Amercan concept was cted as authorty n the ma|orty
opnon. No attempt was made to ascertan whether n the
Amercan cases cted the ex for provded for dentca or even
substanta counterparts of our procedura remedes of revew by a
hgher court on ether an appea by certorar or wrt of error, or
through an orgna acton of certorar, prohbton or mandamus.
Yet on such unverfed premses, and wthout a showng that the
stuatons are n par matera, we are tod that snce the case at bar
does not posses the formatted sequence of an ntatory acton n a
ower court, an appea to a hgher court, a remand to the ower
court, and then a second appea to the hgher court, the "aw of the
case" doctrne cannot appy. I have perforce to re|ect that
submsson as I cannot nduge n the uxury of absoute espoused
by ths ma|orty vew.
- I fear that ths ma|orty rue, has unduy constrcted the factua
and procedura stuatons where such doctrne may appy, through
ts undue nsstence on the remeda procedure nvoved n the
proceedngs rather than the |urdca effect of the pronouncement
of the hgher court. Even n Amercan aw, the "aw of the case"
doctrne was essentay desgned to express the practce of courts
generay to refuse to reopen what has been decded 5 and,
thereby, to emphasze the rue that the fna |udgment of the
hghest court s a fna determnaton of the rghts of the partes. 6
That s the actua and basc roe that t was conceved to pay n
|udca determnatons, |ust ke the ratonae for the doctrnes of
res |udcata and concusveness of |udgment.
- Accordngy, the "aw of the case" may aso arse from an orgna
hodng of a hgher court on a wrt of certorar, 7 and s bndng not
ony n subsequent appeas or proceedngs n the same case, but
aso n a subsequent sut between the same partes. 8 What I wsh
to underscore s that where, as n the nstant case, the hodng of
ths hghest Court on a specfc ssue was handed down n an
orgna acton for certorar, t has the same bndng effect as t
woud have had f promugated n a case on appea, Furthermore,
snce n our |ursdcton an orgna acton for certorar to contro
and set asde a grave abuse of offca dscreton can be
commenced n the Supreme Court tsef, t woud be absurd that for
ts rung theren to consttute the aw of the case, there must frst
be a remand to a ower court whch naturay coud not be the court
of orgn from whch the postuated second appea shoud be taken.
2. Obvousy reazng that contnued reance on the ocus stand
bar to pettoner's sut s not an roncad guaranty aganst t, the
ma|orty poston has taken a dfferent tack. It now nvoked the
concept of and the rues on a rght of acton n ordnary cv actons
and, prescndng from ts prevous postons, nssts that what s
supposedy determnatve of the ssue of representaton s contract
aw and not consttutona aw. On the predcate that pettoners are
not partes to the contract, prmary or subsdary, they then are
rea partes n nterest, and for ack of cause of acton on ther part
they have no rght of acton. Ergo, they, cannot mantan the
present petton.
As a matter of a conventona rue of procedure, the syogsm of
the ma|orty can cam the mert of ogc but, even so, ony on
assumed premses. More mportanty, however, the bemsh n ts
new bueprnt s that the defense of ack of a rght of acton s
effectvey the same as ack of ocus stand, that s, the absence of
the remeda rght to sue. As the commentators of Caste woud
say, the ob|ecton under the new termnoogy s "o msmo perro
con dstnto coar." That re-chrstened ground, as we sha ater
see, has aready been forecosed by the |udgment of the Court n
the frst otto case.
It s true that a rght of acton s the rght or standng to enforce a
cause of acton. For ts purposes, the ma|orty urges the adopton of
the standard concept of a rea party n nterest based on hs
possesson of a cause of acton. It coud not have faed to perceve,
but nonetheess refuses to concede, that the concept of a cause of
acton n pubc nterest cases shoud not be strat|acketed wthn ts
usua narrow confnes n prvate nterest tgatons.
Thus, advertng agan to Amercan |ursprudence, there s the
caveat that "the adopton of provson requrng that an acton be
prosecuted n the name of the rea party n nterest does not sove
a questons as to the proper person or persons to nsttute sut,
athough t obvousy smpfes procedures n actons at aw. . .
There s no ceary defned rue by whch one may determne who s
or s not rea party n nterest, nor has there been found any
concse defnton of the term. Who s the rea party n nterest
depends on the pecuar facts of each separate case, and one may
be a party n nterest and yet not be the soe rea party n nterest."
9 (Emphass supped.)
The ma|orty opnon quotes the vew of a foregn author but
unfortunatey fas to put the proper emphass on the porton
thereof whch I beeve shoud be that whch shoud correcty be
stressed, and whch I correspondngy reproduce:
It s mportant to note. . . that standng because of ts consttutona
and pubc pocy underspnnngs, s very dfferent from questons
reatng to whether a partcuar pantff s the rea party n nterest
or has the capacty to sue. Athough a three requrements are
drected towards ensurng that ony certan partes can mantan an
acton, standng restrctons requre a parta consderaton of the
merts, as we as of broader pocy concerns reatng to the proper
roe of the |udcary n certan areas. 10 Indeed, f the ma|orty
woud have ts way n ths case, there woud be no avaabe |udca
remedy aganst rreguartes or excesses n government contracts
for ack of a party wth ega standng or capacty to sue. Ths ega
demma or vacuum s supposedy remedabe under a suggestons
submtted n the ma|orty opnon, to wt:
Dena to pettoners of the rght to ntervene w not eave wthout
remedy any perceved egaty n the executon of government
contracts. Ouestons as to the nature or vadty of pubc contracts
or the necessty for a pubc bddng before they may be made can
be rased n an approprate compant before the Commsson on
Audt or before the Ombudsman. . . In addton, the Soctor
Genera s authorzed to brng an acton for quo warranto f t shoud
be thought that a government corporaton . . . has offended aganst
ts corporate charter or msused ts franchse. . .
- The ma|orty has apparenty forgotten ts own argument that n
the present case pettoners are not the rea partes, hence they
cannot ava of any remeda rght to fe a compant or sut. It s,
therefore, hghy mprobabe that the Commsson on Audt woud
degn to dea wth those whom the ma|orty says are strangers to
the contract. Agan, shoud ths Court now sustan the assaed
contract, of what ava woud be the suggested recourse to the
Ombudsman? Fnay, t s a perpexng suggeston that pettoners
ask the Soctor Genera to brng a quo warranto sut, ether n
propra persona or ex reatone, not ony because one has to
contend wth that offca's own vews or persona nterests but
because he s hmsef the counse for respondents n ths case. Any
proposed remedy must take nto account not ony the egates n
the case but aso the reates of fe.
3. The ma|orty beeves that n vew of the retrement and
repacement of two members of the Court, t s tme to reexamne
the rung n the frst otto case. A prevous |udgment of the Court
may, of course, be revsted but f the ostensbe bass s the
change of membershp and known postons of the new members
anent an ssue pendng n a case n the Court, t may not st we
wth the pubc as a |udcous pocy. Ths woud be smar to the
stuaton where a |udgment promugated by the Court s hed up by
a moton for reconsderaton and whch moton, |ust because the
present Rues do not provde a tme mt for the resouton thereof,
stays unresoved unt the appontment of members sympathetc
thereto. Thus, the unknd crtcsms of "magstrate shoppng" or
"court packng" eveed by dsgrunted tgants s not unknown to
ths Court.
- I hod the vew that the matter of the rght of pettoners to fe
and mantan ths acton - whether the ob|ecton thereto s
premsed on ack of ocus stand or rght of acton - has aready
been forecosed by our |udgment n the frst otto case, G.R. No.
113375. If the ma|orty refuses to recognze such rght under the
"aw of the case" prncpe, I see no reason why that partcuar ssue
can st be ventated now as a survvor of the doctrna effects of
res |udcata. 11
It s undenabe that n that case and the one at bar. there s
dentty of partes, sub|ect matter and cause of acton. Evdenty,
the |udgment n G.R. No. 113375 was rendered by a court of
competent |ursdcton, t was an ad|udcaton on the merts, and
has ong become fna and executory. There s, to be sure, an
attempt to show that the sub|ect matter n the frst acton s
dfferent from that n the nstant case, snce the former was the
orgna contract and the atter s the supposed expanded contract.
I am not persuaded by the proffered dstncton.
The remova and repacement of some ob|ectonabe terms of a
contract, whch nevertheess contnues to operate under the same
bass, wth on the property, fore the same purpose, and the same
contractng partes does not suffce to extngush the dentty of the
sub|ect matter n both cases,. Ths woud be to exat form over
substance. Furthermore, respondents themseves admtted that the
new contract s actuay the same as the orgna one, wth |ust
some varants n the terms of the atter to emnate those whch
were ob|ected to. The contrary assumpton now beng foated by
respondents woud create chaos n our remeda and contractua
aws, open the door to fraud, and subvert the rues on the fnaty of
|udgments.
- Yet, even assumng purey ex hypothes that the amended terms
n the expanded ease agreement created a dscrete set of tgabe
voatons of the statutory charter of the Phppnes Charty
Sweepstakes Offce, thereby coectvey resutng n a dsparate
actonabe wrong or dect, that woud merey consttute at most a
dfference n the causes of acton n the former and the present
cases. Under Secton 49(c). Rue 39 of the Rues of Court, we woud
st have a stuaton of coatera estoppe, better known n ths
|ursdcton as concusveness of |udgment. Hence, a reevant
ssues fnay ad|udged n the pror |udgment sha be concusve
between the partes n the case now before us and that defntey
ncudes at the very east the ad|udgment theren that pettoners
have the ocus stand or the rght to sue respondents on the
contracts concerned.
In ther case - whether of res |udcata, on whch I nsst, or of
concusveness of |udgment, whch I assume arguendo - what s
now beng prmary ressted s the rght of pettoners to sue, asde
from the postuated nvadty of the contract for the government-
sponsored ottery system. It does seem odd, f not arcane, that
pettoners were hed to have the requste ocos stand or rght of
acton on sad G.R. No. 113375 and, for that matter, were kewse
so recognzed n the expanded vaue added tax (EVAT) case, 12 but
are now mysterousy dvested of the "pace of standng" aegedy
due to, for ega purposes, a compeng need for reexamnaton of
the doctrne, and, for economc reasons, an obsesson for autarky
of the naton.
4. I repeat what I sad at the outset that ths case shoud be
decded on the merts and on substantve consderatons, not on
dubous techncates ntended to prevent on nqury nto the
vadty of the supposed amended ease contract. The peope are
entted to the beneft of a duy carfed and transucent
transacton, |ust as respondent deserve the opportunty, and shoud
even by themseves prmary seek, to be ceaned of any suspcons
or ngerng doubts arsng from the fact that the sponsors for |a
aa and, now, of otto are dfferent.
- On the merts, to obvate unnecessary repcaton I reterate my
concurrence wth the fndngs and concusons of Mr. |ustce Davde
n ths dssentng opnon, the presentaton whereof s competey
devod of straned or specuatve premses, and moreover has the
vrtue of beng based on hs frst-hand knowedge as a egsator of
the very provsons of the aw now n dspute. In ths nstance and
absent any other operatve data. I fnd the same to be an ampy
suffcent and hghy mertorous anayss of the controversy on the
contract.
- One concudng pont. I am not mpressed by ther stance of the
ma|orty that our takng cognzance of ths case and resovng t on
the merts w hereafter nvte others to unduy overburden ths
Court wth avodabe mportuntes. Ths sounds ke a tongue-n-
rposte snce the Court has ceary ndcated that t sets asde
ob|ectons grounded on |udge-made consttutona theores ony
under cogent reasons of substanta |ustce and paramount pubc
nterest.
On the contrary, to pay unquafed obedence to the begung
ocos stand or rght of acton doctrnes posted by the ma|orty n
ths case woud ony not be an abdcaton of a cear |udca duty. It
coud concevaby resut n deprvng the peope of recourse to us
from dubous government contracts through consttutonay
outdated or proceduray nspd theores for such stutfcaton. Ths
s a contngency whch s not ony possbe, but probabe under our
ogarchc socety n esse; and not ony undesrabe, but repugnant
wthn a |ust regme of aw st n posse.
D&VIDE D+issentE
- I regster a dssentng vote.
- I am dsturbed by the sudden reversa of our rungs n Kosbayan,
Inc., et a. vs. Gungona, et a. 1 referred to as the frst otto case)
regardng the appcaton or nterpretaton of the excepton cause
n paragraph B, Secton 1 of the Charter of the PCSO (R.A. No.
1169), as amended by B.P. Bg. 442, and on the ssue of ocus
stand of the pettoners to queston the contract of ease nvovng
the on-ne ottery system entered nto between the Phppne
Charty Sweepstakes Offce (PCSO) and the Phppne Gamng
Management Corporaton (PGMC). Such reversa upsets the
sautary doctrnes of the aw of the case, res |udcata, and stare
decss. It puts to |eopardy the fath and confdence of the peope,
specay the awyers and tgants, n the certany and stabty of
the pronouncements of ths Court. It opens the foodgates to
endess tgatons for re-examnaton of such pronouncements and
weakens ths Court's |udca and mora authorty to demand from
ower courts obedence thereto and to mpse sanctons for ther
opposte conduct.
- It must be noted that the decson n the frst otto case was
uncondtonay accepted by the PCSO and the PGMC, as can be
geaned from ther separate manfestatons that they woud not ask
for ts reconsderaton but woud, nstead, negotate a new
equpment ease agreement consstent wth the decson and the
PCSO's charter and that they woud furnsh the Court a copy of the
new agreement. The decson has, thus, become fna on 23 May
1994. 2
- As the wrter of the sad decson and as the author of the
excepton to paragraph B, Secton 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended,
I cannot accept the straned and tenuous arguments adduced n
the ma|orty opnon t |usty the reversa of our rungs n the frst
otto case. Whe there are exceptons to the aforementoned
doctrnes and I am not nexoraby opposed to upsettng pror
decsons f warranted by overwhemng consderatons of |ustce
and rresstbe desre to rectfy an error, none of such
consderatons and nothng of substance or weght can brng ths
case wthn any of the exceptons.
- In the sad case, we sustaned the ocus stand of the pettoners,
and n no uncertan terms decared:
We fnd the nstant petton to be of transcendenta mportance to
the pubc. The ssues t rased are of paramount pubc nterest and
of a category even hgher than those nvoved n many of the
aforected cases. The ramfcatons of such ssues mmeasuraby
affect the soca, economc, and mora we-beng of the peope
even n the remotest barangays of the country and the counter-
productve and retrogressve effects of the envsoned on-ne
ottery system are as staggerng as the bons of pesos t s
expected to rase. The ega standng than of the pettoners
deserves recognton and, n the exercse of ts sound dscreton,
ths Court hereby brushes asde the procedura barrer whch the
respondents tred to take advantage of.
- In ths concurrng opnon, Mr. |ustce Forentno P. Fecano
further showed substantve grounds or consderatons of
mportance whch strengthened the ega standng of the
pettoners to brng and mantan the acton, namey: (a) the pubc
character of the funds or other assets nvoved n the contract of
ease; (b) the presence of a cear case of dsregard of a
consttutona or ega provson by the pubc respondent agency;
(c) the ack of any other party wth a more drect and specfed
nterest n rasng the questons nvoved theren; and (d) the wde
range of mpact of the contract of ease and of ts mpementaton.
Ony ast 6 Apr 1995, n the decson n Tatad vs. Garca, 3 ths
Court, speakng through Mr. |ustce Camo D. Ouason who had
|oned n the dssentng opnons n the frst otto case the
pettoners, ocus stand theren, nvoked and apped the rung on
ocus stand n the frst otto case. He stated:
The prevang doctrnes n taxpayer's suts are to aow taxpayers
to queston contracts entered nto by the natona government or
government-owned or controed corporatons aegedy n
contraventon of the aw (Kosbayan, Inc. v. Gungona, 232 SCRA
110 |1994| and to dsaow the same when ony muncpa contracts
are nvoved (Bugnay Constructon and Deveopment Corporaton v.
Laron, 176 SCRA 240 |1989|.
For as ong as the rung n Kosbayan on ocus stand s not
reversed, we have no choce but to foow t and uphod the ega
standng of pettoners as taxpayers to nsttute the present acton.
- Mr. |ustce Santago M. Kapunan, who had aso dssented n the
frst otto case on the ssue of ocus stand; unquafedy concurred
wth the ma|orty opnon n Tatad. Mr. |ustce Vcente V. Mendoza,
the wrter of the ponenca n ths case, aso nvoked the ocus stand
rung n the frst otto case to deny ega standng to Tatad, et a.
He sad:
- Nor do pettoners have standng to brng ths sut as ctzens. In
the cases n whch ctzens were authorzed to sue, ths Court found
standng because t though the consttutona cams pressed for
decson to be of "transcendenta mportance," as n fact t
subsequenty granted reef to pettoners by nvadatng the
chaenged statutes or governmenta actons. Thus n the Lotto case
|Kosbayan, Inc. vs. Gungona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994)| reef by the
ma|orty for uphodng pettoner's standng, ths Court took nto
account the "paramount pubc nterest" nvoved whch
"mmeasuraby affect|ed| the soca, economc, and mora we-
beng of the peope . . . and the counter-productve and
retrogressve effects of the envsoned on-ne ottery system."
Accordngy, the Court nvadated the contract for the operaton of
the ottery.
- Chef |ustce Andres R. Narvasa and Assocate |ustce Abduwahd
A Bdn, |ose A.R. Meo, Reynato S. Puno, |ose C. Vtug, and Rcardo
|. Francsco, |oned hm n hs concurrng opnon. Except for the
Chef |ustce who took part n the frst otto case and |ustce
Francsco who was not yet a member of ths Court at the tme, the
rest of the |ustce who |oned the concurrng opnon of |ustce
Mendoza had dssented n the otto case on the sad ssue.
- Under the prncpe of ether the aw of the case of res |udcata,
the PCSO and the PGMC are bound by the rung n the frst otto
case on the ocus stand of the pettoners and the appcaton or
nterpretaton of the excepton cause n paragraph B, Secton 1 of
R.A. No. 1169, as amended. Moreover, that appcaton or
nterpretaton has been ad to rest under the doctrne of stare
decss and has aso become part of our ega system pursuant to
Artce 8 of the Cv Code whch provdes: '|udca decsons
appyng nterpretng the aws or the consttuton sha from part of
the system of the Phppnes."
- These doctrnes were not adopted whmscay or caprcousy.
They are based on pubc pocy and other consderatons of great
mportance and shoud not be dscarded or |ettsoned n a cavaer
fashon. Yet, they are now put to naught n ths case.
- The prncpe of the aw of the case "s necessary as a matter of
pocy to end tgaton. There woud be no end to a sut f every
obstnate tgant coud, by repeated appeas, compe a court to
sten to crtcsm on ther opnons, or specuate on chances from
changes n ts members." 7
- It s, however, contended that the aw of the case s nappcabe
that doctrne appes ony when a case s before an appeate court
a second tme after ts remand to a ower court. Whe ndeed the
statement may be correct, t dsregards the fact that the case s
nothng but a seque to and s, therefore, for a ntents and
purposes, a contnuaton of the frst otto case. By ther conduct,
the partes admtted that t s, for whch reason the PGMC and the
PCSO submtted n the frst otto case a copy of the ELA n queston,
and the pettoners commenced the nstant petton aso n the sad
case. Our resouton that the vadty of the ELA coud not be
decded n the sad case because the decson theren had became
fna does not detract from the fact that ths case s but a
contnuaton of the frst otto case or a new chapter n the rapng
controversy between the pettoners, on the one hand, and the
PCSO and the PGMC, on the other, on the operaton of the on-ne
ottery system.
Equay unacceptabe s the ma|orty opnon's re|ecton of the
reated doctrne of concusveness of |udgment of the ground that
the queston of standng s a queston, as ths case nvoves a
dfferent or unreated contract. The ega queston of ocus stand
whch was resoved n favor of the pettoners n the frst otto case
s the same n ths case and n every subsequent case whch woud
nvove contracts reatng or ncdenta to the contract or hodng of
otteres by the PCSO n coaboraton, assocaton; or |ont venture
wth any person, assocaton, company or entty. And, the contract
n queston s not dfferent from or unreated to the frst nufed
contract, for t n nothng but a substtute for the atter. Respondent
Morato was even candd enough to admt that no new and separate
pubc bddng was conducted for the ELA n queston because the
PCSO was of the beef that the pubc bddng for the nufed
contract was suffcent.
Its reance on the rung n Montana vs. Unted States 8 that
precuson or coatera estoppe does not appy to ssues of aw, at
east when substantay unreated cams are nvoved, s
mspaced. For one thng, the queston of the pettoners' ega
standng n the frst otto case and n ths case s one and the same
ssue of aw. For another, these cases nvove the same and not
substantay unreated sub|ect matter, vz., the second contract
between the PCSO and the PGMC on the operaton of the on-ne
ottery system.
The ma|orty opnon kewse faed to consder that n the very
authorty t cted regardng the excepton to the rue of ssue
precuson (Testament of the Law, 2d |udgments $ 28), the second
ustraton stated theren s sub|ect to ths NOTE: "The doctrne of
the stare decss may ead the court to refuse to reconsder the
queston of soveregn mmunty," whch smpy means that stare
decss s an effectve bar to a re-examnaton of a pror |udgment.
The doctrne of stare decss embodes the ega maxm that a
prncpe or rue of aw whch has been estabshed by the decson
of a court of controng |ursdcton w be foowed n other cases
nvovng a smar stuaton. It s founded on the necessty for
securng certanty and stabty n the aw and does not requre
dentty or prvty of partes. 9 Ths s expcty feshed out n Artce
8 of the Cv Code whch provdes that decsons appyng or
nterpretng the aws or the consttuton sha form part of the ega
system. Such decsons "assume the same authorty as the statute
tsef and, unt authortatvey abandoned, necessary become, to
the extent that they are appcabe, the crtera whch must contro
the actuatons not ony of those caed upon to asde thereby but
aso of those n duty bound to enforce obedence thereto."10
Abandonment thereof must be based ony on strong and
compeng reasons - whch I do not fnd n ths case - otherwse, the
becomng vrtue of predctabty whch s expected from ths Court
woud be mmeasuraby affected and the pubc's confdence n the
stabty of ts soemn pronouncements dmnshed.
The doctrne of res |udcata aso bars a retgaton of the ssue of
ocus stand and a re-examnaton of the appcaton or
nterpretaton of the excepton cause n paragraph B, Secton 1 of
R.A. No. 1169, as amended. Secton 49 (b), Rue 39 of the Rues of
Court on effects of |udgment expressy provdes:
(b)In a other cases the |udgment or order s, wth respect to the
matter cases the |udgment or order s, wth respect to the matter
drecty ad|udged or as to other matter that coud have been
partes and ther successors n nterest by tte subsequent to the
commencement of the acton or speca proceedngs, tgatng for
the same thng n the same tte and n the same capacty.
Ths doctrne has dua aspects: (1) as a bar to the prosecuton of a
second acton upon the same cam, demand, or cause of acton;
and (2) as precuson to the retgaton of partcuar facts of ssues
n acton between the same partes on a dfferent cam or cause of
acton. 11 Pubc pocy, |udca orderness, economy of |udca
tme, and the nterest of tgants as we as the peace and order of
socety, a requre that stabty shoud be accorded |udgments:
that controverses once decded on ther merts sha reman n
repose; that nconsstent |udca decsons sha not be made on the
same set of facts; and that there be an end to tgaton whch,
wthout the sad doctrne, woud be endess. It not ony puts an end
to strfe, but recognzes that certanty n ega reatons must be
mantaned. It produces certanty as to ndvdua rghts and gves
and respect to |udca proceedngs. 12 The |ustfcatons gven n
the ma|orty opnon to underrate the rung ocus stand and to
utmatey dscard t are unconvncng. It s not at a true, as the
ma|orty opnon contends, that "|t|he prevous sustanng
pettoners nterventon may n fact be consdered a departure from
setted rung on rea party n nterest because no consttutona
ssues were actuay nvoved."
It must be ponted out that the rue n ordnary cv procedure on
rea party n nterest was never put n ssue n the prevous case. It
was the cear understandng of the Members of the Court that n
the ght of the ssues rased and the arguments adduced theren,
ony ocus stand deserved consderaton. Accordngy, the ma|orty
opnon and the separate dssentng opnons theren dwet engthy
on ocus stand and brought n the process a vast array of
authortes on the ssue. Moreover, as expcty stressed n the
concurrng opnon of |ustce Fecano, both consttutona and ega
ssues were nvoved theren. Fnay, as sha hereafter be
dscussed, n pubc aw the rue of rea party n nterest s
subordnate to the doctrne of ocus stand.
- Equay unconvncng s the ma|orty opnon's contenton that the
rung ocus stand n the frst otto case may not be preserved
because the ma|orty vote sustanng the pettoners' standng was
a "tenuous one" that may not be mantaned n a subsequent
tgaton, and that there had been changes n the membershp of
the Court due to the retrement of |ustces Isagan A. Cruz and
Abduwahd A. Bdn and the appontment of |ustces Vcente V.
Mendoza and Rcardo |. Francsco. It has forgotten that, as earer
stated, the rung was reterated n Tatad vs. Garca. Addtonay,
when n hs concurrng opnon n the Tatad case, |ustce Mendoza
dened ocus stand to Tatad, et a., because ther case dd not have
the same mportance as the otto case, he thereby accepted the
concesson of standng to the pettoners n the otto case. I wsh to
stress the fact that a the |ustces who had dssented n the frst
otto case on the ssue of ocus stand were ether for the ma|orty
opnon or for the concurrng opnon n the Tatad case. Hence, I can
say that the Tatad case has gven vgor and strength to the
"tenuous" ma|orty n the frst otto case.
The ma|orty opnon decares that the rea ssue n ths case s not
whether the pettoners have ocus stand but whether they are the
rea partes-n-nterest. Ths proposton s a bod move to set up a
bar to taxpayer's suts or cases nvested wth pubc nterest by
requrng strct compance wth the rue on rea party n nterest n
ordnary cv actons, thereby effectvey subordnatng to that rue
the doctrne of ocus stand. I am not prepared to be a party to that
proposton.
- The downgradng of ocus stand and ts subordnaton to the
restrctve rue on rea party n nterest cannot be |ustfed by the
cam that s nvoved here s contract aw, not consttutona aw.
True, contract aw s nvoved. We are not, however, deang here
wth an ordnary contract between prvate partes, but a contract
between a corporaton whoy owned by the government - hence,
an nstrumentaty of the government - and a prvate corporaton
for the contract of the otto, whch s nvested wth paramount and
transcendenta pubc nterest and other pubc pocy
consderatons because the otto has counter - productve and
retrogressve effects whch are as staggerng as the bons of
pesos t s expected to rase and provokes ssues that
mmeasuraby affect the soca, economc, and mora we-beng of
the peope. We sad so n the frst otto case.
G&CI& V .O&D O' I!VE(#"E!#(
GUTIERREZ; November 9, 1990
'&C#(
- A petton to annu and set asde the decson of the Board of
Investments (BOI)/ Department of Trade and Industry approvng the
transfer of ste of the proposed petrochemca pant from Bataan to
Batangas and the shft of feedstock for that pant from naphtha
ony to naphtha and/or quefed petroeum gas (LPG).
- P.D. No. 1803 reserved 576 hectares of pubc doman n Lamao,
Lbay, Bataan for the Petrochemca Industra Zone under the
admnstraton, management and ownershp of the Phppne
Natona O Company (PNOC).
- Tawanese nvestors n a petrochemca pro|ect formed the Bataan
Petrochemca Corporaton (BPC) and apped wth BOI for
regstraton as a new domestc producer of petrochemcas. It
specfed Bataan as pant ste, and one of the terms and condtons
for regstraton was the use of naphtha cracker and naphtha as
feedstock for fue for ts pant, whch was to be a |ont venture wth
PNOC. BPC was ssued a certfcate of regstraton on Feb. 24, 1988.
- BPC was gven poneer status ands accorded fsca and other
ncentves, ke, (1) exempton from taxes on raw materas, (2)
emnatng the 48% ad vaorem tax on naphtha f and when t s
used as raw materas for the petrochemca pant.
- In February 1989, A.T. Chong, Charman of USI Far East
Corporaton, the ma|or nvestor n BPC expressed to DTI Secretary
hs desre to amend the orgna regstraton certfcaton of ts
pro|ect by changng the |ob ste from Bataan to Batangas because
of the nsurgency and unstabe abor stuaton n Bataan and the
presence n Batangas of a huge LPG depot owned by Phppne
She Corporaton. Other requested amendments are as foows: (1)
ncreasng the nvestment amount from $220 mon to $320
mon; (2) ncreasng the producton capacty of ts naphtha
cracker, poythyene pant and poypropyene pant; (3) changng
the feedstock from naphtha ony to naphtha and/or LPG.
- On May 25, 1989, BOI approved the revson statng that, "he -27
re%ogn#6es an& res)e%ts the )r#n%#)le that the f#nal %ho#%e #s st#ll
.#th the )ro)onent .ho .o$l& #n the f#nal anal+s#s )ro*#&e the
f$n&#ng or r#s= %a)#tal for the )ro3e%t.
- In the petton entted "Congressman Enrque T. Garca v. The
Board of Investments", ths court ordered BOI as foows: (1) to
pubsh the amended appcaton for regstraton of the Bataan
Petrochemca Corporaton, (2) to aow the pettoner to have
access to ts records on the orgna and amended appcatons for
regstraton, as a petrochemca manufacturer, of the respondent
Bataan Petrochemca Corporaton, excudng, however, prveged
papers contanng ts trade secrets and other busness and fnanca
nformaton, (3) to set for hearng the pettoners opposton to the
amended appcaton n order that he may present at such hearng
a the evdence n hs possesson n support of hs opposton to the
transfer of the ste of the BPC petrochemca pant to Batangas.
- Garca fed moton for reconsderaton askng the Court to rue on
whether or not the nvestor gven the nta nducements and other
crcumstances surroundng ts frst choce of pant ste may change
smpy because t has the fna choce on the matter. The Court
merey rued that the pettoner appears to have ost nterest n the
case by hs faure to appear n the hearng that was set by BOI.
- A moton for reconsderaton of sad resouton was fed, askng
that the Court resove whether or not the foregn nvestor has the
rght of fna choce of pant ste; that the non-attendance of the
pettoner at the hearng was because the decson was not yet fna
and executory, and therefore pettoner has not waved hs rght.
Court resouton stated that BOI, not the nvestor has fna choce
on the matter and that even a choce approved by BOI may not be
fna for supervenng crcumstances and changes n the condtons
of a pace may dctate a correspondng change n the choce of
pant ste n order that the pro|ect w not fa. However, petton
was dened.
- Instant petton rees on the rung that nvestor has no rght of
fna choce.
I((%E(
1. WON the petrochemca pant shoud reman n Bataan or shoud
be transferred to Batangas
2. WON ts feedstock orgnay of naphtha ony shoud be changed
to naphtha and/or LPG the approved amended appcaton of the
BPC, now Luzon Petrochemca Corporaton (LPC)
3. WON the categorca admsson of the BOI that t s the nvestor
who has the fna choce of the ste and the decson on the
feedstock consttutes a grave abuse of dscreton for the BOI to
yed to the wshes of the nvestor, natona nterest
notwthstandng
3ELD
1. 2n 1$st#%#a/l#t+: There s an actua controversy. The Court has
consttutona duty to step nto ths controversy to determne the
paramount ssue.
2. The decson to transfer to Batangas and to shft the use of
feedstock s un|ustfed.
- The Bataan ste s dea, the resut of carefu study.
- The respondents have not shown nor reterated that the aeged
peace and order stuaton n Bataan or unstabe abor stuaton
warrant a transfer to the pant ste n Batangas.
- The Bataan Refnng Corporaton, a government owned Fpno
corporaton, can provde the feedstock requrement of the pant n
Bataan, whereas the country s short of LPG and there s a need to
mport for the use of the pant n Batangas. Transfer w dvert
scarce doars unnecessary.
- R.A. 6767 exempted naphtha as feedstock from ad vaorem tax
but excuded LPG from the exempton. Ths aw was specfcay for
the petrochemca ndustry. Nether BOI nor a foregn nvestor
shoud dsregard or contravene expressed pocy by shftng the
feedstock from naphtha to LPG.
- Capta requrements woud be greaty mnmzed f LPC does not
have to buy the and for the pro|ect and ts feedstock sha be
mted to naphtha.
- Wth the pant ste n Bataan, the PNOC sha be a partner, thus
gvng the government partcpaton n the management of the
pro|ect nstead of a frm whch s a huge mutnatona corporaton.
3. BOI commtted a grave abuse of dscreton n approvng the
transfer of the petrochemca pant from Bataan to Batangas and
authorzng the change of feedstock from naphtha ony to naphtha
and/or LPG for the man reason that the fna say s n the nvestor
a other crcumstances to the contrary not wthstandng.
- The government has aready granted ncentves for ths partcuar
venture. Through the BOI decson, t surrenders even the power to
make a company abde by ts nta choce, a %ho#%e free from an+
s$s)#%#on of $ns%r$)$lo$s ma%h#nat#ons an& a %ho#%e .h#%h #s
$n&o$/te&l+ #n the /est #nterests of the ;#l#)#no )eo)le.
- Ths s a repudaton of the ndependent pocy of the government
expressed n numerous aws (.e. Art. 2, 1987 Omnbus Investments
Code) and the Consttuton (Sec. 1 and 10, Art. XII; Sec. 19, Art. II)
to run ts own affars the way t deems best for the natona
nterest.
0isposition: Pet#t#on grante&. :e%#s#on set as#&e as n$ll an& *o#&.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
GI!O-&@%I!O D+issentingE
- There s no provson n the 1987 Investments Code prohbtng
the amendment of the nvestors appcaton for regstraton of ts
pro|ect, nether does the aw prohbt the BOI from approvng the
amended appcaton.
- The matter of choosng an approprate ste for the nvestors
pro|ect s a potca and economc decson whch ony the
executve branch, as mpementer of pocy formuated by the
egsature, s empowered to make. It s not for ths Court to
determne what s, or shoud be, the BOIs "fna choce" of pant
ste and feedstock.
- The pettoners recourse aganst the BOIs acton s by an appea
to the Presdent (Sec. 36, 1987 Investments Code), not to ths
Court.
"ELE!CIO-3EE& D+issentingE
- |The ma|orty Decson| has made a sweepng pocy
determnaton and has unwttngy transformed tsef nto what
mght be termed a "government by the |udcary," somethng never
ntended by the framers of the Consttuton when they provded for
separaton of powers among the three co-equa branches of
government and excuded the |udcary from pocy-makng.
#/ 2I: -,4I.-#/5,
#OLE!#I!O V (ECE#&2 O' 'I!&!CE
MENDOZA; August 25, 1994
'&C#(
- These are orgna actons n SC. Certorar and prohbton,
chaengng the consttutonaty of RA 7716.
- RA 7716 seeks to wden the tax base of the exstng VAT system
by amendng Natona Interna Revenue Code.
- Bet |u 22, 1992 and Aug 31, 1993, bs were ntroduced n House
of Reps to amend NIRC reatve to VAT. These were referred to
House Ways and Means Commttee w/c recommended for approva
H No 11197.
- H No. 11197 was consdered on second rdg and was approved by
House of Reps after thrd and fna rdg.
- It was sent to Senate and was referred to the Senate Commttee
on Ways and Means. The Commttee submtted report
recommendng approva of S No 1630, submtted n substtuton of
S No 1129, takng nto consderaton PS Res No 734 and H No
11197
- Senate approved S No 1630 on second rdg, and on thrd rdg by
affrmatve votes of 13 and 1 abstenton.
- H No 11197 and S No 1630 were referred to conference
commttee w/c after meetng 4 tmes, recommended that HB n
consodaton w/ SB be approved n accordance w/ b as reconced
and approved by the conferees.
- The Conference Commttee B was approved by House of Reps
and Senate. The enroed b was presented to Presdent who, on
May 5, 1994 sgned t. It became RA 7716. On May 12, t was
pubshed n 2 newspapers of gen crcuaton and t took effect on
May 28.
- RA 7716 amended 103 and made prnt meda sub|ect to VAT n
a aspect of operatons. However, Sec of Fnance ssued Revenue
Reguatons No. 11-94 exemptng crcuaton ncome of prnt meda.
Income fr advertsements are st sub|ect to VAT.
- Impementaton was suspended unt |un 30 to aow tme for
regstraton of busnesses. Impementaton was stopped by TRO fr
Court, by vote of 11 to 4.
- Pettoners contend:
Re: Art VI Sec 24
1. Athough H No 11197 orgnated fr House of Reps, t was not
passed by Senate but was consodated w/ Senate verson n the
Conference Commttee to produce the b. The verb "sha
orgnate" s quafed by the word "excusvey".
2. The consttutona desgn s to mt Senates power n revenue
bs to compensate for the grant to the Senate of treaty-ratfyng
power.
3. S No 1630 was passed no n substtuton of H No 11197 but of
another Senate b (S No 1129). Senate merey took H No 11197
nto consderaton n enactng S No 1630.
Re: Art VI Sec 26(2)
1. The second and thrd rdgs were on the same day, Mar 24,
1994.
2. The certfcaton of urgency was nvad bec there was no
emergency. The growng budget defct was not an unusua
condton n ths country.
3. Aso, t was S No 1630 that was certfed urgent, not H No
11197.
Re: BCC acted wthn ts power
1. RA 7716 s the b whch the BCC prepared. BCC ncuded
provsons not found n the HB or SB and these were
"surrepttousy" nserted. BCC met behnd cosed doors.
2. Incompete remarks of members are marked n the
stenographc notes by epses.
3. The Rues of the two chambers were dsregarded n
preparaton of BCC Report because Report ddnt contan
"detaed and expct statement of changes"
4. It s requred that the Commttees report undergo three rdgs
n the two houses.
- Pettoner Phppne Arnes Inc contends:
Re: Art VI Sec 26(1)
1. Nether H No 11197 nor S No 1630 provded for remova of
exempton of PAL transactons fr payment of VAT and ths was
made ony by the BCC. Ths was not refected n the tte.
2. Besdes, amendment of PALs franchse may be made ony by
speca aw whch w expressy amend the franchse (24 of PD
1590).
- Pettoner Cooperatve Unon of the Phppnes contends:
Re: Art III Sec 1
1. Wthdrawa of exempton of some cooperatves whe
mantanng that granted to eectrc cooperatves not ony goes
aganst pocy to promote cooperatves but aso voate equa
protecton of aw.
Pettoner Chamber of Rea Estate and Buders Assocaton
contends:
2. VAT w reduce mark up of ts members by as much as 90%.
Pettoner Phppne Press Insttute contends:
3. VAT w drve some of ts members out of crcuaton.
- Pettoner Phppne Press Insttute contends:
Re: Art III Sec 4
1. It questons aw bec exempton prevousy granted to press
under NIRC was wthdrawn. Athough exempton was
subsequenty restored, PPI says theres possbty that
exempton may st be removed by mere revocaton by Secretary
of Fnance.
Aso, there s st unconsttutona abrdgment of press freedom
because of VAT on gross recepts on advertsements.
2. RA 7716 snged out press for dscrmnatory treatment, gvng
broadcast meda favored treatment.
3. Imposng VAT ony on prnt meda whose gross saes exceeds
P480,000 but not more than P750,000 s dscrmnatory.
4. The regstraton provson of the aw s nvad when apped to
the press.
- Pettoner Phppne Bbe Socety contends:
Re: Art III Sec 5
1. Secretary of Fnance has no power to grant tax exempton
because that power s vested n Congress and the Secretarys
duty s to execute the aw and the remova of exempton of
regous artces voates freedom of thought/conscence.
- Pettoner Chamber of Rea Estate and Buders Assocaton
contends:
Re: Art III Sec 10
1. Imposton of VAT voates consttutona provson on no aw
mparng obgaton of contracts
- Pettoner Phppne Educatona Pubshers Assocaton contends:
Re: Art II Sec 17
1. Increase n prce of books and educ materas w voate govt
mandate to prortze educaton
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON theres voaton of Art VI 24 of Const (revenue b
orgnatng excusvey fr House of Reps)
2. WON theres voaton of Art VI 26(2) of Const (three readngs
on separate days)
3. WON the Bcamera Conference Commttee acted wthn ts
power
4. WON theres voaton of Art VI 26(1) of Const (ony one
sub|ect whch s expressed n tte) / WON amendment of 103 of
NIRC s fary embraced n tte of RA 7716 athough no menton s
made theren
S$/stant#*e:
5. WON Art III 1 (deprvaton of fe/berty/property; equa
protecton) s voated
6. WON Art III 4 (freedom of speech/expresson/press) s voated
7. WON Art III 5 (free exercse of regon) s voated
8. WON Art III 10 (no aw mparng obgaton of contracts) s
voated
9. WON Art VI 28(1) (unform/equtabe; evove progressve
system of taxaton) s voated
10. WON Art VI 28(3) (church/parsonage etc. for regous
purpose exempt) s voated
11. WON Art II 17 (govt prorty on educaton, scence and tech)
s voated
3ELD
- Not a are |udcay cognzabe, bec not a Const provsons are
sef executng. Other govt depts. are aso charged w/ enforcement
of Const.
Pro%e&$ral
Whatever doubts there may be as to the forma vadty of the RA
must be resoved n ts favor. An enroed copy of a b s
concusve not ony of ts provsons but aso of ts due enactment.
Ths s not to say that the enroed b doctrne s absoute. But
where aegatons are nothng more than "surrepttousy" nsertng
provsons, SC decnes gong behnd enroed copy of b. SC gves
due respect to other branches of govt.
1. NO there s no voaton of Art VI Sec 24
a. Its not the aw but the revenue b whch s requred to orgnate
excusvey n the House of Reps. A b orgnatng n House may
undergo extensve changes n Senate. To nsst that a revenue
statute (and not the b) must be the same as the House b woud
deny the Senates power to concur wth and propose amendments.
It woud voate coequaty of the egsatve power of the two
houses.
b. Legsatve power s ssue here. Treaty-ratfyng power s not
egsatve power but an exercse of check on executve power.
c. Theres no dfference bet Senate preservng house b then
wrtng ts own verson on one hand and on the other hand,
separatey presentng a b of ts own on the sub|ect matter. Const
smpy says that ts the ntatve for fng the b that must come fr
House of Reps. The Reps are expected to be more senstve to the
oca needs.
Nor does Const prohbt fng n Senate of substtute b n
antcpaton of ts recept of b fr House so ong as acton by
Senate s wthhed pendng recept of House b. It was ony after
Senate rcvd H No 11197 that egsaton n respect of t began w/
referra to Senate Commttee on Ways and Means.
2. NO there s no voaton of Art VI Sec 26(2)
a. It was because Pres certfed S No 1630 as urgent. Ths
certfcaton dspensed w/ prntng and rdg the b on separate
days. The phrase "except when the Presdent certfes to the
necessty." quafes two stated condtons: (1) the b has passed
3 rdgs on separate days and (2) t has been prnted n fna form
and dstrbuted 3 days before fnay approved. To construe that
the "except" cause dspenses ony wth prntng woud voate
grammar rues and woud aso negate the necessty of the
mmedate enactment of the b.
Exampe s RA 5440 whch had 2
nd
and 3
rd
rdgs on the same day
after b had been certfed urgent.
b. No Senator controverted factua bass of the certfcaton and ths
shoud not be rvwd by the Court.
c. It was S No 1630 that Senate was consderng. When matter was
before the House, Pres kewse certfed H No 9210 then pendng.
3. YES the BCC acted wthn ts power
a. "Gve and take" often marks the proceedngs of BCC. There was
aso nothng unusua n the executve sessons of the BCC.
Under congressona rues, BCCs are not expected to make matera
changes but ths s a dffcut provson to enforce. The resut coud
be a thrd verson, consdered an amendment n nature of
substtute, the ony requrement that the 3
rd
verson be germane to
sub|ect of the HB and SB. It s w/n power of BCC to ncude an
entrey new provson. After a, report of BCC s not fna and st
needed approva of both houses to be vad.
b. Ths coud have been caused by stenographers mtatons or to
ncoherence that sometmes characterze conversatons.
c. Report used brackets and capta etters to ndcate the changes.
Ths s standard practce n b-draftng.
Aso, SC s not proper forum for these nterna rues.
d. If ths were the case, there woud be no end to negotaton snce
each house may seek modfcatons of the compromse b. That
requrement must be construed ony to mean bs ntroduced for
the frst tme n ether house, not the BCC report.
4. NO, there s no voaton of Art VI Sec 26(1)
a. Snce the tte states that the purpose s to expand the VAT
system, one way s to wden the base by wthdrawng some
exemptons. To nsst that PD 1590 n addton to 103 of NIRC be
mentoned n tte, woud be to nsst that tte of a b be a
compete ndex of ts content.
b. That was |ust to prevent amendment by an nconsstent statute.
And under Const, grant of franchse for operaton of pubc utty s
sub|ect to amendment, ateraton, repea by Congress when
common good requres.
S$/stant#*e
- as RA 7716 merey expands base of VAT as provded n the org
VAT aw, debate on wsdom of aw shoud be n Congress.
5. NO there s no cear showng that Art III Sec 1 s voated
- When freedom of the mnd s mpered by aw, t s freedom that
commands respect; when property s mpered, awmakers
|udgment prevas.
a. Ths s actuay a pocy argument.
b. Ths s a mere aegaton.
c. Ths s aso short of evdence.
6. NO Art III Sec a s not voated
a. Theres no voaton of press freedom. The press s not
mmune fr genera reguaton by the State.
b. Its not that t s beng snged out, but ony because of remova
of exempton prevousy granted to t by aw. Aso, the aw woud
be dscrmnatory f the ony prvege wthdrawn s that to the
press. But that s not the case. The statute appes to a wde
range of goods and servces.
c. It has not been shown that the cass sub|ect to tax has been
unreasonaby narrowed. Ths mt does not appy to press aone
but to a saes.
d. The fxed amount of P1000 s for defrayng part of the cost of
regstraton. Regstraton s a centra feature of the VAT system.
It s a mere admnstratve fee, not a fee on exercse of prvege
or rght.
7. NO Art III Sec 5 s not voated
a. Const does not prohbt mposng generay appcabe saes
and use tax on sae of regous materas by regous org.
8. NO Art III Sec 10 s not voated
a. Partes to a contract cant fetter exercse of taxng power of
State. Essenta attrbutes of soveregn s read nto contracts as a
basc postuate of ega order.
9. VAT dstrbutes tax burden to as many goods and svcs as
possbe, partcuary to those w/n reach of hgher ncome grps.
Busness estabshments wth annua gross saes of < P500,000 are
exempted.
Aso, regressvty s not a negatve standard. What s requred s
that we "evove" a progressve taxaton system.
10. Const does not prohbt mposng generay appcabe saes
and use tax on sae of regous materas by regous org.
11. NO there s no voaton of Art II Sec 17
a. Same reason/rato under ssues on free speech/press.
0ecision Pettons are dsmssed.
Notes VAT s eved on sae, barter/exchange of goods and svcs.
Then, ts equa to 10% of gross seng prce
Nar*asa, Se)arate 2)#n#on
Cr$6, Se)arate 2)#n#on
Pa&#lla, Se)arate 2)#n#on
V#t$g, Se)arate 2)#n#on
>egala&o, :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
:a*#&e, :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
>omero, :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
-ellos#llo, :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
P$no, :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
&.&)&D& G%O P&#2 LI(# V E"I#&
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; September 1, 2005
'&C#(
- The ncreasng budget probems of the government n the form of
fsca probems, revenue generaton, and fsca aocaton
nadequacy prompted the congress to create a aw to address such
probems. Ths gave way to the Expanded Vat Law (E-Vat Law)
otherwse known as Repubc Act No. 9337. The case revoves
around the consttutonaty of the Repubc Act 9337 that ncreased
the Vaue-Added Tax percentage from 10% to 12%. In ths case
there were 4 dfferent pettoners: Abakada Guro Party Lst,
Assocaton of Ppnas She Deaers/Petron/Catex, Senators
Pmente/ Estrada, L./ Estrada, |. / Lacson/ Lm/ Madrga/ Osmea,
Congressman Escudero, and Governor Garca. A of them queston
the consttutonaty of RA 9337.
- Backgrounder on Vaue-Added Tax (VAT):
> VAT s a tax on spendng or consumpton. It s eved on the
sae, barter, exchange, or ease of goods or propertes and
servces.
> It s an ndrect tax on expendture. The seer of goods or
servces may pass on the amount of tax pad to the buyer. VAT s
ntended to fa on the mmedate buyers and end-consumers.
- RA 9337s egsatve hstory s as foows:
It orgnated from House B 3555 that was approved on the 27
th
of
|anuary 2005 and House B 3705 that was approved on the 28
th
of
February 2005 and Senate B 1950 that was approved on the 13
th
of Apr 2005. Ths was ater consodated the Bcamera Conference
Commttee. The Bcamera Conference Commttee nserted and
deeted some of the orgna provsons. The B was approved on
the 11
th
of May 2005 by the Senate and 10
th
of May 2005 by the
House of Representatves.
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON the Bcamera Conference Commttee has strcty comped
wth the rues of both houses thereby remanng wthn the
|ursdcton conferred upon t by congress.
2. WON the Bcamera Conference Commttee voated Artce VI
Sec 26 that states that no amendment woud be done after three
readngs.
3. WON there was a voaton of the Orgnaton Cause as stated n
Art VI Sec 24.
S$/stant#*e
4. WON there was undue deegaton to the Presdent and Secretary
of Fnance.
5. WON a VAT aw such as that of RA 9337 s n voaton of the
Consttutona provson Art VI Sec 28 (1) that requres taxaton to
be unform, equtabe and that the Congress sha evove a
progressve system of taxaton.
3ELD
1. The Supreme Court decded that t woud not rue on the
voaton of the senate and house rues uness there s a showng
that t s n cear voaton of a consttutona provson or of the
rghts of prvate ndvduas. (favorte rato )
2. No, because the amendment rue refers ony to the procedure to
be foowed by each house of Congress wth regard to bs n each
of the sad respectve houses before the b s transmtted to the
other house for ts concurrence and amendment.
3. No, the Senate wthn the sad provson ony proposed
amendments after the House Bs were approved. The B st
orgnated through the House of Representatves.
4. No, because the Presdent s |ust executng the aw and s st
workng wthn the standard and pocy of the aw. The Secretary of
Fnance s aso not gven undue deegaton as he s consdered as
an ater ego of the presdent thus foowng the same ogc, he s
ony executng the aw.
5. Whe the VAT s currenty not yet progressve t st s drected
towards a goa of a progressve taxaton.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P&!G&!I.&!
Sectons 1, 2, and 3 of RA 9337 s unconsttutona as 1) the
ncrease of tax rates on domestc, resdent foregn and nonresdent
foregn corporatons, 2) the ncrease of tax credt aganst taxes due
from nonresdent foregn corporatons on ntercorporate dvdends,
and 3) the reducton of the aowabe deducton for nterest
expense were not reay part of the House verson of the E-VAT Law
therefore n voaton of the orgnaton cause n Artce VI Secton
24.
.E!G4O! V (E!&#E .L%E I..O! CO""I##EE
PADILLA; November 20, 1991
'&C#(
- Petton for prohbton to revew the decson of the Senate Bue
Rbbon Commttee
- 7/30/1987: RP, represented by the Presdenta Commsson on
Good Government (PCGG), fed w/ the Sandganbayan the cv
case no. 0035, "RP vs. Ben|amn Kokoy Romuadez, et a."
-The compant aeges that defendants Ben|amn and |uette
Romuadez took advantage of ther reatonshp w/ Defendants
Ferdnand and Imeda Marcos to engage n schemes to enrch
themseves at the expense of the
Pantff and the Fpno Peope, among others:
-obtanng contro over Meraco, Benguet Mnng Co., She, PCI
Bank, etc., seng nterests to PNI Hodngs, Inc. (corporators,
Bengzon Law Offces), the conceament of the assets sub|ect to the
compant from the PCGG under the ve of corporate dentty, etc.
8/2-6/1988: reports crcuate of the sae of the Romuadez
companes for 5M (far beow market vaue) wthout PCGG approva
to the Rcardo Lopa Group, owned by Pres. Aqunos brother-n-aw,
Rcardo Lopa
-Sen. Enre caed upon the Senate to nvestgate a possbe
voaton of S5 of RA 3019 or the 0nt#-9raft an& Corr$)t Pra%t#%es
0%t w/c prohbts any reatve of the Presdent by affnty or
consangunty up to the 3
rd
cv degree, to ntervene n any
transacton w/ the government
-the matter was referred to the Senate Commttee on
Accountabty of Pubc Offcers (Bue Rbbon Commttee)
-the Commttee subpoenaed the pettoners and Rcardo Lopa to
testfy on "what they know" about the sae of the 36 Romuadez
corporatons
-at the hearng, Lopa and Bengzon decned to testfy, the former
nvokng the due process cause, and both averrng that such
testmones woud "unduy pre|udce" the defendants of cv case
no.0035
-pettoners thus fed the present petton for prohbton, prayng
for a temporary restranng order and/or n|unctve reef, camng
that the Commttee acted n excess of ts |ursdcton and egsatve
purpose
-the Commttee cams that the Court cannot en|on the Congress or
ts commttees from makng nqures n ad of egsaton, under the
doctrne of separaton of powers (quotng 0ngara *. Comele%)
-the Court fnds ths contenton untenabe and s of the vew that t
has the |ursdcton to demt consttutona boundares and
determne the scope and extent of the power of the Bue Rbbon
Commttee
I((%E(
1. WON the Bue Rbbon Commttees nqury s n ad of
egsaton.
2. WON Congress s encroachng on the excusve doman of
another branch of government.
3. WON the nqury voates the pettoners rght to due
process.
3ELD
1. NO Bue Rbbon Commttees nqury s not n ad of egsaton
- Sen. Enres nqury merey ntended to fnd out WON Rcardo
Lopa had any part n the aeged sae of the Romuadez
corporatons-there was no ntended egsaton as requred by A6
S21 of the consttuton. As hed n 1ean 5. 0rna$lt *. 5eon Na6areno
et al., the nqury must be matera or necessary to the exercse of
a power vested n the Commttee by the Consttuton. In Aat=#ns *.
ES t was hed that Congress power of nqury s broad but mted,
that s, t may not pry nto prvate affars f such actons are not n
furtherance of a egtmate task of congress-no nqury s an end n
tsef.
2. YES Congress s encroachng on the excusve doman of another
branch of government
- Snce the ssue had been pre-empted by the Sandganbayan, any
further nvestgaton by Congress woud ony serve to compcate
matters and produce confctng opnons-as hed n -arem/latt *.
ES, Congress cannot nqure nto matters w/c are excusvey the
concern of the |udcary.
3. YES the nqury voates the pettoners rght to due process
- It has been hed that "a congressona commttees rght to nqure
s sub|ect to a reevant mtatons paced by the Consttuton on
governmenta acton, ncudng.the B of Rghts". As hed n
8$t%heson *. ES, t cant be assumed that egsatve purpose s
aways |ustfed by pubc need; Congress cannot tread on prvate
rghts. The doctrne n Ca/al *. ?a)$nan states that the
Consttutona rght aganst sef-ncrmnaton extends to a
proceedngs sanctoned by aw and n cases n w/c the wtness s an
accused.
0isposition the pettoners may not be compeed by the
Commttee to appear, testfy, and produce evdence before t
because such nqures woud not be n ad of egsaton and f
pursued, woud be voatve of the prncpe separaton of powers
between the egsatve and the |udca departments, as ordaned
by the Consttuton. The petton s GRANTED.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
G%#IEE4 D+issentE
e- 7O! t*e .lue i66on CommitteeAs inLuir1 is in ai+ o/
legislation.
-the power of Congress to conduct nvestgatons s nherent and
needs no textua grant-even so, t s expressy granted by A6 S21.
-ars=+ *. ES: the possbty that nvad as we as vad egsaton
mght ensue from an nqury does not mt the power of nqury
ES *. :e$t%h: Congress has the rght to secure nformaton n order
to determne WON to egsate on a partcuar sub|ect matter on w/c
t s w/n ts consttutona powers to act.
ES *. 2rman: where the nformaton sought concerns what
Congress can egsate, a egtmate egsatve purpose must be
presumed.
-the requrement that an nqury be "n ad of egsaton" s easer
to estabsh here where Congress egsatve fed s unmted
unke n the US. Aso, t s not necessary that every queston be
matera to the proposed egsaton, but drecty reated to the
sub|ect of the nqury.
-the egsatve purpose s dstncty dfferent from the |udca
purpose; Congress may nvestgate for ts own purposes even
thought the sub|ects of the nvestgaton are currenty under tra.
e- 7O! t*e inLuir1 violates t*e petitionersA rig*t to +ue
pro0ess.
-A6 S21 provdes that "the rghts of persons appearng n or
affected by such nqures sha be respected."
However, such a restrcton does not ca for the compete
prohbton of such nvestgatons where a voaton of a basc rght
s camed, but rather ony requres that such rghts be res)e%te&.
-the rght aganst sef-ncrmnaton may ony be nvoked when
ncrmnatng questons are posed, but the wtness may not refuse
to take the wtness stand competey. In the case at bar, no
ncrmnatng questons had been asked, hence the aegaton of
voaton of rghts s premature.
C%4 D+issentE
e- 7O! t*e .lue i66on CommitteeAs inLuir1 is in ai+ o/
legislation.
0rna$lt *. Na6areno: the Court s bound to presume that an acton
of a egsatve body s w/ egtmate ob|ect f t s capabe of beng
so construed, and It has no rght to assume the contrary.
-an nqury nto the expendture of a pubc money, n ths case,
the possbe voaton of RA 3019 n the dsposton of the
Romuadez corporatons, s an ndspensabe duty of the egsature
M%gra#n *. :a$ghert+: t s not necessary that the resouton
orderng an nvestgaton .expressy state that the ob|ect of the
nqury s to obtan data n ad of proposed egsaton
e- 7O! t*e inLuir1 violates t*e petitionersA rig*t to +ue
pro0ess.
-the pettoners are not facng crmna charges; as ordnary
wtnesses, they may ony nvoke the rght aganst sef-ncrmnaton
ony when such a queston s posed, and cannot refuse takng the
wtness stand outrght.
(E!&#E V E"I#&
CARPIO-MORALES;
'&C#(
- ths s a consodaton of varous pettons for certorar and
prohbton chaengng the consttutonaty of E.O. no. 464
33
ssued
Sept. 28, 2005
- Const# Pro*#s#ons allege&l+ *#olate&- Art. VI Sec. 1, 21, 22,; Art. III
Sec. 4, 7; Art. II Sec. 28; Art. XI Sec 1; Art. XIII Sec. 16
33
E.O. 464 "Ensurng observance of the prncpe of separaton of powers, adherence to the rue on e:e0utive
privilege and respect for the rghts of pubc offcas appearng n egsatve nqures n ad of egsaton under
the Consttuton, and for other purposes."
- Between Sept. of 2005 to Feb. 2006, varous Senate Investgaton
Commttees ssued nvtatons to varous offcas of the Executve
Dept. ncudng the AFP and PNP for them to appear n pubc
hearngs on nqures concernng many: (A) The aeged
overprcng n the NorthRa Pro|ect (B) the Wre-Tappng actvty (C)
the Fertzer scam (D) the Venabe contract
- The respectve offcas of the Executve Dept. fed requests for
postponement of hearngs for varyng reasons such as exstence of
urgent operatona matters, more tme to prepare a more
comprehensve report, etc. Sen. Dron, however, dd not accede to
ther requests because the requests were sent beatedy and that
preparatons and arrangements have aready been competed.
- On Sept. 28, 2005, Pres. Arroyo ssued E.O. 464 whch took effect
mmedatey. Ctng E.O. 464, the Executve Dept. offcas sub|ect
to Senate nvestgatons camed that they were not aowed to
appear before any Senate or Congressona hearngs wthout
consent (wrtten approva) from the Presdent, whch had not been
granted unto them; ther nabty to attend due to ack of
approprate cearance from the Pres. pursuant to E.O. 464.
Thereafter, severa cases were fed chaengng E.O. 464 and
prayng for the ssuance of a TRO en|onng respondents from
mpementng, enforcng, and observng the assaed order.
Respondent Executve Secretary Ermta et a., prayed for dsmssa
of pettons for ack of mert.
I((%E(
Pr#mar+ 7ss$e
1. WON E.O. 464 contravenes the power of nqury vested n the
Congress
Se%on&ar+ 7ss$es
2. |ustcabty of the case:
a. Lega standng of pettoners:
G.R. 169777 Senate of the Phs.
G.R. 169659 BAYANMUNA, COURAGE, CODAL
G.R. 169660 Francsco Chavez
G.R. 169667 Aternatve Law Groups (ALG)
G.R. 169834 PDP-Laban
G.R. 121246 Integrated Bar of the Phs. (IBP)
b. Actua Case or Controversy
3. WON E.O. 464 voates the rght of the peope to nformaton on
matters of pubc concern.
4. WON respondents have commtted grave abuse of dscreton
when they mpemented E.O. 464 pror to ts pubcaton n a
newspaper of genera crcuaton.

3ELD
Pr#mar+ 7ss$e
1. atio It s mpermssbe to aow the executve branch to
wthhod nformaton sought by the Congress n ad of egsaton,
wthout t assertng a rght to do so, and wthout statng reasons
therefor.
- 0ltho$gh the e,e%$t#*e :e)t. en3o+s the )o.er of e,e%$t#*e
)r#*#lege, Congress nonetheless has the r#ght to =no. .h+ the
e,e%$t#*e &e)t. %ons#&ers re4$este& #nformat#on )r#*#lege&. E.2.
464 allo.s the e,e%$t#*e /ran%h to e*a&e %ongress#onal re4$ests
for #nformat#on .#tho$t the nee& of %learl+ assert#ng a r#ght to &o
so an&Cor )roffer#ng #ts reasons therefor. -+ mere e,)e&#ent of
#n*o=#ng )ro*#s#ons of E.2. 464, the )o.er of Congress #s
fr$strate&. >esort to an+ means /+ .h#%h off#%#als of the e,e%$t#*e
/ran%h %o$l& ref$se to &#*$lge #nformat#on %annot /e )res$me& to
/e *al#&.
easonin;
Executve Prvege
-The power of the Presdent and other hgh-eve executve branch
offcers to wthhod certan types of nformaton of a senstve
character from Congress, the courts and the pubc.
- The Power of Inqury (n ad of egsaton) Art. VI Sec.21
Ths s the power of the Legsature to make nvestgatons and
exact testmony that t may exercse ts egsatve functons
advsedy and effectvey. It gves the Congress the power to
compe the appearance of executve offcas to compy wth ts
demands for nformaton.
- Inqury n Art. VI Sec. 22 (queston hour)
As determned from the deberatons of the Consttutona
Commsson, ths provson was ntended to be dstngushed from
#n4$#r#es #n a#& of leg#slat#on, n that attendance here s merey
dscretonary on the part of the department heads.
- Sec. 1 of E.O. 464
Its requrement to secure presdenta consent, mted ony to
executve dept. heads and to appearances n the queston hour
(because of ts specfc reference to sec. 22 of art VI) makes t vad
on ts face.
- Sec. 2 (a) of E.O. 464
It merey provdes gudenes bndng ony on the heads of offce
mentoned n secton 2(b), on what s covered by the executve
prvege. It does not purport to be concusve on the other
branches of government. It may be construed as a mere expresson
of opnon by the Pres. regardng the nature and scope of executve
prvege.
- Sec. 2 (b) of E.O. 464
Provdes that once the head of offce determnes that a certan nfo.
s prveged, such determnaton s presumed to bear the
Presdents authorty and has the effect of prohbtng the offca
from appearng before Congress, ony to the express
pronouncement of the Pres. that t s aowng the appearance of
such offca. It aows the Pres. to authorze cams of prvege by
mere sence, and such presumptve authorzaton s contrary to the
exceptona nature of the prvege. Due to the fact that executve
prvege s of extraordnary power, the Pres. may not authorze ts
subordnates to exercse t. Such power must be weded ony by
the hghest offca n the executve herarchy.
- Sec. 3 of E.O. 464
Requres a pubc offcas enumerated n secton 2(b) to secure
the consent of the Presdent pror to appearng before ether house
of Congress. The enumeraton s broad. It s nvad per se. In so far
as t does not assert but merey mpes the cam of executve
prvege. It does not provde precse and certan reasons for the
cam. Mere nvocaton of E.O. 464 couped wth an announcement
that the Presdent has not gven her consent, s woefuy nsuffcent
for Congress to determne whether the wthhodng of nformaton s
|ustfed under the crcumstances of each case, severey frustratng
ts power of nqury.
Se%on&ar+ 7ss$es
2. a. Regardng Lega Standng of pettoners:
Rue 1: Legsators have standng to mantan nvoate the
prerogatve, powers and prveges vested by the Consttuton n
ther offce and are aowed to sue to queston the vadty of
any offca acton whch they cam nfrnges upon ther
prerogatves as egsators.
Rue 2: To be accorded standng on the ground of
transcendenta mportance there must be a showng of: 1. the
character of the funds (pubc)/assets nvoved 2. a cear case of
dsregard of a consttutona or statutory prohbton 3. ack of a
party wth a more drect and specfc nterest n rasng the
questons rased.
#*e (enate o/ t*e P*ilippines
- The Senate, ncudng ts ndvdua members, by vrtue of ther
fundamenta rght for ntegent pubc decson-makng and sound
egsaton s the proper party to assa an executve order whch
aegedy stfes the abty of the members of Congress to access
nformaton cruca to aw-makng. It has a substanta and drect
nterest over the outcome of such a controversy.
Part1 List (.a1an"una5 CO%&GE5 COD&L)
- The party-st representatves have standng, t s suffcent that a
cam s made that E.O. 464 nfrnges on ther consttutona rghts
and dutes as members of Congress to conduct nvestgatons n ad
of egsaton and conduct oversght functons n the
mpementaton of aws.
I.P5 C*ave,5 &LG (nvokng rght to nfo. on matters of pubc
concern)
- When sung as a ctzen, the nterest of the pettoner n assang
the consttutonaty of aws must be drect and persona. The Court
hed n Francsco v. Francsco that when a proceedng nvoves
asserton of a pubc rght, the mere fact that the person fng s a
ctzen satsfes the requrement of persona nterest.
PDP-La6an (camng standng due to the transcendenta
mportance of ssue)
- There beng no pubc funds nvoved and there beng partes wth
more drect and specfc nterest n the controversy (the Senate and
BayanMuna), gves PDP-Laban no standng.
b. Actua case or controversy (was not taken up by the Court)
- A chaenged order whch has aready produced resuts
consequent to ts mpementaton and where such resuts are the
sub|ect of questons of consttutonaty, s rpe for ad|udcaton.
- The mpementaton of E.O. 464 has resuted n the offcas
excusng themseves from attendng the Senate hearngs. It woud
be sheer abandonment of duty f the Court woud refran from
passng upon the consttutonaty of E.O. 464.
3. Yes. Congressona nvestgatons n ad of egsaton are
presumed to be a matter of pubc concern, therefore, t foows
that any executve ssuance tendng to unduy mt dscosures of
nformaton n such nvestgatons deprves the peope of
nformaton.
4. Yes. Athough E.O. 464 appes ony to offcas of the executve
branch, t has a drect effect on the rght of the peope to
nformaton on matters of pubc concern therefore t s not exempt
from the need of pubcaton. Due process requres that the peope
shoud have been apprsed of the ssuance of E.O. 464 before t was
mpemented.
0ecision Pettons are P&#L2 G&!#ED. Sectons 2(b) and 3 of
E.O. 464 are decared vod whe sectons 1 and 2(a) are VALID.
G%I!GO!& V C&&G%E
GANCAYCO; Apr 22, 1991
'&C#(
- The 1990 budget conssted of P98.4B n automatc appropraton
(86.8 gong to debt servce) and P155.3 from the Genera
Appropratons Act or a tota of P233.5B; ony P27B was aotted for
DECS. Pettoners, as members of the Senate, queston the
consttutonaty of the automatc appropraton for debt servce n
the sad budget as provded for by Presdenta Decrees 81, 117,
and 1967.
- Pettoners aege that the aotted budget runs contrary to Sec.
5(5), Art. XIV of the Consttuton. And as provded by Art. 7 of the
Cv Code, when statutes run contrary to the Consttuton, t sha
be vod.
- They further contend that the Presdenta Decrees are no onger
operatve snce they became f$n%t$s of#%#o after Presdent Marcos
was ousted. Wth a new congress repacng the one man-
egsature, new egsaton regardng appropraton shoud be
passed. Current appropraton, operatng on no aws therefore,
- Moreover, they contend that assumng arguendo that the sad
decrees dd not expre wth the ouster of Marcos, after adopton of
the 1987 Consttuton, sad decrees were nconsstent wth Sec. 24,
Artce VI of the Consttuton whch stated that:
Sec. 24. A appropraton, revenue or tarff bs, bs
authorzng ncrease of the pubc debt, bs of oca
appcaton, and prvate bs sha orgnate excusvey n the
House of Representatves, but the Senate may propose or
concur wth amendments.
whereby bs have to be approved by the Presdent, then a aw
must be passed by Congress to authorze sad automatc
appropraton. Further, pettoners state sad decrees voate
Secton 29(1) of Artce VI of the Consttuton whch provdes as
foows
Sec. 29(1). No money sha be pad out of the Treasury
except n pursuance of an appropraton made by aw.
They assert that there must be defnteness, certanty and
exactness n an appropraton, otherwse t s an undue deegaton
of egsatve power to the Presdent who determnes n advance
the amount approprated for the debt servce.
- SoGen argues, on the other hand, that automatc appropraton
provdes fexbty: ". . . Frst, for exampe, t enabes the
Government to take advantage of a favorabe turn of market
condtons by redeemng hgh nterest securtes and borrowng at
ower rates, or to shft from short-term to ong-term nstruments, or
to enter nto arrangements that coud ghten our outstandng debt
burden debt-to-equty, debt-to-asset, debt-to-debt or other such
schemes. Second, the automatc appropraton obvates the serous
dffcutes n debt servcng arsng from any devaton from what
has been prevousy programmed. The annua debt servce
estmates, whch are usuay made one year n advance, are based
on a mathematca set or matrx or, n ayman's parance, `basket'
of foregn exchange and nterest rate assumpton's whch may
sgnfcanty dffer from actua rates not even n proporton to
changes on the bass of the assumptons. Absent an automatc
appropraton cause, the Phppne Government has to awat and
depend upon Congressona acton, whch by the tme ths comes,
may no onger be responsve to the ntended condtons whch n
the meantme may have aready drastcay changed. In the
meantme, aso, deayed payments and arrearages may have
supervened, ony to worsen our debt servce-to-tota expendture
rato n the budget due to penates and/or demand for mmedate-
payment even before due dates.
- Ceary, the cam that payment of the oans and ndebtedness s
condtoned upon the contnuance of the person of Presdent
Marcos and hs egsatve power goes aganst the ntent and
purpose of the aw. The purpose s foreseen to subsst wth or
wthout the person of Marcos."
I((%E(
1. WON appropraton of P86.8B for debt servce as compared to ts
appropraton of P27.7B for educaton n voaton of Sec. 5(5),
Artce XIV of the Consttuton.
The State sha assgn the hghest budgetary prorty to
educaton and ensure that teachng w attract and retan ts
rghtfu share of the best avaabe taents through adequate
remuneraton and other means of |ob satsfacton and
fufment.
2. WON the Presdenta Decrees are st operatve, and f they are,
do they voate Sec. 29 (1), Artce VI of the Consttutona.
3. WON there was undue deegaton of egsatve power by
automatc appropraton.
3ELD
1. The Court dsagrees that Congress hands are hamstrung
by the provson provded. There are other mperatves of
natona nterest that t must attend to; the amount aotted to
educaton, 27.8B, s the hghest n a department budgets
thereby compyng wth the mandate of havng the hghest
prorty as stated above. The enormous natona debt,
ncurred by the prevous admnstraton, however, st needs
to be pad. Not ony for the sake of honor but because the
natona economy s tsef at stake. Thus, f Congress aotted
more for debt servce such an appropraton cannot be
consdered by ths Court as unconsttutona.
2. Yes, they are st operatve. The transtory provson provded n
Sec. 3, Artce XVIII of the Consttuton recognzes that:
A exstng aws, decrees, executve orders,
procamatons, etters of nstructons and other executve
ssuances not nconsstent wth the Consttuton sha
reman operatve unt amended, repeaed or revoked.
- Ths transtory provson of the Consttuton has precsey been
adopted by ts framers to preserve the soca order so that
egsaton by the then Presdent Marcos may be recognzed. Such
aws are to reman n force and effect uness they are nconsstent
wth the Consttuton or are otherwse amended, repeaed or
revoked.
- We-known s the rue that repea or amendment by mpcaton s
frowned upon. Equay fundamenta s the prncpe that
constructon of the Consttuton and aw s generay apped
prospectvey and not retrospectvey uness t s so ceary stated.
3. No. The egsatve ntenton n R.A. No. 4860, as amended,
Secton 31 of P.D. No. 1177 and P.D. No. 1967 s that the amount
needed shoud be automatcay set asde n order to enabe the
Repubc of the Phppnes to pay the prncpa, nterest, taxes and
other norma bankng charges on the oans, credts or ndebtedness
ncurred as guaranteed by t when they sha become due wthout
the need to enact a separate aw appropratng funds therefore as
the need arses. The purpose of these aws s to enabe the
government to make prompt payment and/or advances for a oans
to protect and mantan the credt standng of the country.
- Athough the sub|ect presdenta decrees do not state specfc
amounts to be pad, necesstated by the very nature of the probem
beng addressed, the amounts nevertheess are made certan by
the egsatve parameters provded n the decrees. The Executve s
not of unmted dscreton as to the amounts to be dsbursed for
debt servcng. The mandate s to pay ony the prncpa, nterest,
taxes and other norma bankng charges on the oans, credts or
ndebtedness, or on the bonds, debentures or securty or other
evdences of ndebtedness sod n nternatona markets ncurred by
vrtue of the aw, as and when they sha become due. No
uncertanty arses n executve mpementaton as the mt w be
the exact amounts as shown by the books of the Treasury.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C%4 D+issentE
He sees that an essenta requrement for vad appropraton s that
the sum authorzed for reease shoud be determnate or
determnabe. The Presdenta Decrees do not satsfy ths
requrement. As to the ponencas reference to "egsatve
parameters provded by aw", Cruz says no such reguatory
boundares exst.
P&DILL& D+issentE
- He agrees wth Cruz but furthers the argument by sayng that Sec.
29(1)Artce VI mpes that a aw enacted by Congress (and
approved by the Presdent) appropratng a partcuar sum or sums
must be made before payment from the Treasury can be made.
Laws shoud be construed n ght of current aws and not those
made by a one-man egsatve branch.
- Besdes, these decrees ssued by Presdent Marcos reatve to
debt servce were taored for the perods covered by sad decrees.
Today t s Congress that shoud determne and approve the proper
appropratons for debt servcng, as ths s a matter of pocy that,
n hs opnon, pertans to the egsatve department, as the pocy-
P3ILIPPI!E CO!(#I#%#IO! &((OCI&#IO! V E!I@%E4
OUIASON; August 19, 1994
'&C#(
- House B No. 10900, the Genera Appropraton B of 1994 (GAB
of 1994), was passed and approved by both houses of Congress on
December 17, 1993.
- On December 30, 1993, the Presdent sgned the b nto aw, and
decared the same to have become Repubc Act No. 7663
34
, the
Genera Appropraton Act (GAA) of 1994. On the same day, the
Presdent devered hs Presdenta Veto Message, specfyng the
provsons of the b he vetoed and on whch he mposed certan
condtons. No step was taken n ether House of Congress to
overrde the vetoes.
- In G.. !o. 11M1J5, Phppne Consttuton Assocaton
(PHILCONSA) et a. prayed for a wrt of prohbton to decare as
unconsttutona and vod: (a) Artce 41 on the Countrywde
Deveopment Fund or "pork barres," the speca provson n Artce
I entted Reagnment of Aocaton for Operatona Expenses, (b)
Artce 48 on the Appropraton for Debt Servce or the amount
approprated under sad Artce 48 n excess of the P37.9 B
aocated for the DECS; and (c) the veto of the Presdent of the
Speca Provson of Artce 48 of the GAA of 1994
- In G.. !o. 11M1HG, 16 Senators queston: (1) the
consttutonaty of the condtons mposed by the Presdent n the
tems of the GAA of 1994: (a) for the Supreme Court, (b)
Commsson on Audt (COA), (c) Ombudsman, (d) Commsson on
Human Rghts, (CHR), (e) Ctzen Armed Forces Geographca Unts
34
Entted "AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
FROM |ANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES"
(CAFGU's) and (f) State Unverstes and Coeges (SUC's); and (2)
the consttutonaty of the veto of the speca provson n the
appropraton for debt servce.
- In G.. !o. 11MH88, Senators Romuo and Taada together wth
the Freedom from Debt Coaton, a non-stock domestc
corporaton, sued as taxpayers, chaengng the consttutonaty of
the Presdenta veto of the speca provson n the appropratons
for debt servce and the automatc appropraton of funds therefor.
- In G.. !o. 11M;;;, Senators Romuo and Taada contest the
consttutonaty of: (1) the veto on four speca provsons added to
tems n the GAA of 1994 for the Armed Forces of the Phppnes
(AFP) and the Department of Pubc Works and Hghways (DPWH);
and (2) the condtons mposed by the Presdent n the
mpementaton of certan appropratons for the CAFGU's, the
DPWH, and the Natona Housng Authorty (NHA).
- In vew of the mportance and novety of most of the ssues rased
n the four pettons, the Court nvted former Chef |ustce Enrque
M. Fernando and former Assocate |ustce Irene Cortes as Amcus
Curae.
G.. !o. 11M1J5
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON the pettoners have ega standng
35
S$/stant#*e
2. WON the Countrywde Deveopment Fund (CDF) or "pork barres"
s an encroachment by the egsature on executve power, snce
sad power n an appropraton act s n mpementaton of a aw
3. WON the act of Congress gvng debt servce and not educaton
36
as the hghest prorty n the aocaton of budget unconsttutona
4. WON the speca provson aowng a member of Congress to
reagn hs aocaton for operatona expenses to any other expense
35
Whe the Soctor Genera dd not queston the ocus stand of pettoners n G.R. No. 113105, he camed that
the remedy of the Senators n the other pettons s potca (.e., to overrde the vetoes) n effect sayng that
they do not have the requste ega standng to brng the suts.
36
Artce XIV Secton 5(5) of the 1987 Consttuton states that: "The State sha assgn the h#ghest /$&getar+
)r#or#t+ to e&$%at#on and ensure that teachng w attract and retan ts rghtfu share of the best avaabe
taents through adequate remuneraton and other means of |ob satsfacton and fufment."
category s unconsttutona, as t s contrary to Artce VI Secton
25(5) of the 1987 Consttuton
37
3ELD
Pro%e&$ral
1. A member of Congress has the ega standng to queston the
vadty of a presdenta veto or any other act of the Executve
whch n|ures the nsttuton of Congress.
easonin;: Ponenca reed on precedent (9on6ales *. Ma%ara#g!
and a US case (En#te& States *. 0mer#%an "el. S "el. Co! as
secondary source to recognze ega standng. Then n formng the
rato decdend, t agan reed on US cases as secondary sources
(Coeman v. Mer, Hotzman v. Schesnger) as we as the opnon
of |ustce Fernando as Amcus Curae.
S$/stant#*e
2. The power of appropraton odged n Congress carres wth t the
power to specfy the pro|ect or actvty to be funded under the
appropraton aw. It can be as detaed and as broad as Congress
wants t to be.
easonin;: The CDF s expct that t sha be used "for
nfrastructure, purchase of ambuances and computers and other
prorty pro|ects and actvtes and credt factes to quafed
benefcares." It was Congress tsef that determned the purposes
for the appropraton. Executve functon under the CDF nvoves
mpementaton of the prorty pro|ects specfed n the aw. The
authorty gven to the members of Congress s ony to propose and
dentfy pro|ects to be mpemented by the Presdent. Hence, under
Artce 48 of the GAA of 1994, f the proposed pro|ects quafy for
fundng under the CDF, t s the Presdent who sha mpement
them. In short, the proposas and dentfcatons made by the
members of Congress are merey recommendatory.
3. The consttutona provson whch drects the State sha assgn
the hghest budgetary prorty to educaton s merey drectory.
3<
"No aw sha be passed authorzng any transfer of appropratons; however, the Presdent, the Presdent of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatves, the Chef |ustce of the Supreme Court, and the heads
of Consttutona Commssons may, by aw, be authorzed to augment any tem n the genera appropratons aw
for ther respectve offces from savngs n other tems of ther respectve appropratons."
easonin;: It reed on precedence, 9$#ngona, 1r. *. Carag$e.
Whe t s true that under Secton 5(5), Artce XIV of the
Consttuton, Congress s mandated to "assgn the hghest
budgetary prorty to educaton" t does not thereby foow that
Congress s deprved of ts power to respond to the mperatves of
the natona nterest and for the attanment of other state poces
or ob|ectves.
4. The members ony determne the necessty of the reagnment of
the savngs n the aotments for ther operatng expenses but t s
the Senate Presdent and the Speaker of the House of
Representatves who sha approve the reagnment.
0ecision
Pro%e&$ral
1. Pettoners, as members of Congress have ocus stand
S$/stant#*e
2. No. The CDF s not an encroachment by the egsature on
executve power, hence consttutona
3. No. Congress act s not unconsttutona. It smpy exercses ts
power to respond to the mperatves of the natona nterest and for
the attanment of other state poces or ob|ectves.
4. No. It s not unconsttutona.
G.. !o. 11M1J5
G.. !o. 11M1HG
I((%E
WON veto of the speca provson of Artce 48 of the GAA of 1994
n the appropraton for debt servce wthout vetong the entre
P86.3 B for sad purpose s unconsttutona
2r, s#m)l+ )$t@ WON the Presdent exceeded the tem-veto power
accorded by the Consttuton
38
3ELD
38
Artce VI Secton 27(2) of the 1987 Consttuton states that: "The Presdent sha have the power to veto any
partcuar tem or tems n an appropraton, revenue, or tarff b, but veto sha mot affect the tem or tems to
whch he does not ob|ect."
Any provson whch does not reate to any partcuar tem, or whch
extends n ts operaton beyond an tem of appropraton, s
consdered "an napproprate provson"
39
whch can be vetoed
separatey from an tem.
easonin;: The ssue, accordng to the ponenca s a mere rehash
of the one put to rest n 9on6ales *. Ma%ara#g, 1r. Hence, t used
ths case as precedent. It aso cted another case, 8enr+ *. E&.ar&s
to support ts rato. Ctng 9on6ales@ As the Consttuton s expct
that the provson whch Congress can ncude n an appropratons
b must "reate specfcay to some partcuar appropraton
theren" and "be mted n ts operaton to the appropraton to
whch t reates," t foows that any provson whch does not reate
to any partcuar tem, or whch extends n ts operaton beyond an
tem of appropraton, s consdered "an napproprate provson"
whch can be vetoed separatey from an tem. Ctng 8enr+ *.
E&.ar&s: When the egsature nserts napproprate provsons n a
genera appropraton b, such provsons must be treated as
'tems' for purposes of the Governor's (Presdents) tem veto power
over genera appropraton bs.
0ecision
Yes. The Presdent vetoed the entre paragraph 1 of the Speca
Provson of the tem on debt servce, ncudng the provsos that
the appropraton authorzed n sad tem "sha be used for
payment of the prncpa and nterest of foregn and domestc
ndebtedness" and that "n no case sha ths fund be used to pay
for the abtes of the Centra Bank Board of Lqudators." The sad
provsos, beng approprate provsons snce they germane to and
have a drect connecton wth the tem on debt servce, cannot be
vetoed separatey. Hence the tem veto of sad provsons s vod.
G.. !o. 11M1HG
G.. !o. 11MH88
G.. !o. 11M;;;
39
Aso ncuded n the category of "napproprate provsons" whch are ntended to amend our aws, because
ceary these aws have no pace n an appropratons b, and therefore unconsttutona.
I((%E(
1. WON the veto for revovng funds of State Unverstes and
Coeges (SUCs) s unconsttutona
2. WON the veto of the provson n the appropraton for the
Department of Pubc Works and Hghways on 70%
(admnstratve) / 30% (contract) rato for road mantenance s
unconsttutona
3. WON the veto of the provson on purchase of medcnes by AFP
s unconsttutona
4. WON the veto of speca provsons on pror approva of Congress
for purchase of mtary equpment s unconsttutona
5. WON the veto of provson on use of savngs to augment AFP
penson funds s unconsttutona
6. WON the Presdents drectve that the mpementaton of the
Speca Provson to the tem on the CAFGU's sha be sub|ect to
pror Presdenta approva s tantamount to an admnstratve
embargo of the congressona w to mpement the Consttuton's
command to dssove the CAFGU's, therefore unconsttutona
(Issue on Impoundment
40
)
7. WON veto of the Presdent settng condtons or gudenes n the
appropratons for the Supreme Court, Ombudsman, COA, DPWH
and CHR s unconsttutona
3ELD
|1| to |5| Any provson whch does not reate to any partcuar
tem, or whch extends n ts operaton beyond an tem of
appropraton, s consdered "an napproprate provson" whch can
be vetoed separatey from an tem
41
easonin;: Same rato decdend from the ssue n the prevous
secton s apped n the 5 ssues n ths secton. Hence the
reasonng for the rato s the same as we. (Notce how the rato s
apped n the rung or dspostve)
40
Ths s the frst case before ths Court where the power of the Presdent to mpound s put n ssue.
7m)o$n&ment refers to a refusa by the Presdent, for whatever reason, to spend funds made avaabe by
Congress. It s the faure to spend or obgate budget authorty of any type (Notes: Impoundment of Funds,
Harvard Law Revew)
41
Note that ths rato s aso apped n ssue |6| asde from the rato whch I formuated there. Ths can be
mped from, "Agan we state: a provson n an appropratons act cannot be used to repea or amend other
aws." Hence, ths s an "napproprate provson" whch can be vetoed separatey.
6. Any provson bockng an admnstratve acton n mpementng
a aw requrng egsatve approva of executve acts must be
ncorporated n a separate substantve b.
easonin;: The ponenca smpy cted notes from |ournas
42
n
dscussng the ssue of Impoundment to support hs reasonng n
the present case.
7. The ssuance of admnstratve gudenes on the use of pubc
funds authorzed by Congress s smpy an exercse by the
Presdent of hs consttutona duty to see that aws are fathfuy
executed.
0ecision
1. No. There was no undue dscrmnaton when the Presdent
vetoed sad speca provsons.
2. Yes. The Speca Provson n queston s not an napproprate
provson whch can be the sub|ect of a veto. It s not aen to the
appropraton for road mantenance, and on the other hand, t
specfes how the sad tem sha be expended - 70% by
admnstratve and 30% by contract.
3. Yes. Beng drecty reated to and nseparabe from the
appropraton tem on purchases of medcnes by the AFP, the
speca provson cannot be vetoed by the Presdent wthout aso
vetong the sad tem.
4. No. Any provson bockng an admnstratve acton n
mpementng a aw or requrng egsatve approva of executve
acts must be ncorporated n a separate and substantve b.
Therefore, beng "napproprate" provsons, Speca Provsons Nos.
2 and 3 were propery vetoed.
5. No. The Speca Provson, whch aows the Chef of Staff to use
savngs to augment the penson fund for the AFP beng managed
by the AFP Retrement and Separaton Benefts System s voatve
42
Notes: Impoundment of Funds, Harvard Law Revew; Notes: Presdenta Impoundment Consttutona Theores
and Potca Reates, Georgetown Law |ourna; Notes Protectng the Fsc: Executve Impoundment and
Congressona Power, Yae Law |ourna
of Sectons 25(5)
43
and 29(1)
44
of the Artce VI of the Consttuton.
Thus veto s not unconsttutona.
6. No. The provson n an appropratons act cannot be used to
repea or amend other aws. Impedy, ths s an "napproprate
provson" whch can be vetoed separatey.
7. No. By settng gudenes or condtons n hs veto, the Presdent
s smpy exercsng hs consttutona duty to mpement the aws
fathfuy.
0ispositive
Pettons DISMISSED, except wth respect wth respect to |1| G.R.
Nos. 113105 and 113766 ony nsofar as they pray for the
annument of the veto of the speca provson on debt servce
specfyng that the fund theren approprated "sha be used for
payment of the prncpa and nterest of foregn and domestc
ndebtedness" prohbtng the use of the sad funds "to pay for the
abtes of the Centra Bank Board of Lqudators", and |2| G.R. No.
113888 ony nsofar as t prays for the annument of the veto of: (a)
the 2
nd
paragraph of Speca Provson No. 2 of the tem of
appropraton for the DPWH; and (b) Speca Provson No. 12 on the
purchase of medcnes by the AFP whch s GRANTED.
2otin;: 1= Concur, 1 0issent
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P&DILL& D0on0ur an+ +issentE
- I concur wth the ponenca of Mr. |ustce Camo D. Ouason except
n so far as t re-affrms the Court's decson n 9on6ale6 *.
Ma%ara#g
- An napproprate provson s st as provson, not an tem and
therefore outsde the veto power of the Executve.
43
"No aw sha be passed authorzng any transfer of appropratons; however, the Presdent, the Presdent of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatves, the Chef |ustce of the Supreme Court, and the heads
of Consttutona Commssons may, by aw, be a$thor#6e& to a$gment an+ #tem #n the general a))ro)r#at#ons
la. for the#r res)e%t#*e off#%es from sa*#ngs #n other #tems of the#r res)e%t#*e a))ro)r#at#ons."
44
"No money sha be pad out of the Treasury except n pursuance of an appropraton made by aw"
VI#%G D0on0urE
- I cannot debate the fact that the members of Congress, more than
the Presdent and hs coeagues, woud have the best fee on the
needs of ther own respectve consttuents. It s not ob|ectonabe
for Congress, by aw, to approprate funds for such specfc pro|ects
as t may be mnded; to gve that authorty, however, to the
ndvdua members of Congress n whatever guse, I am afrad,
woud be consttutonay mpermssbe.
GO!4&LE( V "&C&&IG
MELENCIO-HERRERA; November 19, 1990
'&C#(
- The Senate questoned the consttutonaty of the Presdenta
veto of speca and genera provsons, partcuary Sec. 55 of the
Genera Appropratons B for 1989
- The pettoners cam they have ocus stand on the ground of:
- beng member and ex-offco members of the Fnance
Commttee
- substanta taxpaers whose vta nterests mght be affected
- The respondents n ths case are member of the Cabnet who are
sued n ther offca capacty for the mpementaton of the Genera
Appropratons Act of 1989
- December 16, 1988 - The House of Representatves passed HB
19186 (GA B for 1989)
- emnated/decreased tems ncuded n the proposed Budget of
the Presdent
- presented to Presdent for approva
- December 29, 1988 - The b was sgned nto aw (became RA
6688)
- The Presdent vetoed 7 speca provsons and Sec. 55
- February 2, 1989- Senate expressed through Senate Resouton
No. 381 that the veto of Sec. 55 was unconsttutona
- Apr 11, 1989 - Petton for prohbton/mandamus was fed
- assaed the egaty of veto of Sec. 55
- en|oned the mpementaton of RA 6688
- No restranng order was mpemented by the Supreme Court
- September 7, 1989 - Court resoved to gve due course to the
petton
- |an. 17, 1990 - Moton for Leave to Fe and to Admt
Suppementary Petton whch rased the same ssue as the orgna
petton (questonng the presdenta veto)
- The vetoed provsons ncude:
- Sec. 55 of the Appropratons Act of 1989 - an tem submtted by
the Presdent whch has been reduced by Congress cannot be
restored/ncreased. An tem s deemed dsapproved f there s no
correspondng appropraton n the Act.
- Sec. 16 of the Appropratons Act of 1990 - smar to Sec. 55 of
the 1989 Appropratons Act except that ths was umped
together wth the use of savngs
- The basc dfference between both provsons s that n the 1989
Appropratons Act, the "use of savngs" s n Secton 12, apart
from Secton 55 whereas n the 1990 \Appropratons Act, "use of
savngs" and the vetoed provson are both n Sec. 16
- The reason for the veto:
- Voates Art. 6, Sec 25(5)
- Nufes the consttutona and statutory authroty of the
Presdent, the Senate Presdent, Speaker of the House of
Representatves, Chef |ustce of the Supreme Court and the
Heads of Con-Coms to augment any tem n the Genera
Appropratons aw
- If aowed, the Presdent and the other abovementoned offcas
cannot augment any tem and appropraton from ther savngs
even f speca crcumstances ke caamty
- Pettoners' arguments:
1) The presdent's ne veto power regardng the appropratons
b s mted to tem/s and does not cover provsons and
therefore exceeded her authorty (Sectons 55 and 16 are
provsons)
2) When the presdent ob|ects to provsons of an appropraton
b, t s not possbe to exercse the tem veto power but shoud
veto the whoe b as we
3) The tem veto power does not carry wth t the power to strke
out condtons or restrctons for that woud be egsaton aready
(voatve of separaton of powers)
4) Power of augmentaton n Artce 6, Sec. 25(5) s provded by
aw so Congress has prerogatve to mpose restrctons n the
exercse of that power
- SoGen's arguments:
1) The ssue s a potca queston and the pettoners have a
potca remedy whch s to overrde the veto.
2) Sec. 53 s a rder whch s extraneous to the Appropratons Act
and shoud mert a veto.
3) The power of the presdent to augment tems n appropratons
for the executve branches aready provded for n Budget Law
(specfcay Sec. 44 and 45 of PD 1177 as amended by RA 6670)
4) The Presdent s empowered to veto provsons of other dstnct
and severabe parts.
I((%E(
1. WON the ssue s |ustcabe
2. WON the veto by the Presdent of Sec. 55 of the 1989
Appropratons B and ts counterpart Sec. 16 of the 1990
Appropratons B s unconsttutona and wthout effect
3ELD
1. The ssue s |ustcabe, not potca.
a) There s an actua case or |ustcabe controversy between the
Senate and the Executve that the Supreme Court may take
cognzance of. The Demetra v. Aba case decared that the
Supreme Court has the duty to decare acts of a government
branch vod f beyond that branch's powers
b) |udca arbtraton needed because the pettoners stress the
mperatve need for defntve rung by the Court
c) The pettoners have ocus stand because the sut s a
taxpayer's sut. The Sandad rung (the Court may or may not
entertan a taxpayer's sut) and the Toentno v. COMELEC
rung (members of the Senate have personaty when a
Consttutona ssue s rased) were used. Ths s aso not the
frst tme that the veto power was dscussed.
) Bengzon v. Secretary of |ustce - Court uphed the veto but
reversed by the US Supreme Court because of the
Appropratons B was not nvoved.
) Bonao Eectroncs v. Vaenca - re|ected the veto n an
Appropratons B
2. NO the veto by the Presdent of Sec. 55 of the 1989
Appropratons B and ts counterpart Sec. 16 of the 1990
Appropratons B s consttutona
F"he e,tent of #tem *eto )o.er st#ll #n%l$&es the *eto#ng of
)ro*#s#ons.
- Art. 6 Sec. 27 - Veto power of the Presdent
Paragraph 1 - genera veto power of the Presdent and f
exercsed woud veto the entre b
Paragraph 2 - the tem-veto of ne-vbeto aows a veto over a
partcuar tem n an appropratons, revenue or tarff b. The
presdent may not veto ess than a of an tem (no authorty to
veto part of an tem and approve the remanng porton of that
tem).
- Orgnay referred to veto of tems of appropratons bs n the
Organc Act of Aug. 29, 1916
- 1935 Consttuton, Art. 6, Sec 11(2) - The veto was more
expansve snce t ncuded provsons and tems n revenue and
tarff bs
- 1973 Consttuton - more compact verson and refers to the Prme
Mnster as the ony offca who has the power
- 1987 Consttuton - verbatm reproducton of 1973 provson
except that a dfferent pubc offca (the Presdent) was now
nvoved and emnated the reference to a veto of a provson
- The Court hed that even f there was an emnaton of any
reference to the veto provson, the extent of the Presdent's veto
power as prevousy defned by the 1935 Consttuton has not
changed.
- An tem n a b reates to the partcuars, detas, dstnct and
severabe parts of the b whereas a provson s of a more genera
nature.
- A restrctve nterpretaton as espoused by the pettoners
dsregards the basc prncpe that a dstnct and severabe part of
the b may be the sub|ect of a separate veto but aso overooks
the Consttutona mandate that any provson n the genera
appropratons b sha reate specfcay to some partcuar
appropraton and that any such provson sha be mted n ts
operaton to the appropraton to whch t reates.
- A provson does not reate to the entre b.
- The exercse of veto power does not partake of a egsatve power
as stated n the Bengzon case:
- The egsature has the power to enact aws whe the Chef
Executve has the negatve power by the consttutona exercse
of whch he may defeat the w of the egsature.
- The Presdent fnds ts authorty n the Consttuton.
- The Courts nduge every ntendment n favor of the
consttutonaty of a veto n the same way that they presume
consttutonaty of an act passed by the Legsature.
F Se%s. an& 16 are #na))ro)r#atel+ %alle& )ro*#s#ons.
- Even f assumng that provsons are beyond the executve power
to veto, Sec. 55 and Sec. 16 are not provsons n the budgetary
sense.
- Based on Art. 6, Sec. 25(2), a provson shoud reate specfcay
to some partcuar appropraton theren. Secs. 55 and 16 do not ft
ths requrement.
a) no reaton to a partcuar or dstnctve requrement. They
appy generay to a tems dsapproved or reduced by Congress
n the Appropratons B.
b) dsapproved or reduced tems are nowhere to be found n the
B.
c) vetoed sectons are more of an expresson of Congressona
pocy n respect of augmentaton from savngs rather than a
budgetary appropraton. Secs. 55 and 16 are napproprate
provsons that shoud be treated as tems for the purpose of the
veto power.
FSe%t#ons an& 16 are #na))ro)r#ate %on&#t#ons an& are therefore
s$s%e)t#/le to a *eto.
- Pettoners argue that Congress s free to mpose condtons n an
Appropratons B and where condtons are attached, veto
powers do not have the power to strke them out.
- These rues are setted n the sense that Congress can mpose
condtons on expendture of funds and that the Executve cannot
veto a condton of an appropraton whe aowng the
appropraton tsef to stand.
- But for the rue to appy, restrctons shoud be n the rea sense of
the term. Restrctons shoud exhbt a connecton wth money
tems n a budgetary sense n the schedue of expendtures. The
test s approprateness.
- Secs. 55 and 16 are hed to be napproprate condtons.
- Actuay genera aw measures more approprate for substantve
and therefore separate egsaton.
- Nether shows the necessary connecton wth a schedue of
expendtures. Items reduced or dsapproved by Congress are not
on the enroed b and can ony be detected when compared wth
the orgna budgetary submttas of the Presdent.
* "he )o.er of a$gmentat#on an& the *al#&#t+ of the *eto
- The Presdent vetoed Sectons 55 and 16 because they nufed
the authorty of the Chef Executve and heads of dfferent
branches of government to augment any tem n the Genera
Appropratons Law for ther respectve offces from savngs n other
tems of ther respectve appropratons (wth reference to Art. 6,
Sec. 25(5)).
- The power to augment es dormant unt authorzed by aw.
- The consttuton aowed the transfer of funds for the purpose of
augmentng an tem from savngs n another tem n the
appropraton of a government branch so as to afford consderabe
fexbty n the use of pubc funds.
- Separaton of powers s endangered n no way.
- Secs. 55 and 16 prohbt ths augmentaton and mpar the
consttutona and statutory authorty of the Presdent n the
nterest of expedency and effcency.
- The speca power of augmentaton from savngs s merey
ncorporated n the GA B. The GA B s one of prmary and
specfc am to make appropraton of money from the pubc
treasury. The power of augmentaton from savngs s not
consdered a specfc appropraton of money. It s a non-
appropraton tem nserted n an appropraton measure.
- To sancton ths practce woud wthhod the power from the
Executve and other offcas and put n |eopardy the exercse of
that power.
- If the egsature does beeve that the exercse of the veto powers
by the executve were unconsttutona, a veto may be overrden by
the votes of 2/3 of the members of Congress. But Congress made
no attempt to do so.
&#I#I7 V 4&"O&
TINGA; September 30, 2005
'&C#(
- Ths s a petton for prohbton, mandamus, and decaratory reef
as taxpayers, seekng the decaraton of nuty of paragraph 1 of
the S)e%#al Pro*#s#ons of RA 8760 (Genera Appropratons Act
(GAA) of 2000. Aso seekng the ssuance of a wrt of premnary
n|uncton or TRO to en|on mpementaton of the questoned
provson. However, the 2000 GAA has ong been mpemented, the
ssuance s aready moot and academc. But the Court sha pass
upon the consttutona ssues.
- Bref hstorca account of the Cordera Admnstratve Regon
(CAR):
- Presdent Aquno ntated a seres of peace taks to dea wth
nsurgency n the Corderas. These daogues focused on the
estabshment of an autonomous government n the Corderas.
- Secton 15, Artce X of the 1987 Consttuton ordans the
creaton of autonomous regons n Musm Mndanao and n the
Corderas, and Secton 18, Artce X mandates the congressona
enactment of the organc acts for each of the autonomous
regons.
- Presdent Aquno promugated E.O. No. 220 on |uy 15, 1987,
creatng the CAR, whch s the nterm and preparatory body
tasked to admnster the affars of government n the Corderas.
-Pursuant to the 1987 Consttuton, on October 23, 1989, Congress
enacted RA 6766 (0n 0%t Pro*#&#ng for an 2rgan#% 0%t for for the
Cor&#llera 0$tonomo$s >eg#on). A pebscte was hed where the
peope of the Corderas coud ratfy the Organc Act. However, the
creaton of an autonomous regon was overwhemngy re|ected n
a of the Corderas except for the Ifugao provnce. The Court rued
that Ifugao aone cannot vady consttute the CAR and uphed the
dsapprova of the Organc Act. The Court aso decared E.O. No.
220 to be st n force and effect.
-February 15, 2000: Presdent Estrada sgned nto aw the 2000
GAA whch ncudes the assaed S)e%#al Pro*#s#ons:
"1. Ese of ;$n&. The amounts heren approprated sha be used
to wnd up the actvtes and operatons of the CAR, ncudng the
payment of separaton and retrement benefts of a affected
offcas and empoyees."
-|uy 20, 2000: Presdent Estrada ssued E.O. No. 270 extendng the
mpementaton of the wndng up of operatons of the CAR.
I((%E(
1. WON the assaed Speca Provsons n RA 8760 s a rder and as
such s unconsttutona
2. WON the Phppne Government, through Congress, can
unateray amend/repea E.O. No. 220
3. WON the Repubc shoud be ordered to honor ts commtments
as speed out n EO 220.
3ELD
1. NO the assaed Speca Provsons n RA 8760 s not a rder TF t
s consttutona
a. A rder s a provsons whch s aen to or not germane to the
sub|ect of the b n whch t s ncorporated. 2 provsons of the
Consttuton prohbt them: Art VI: Sec 25(2) "No provsons or
enactment sha be embraced n the genera appropratons b
uness t reates specfcay to some partcuar appropraton
theren." and Sec 26(1) "Every b passed by the Congress sha
embrace ony one sub|ect whch sha be embraced n the tte
thereof"
- The rue shoud not be construed so strcty as to te the hands of
Congress: t smpy requres that a the provsons are ether
appropraton tems, or non-appropraton tems whch reate
specfcay to appropraton tems.
- Test: It must be 1) Partcuar - f t reates specfcay to a dstnct
tem of appropraton; 2) Unambguous - when ts appcaton s
apparent on the face of the b and needs no reference to
detas/souces outsde the b; 3) Approprate - when ts sub|ect
does not necessary have to be treated n a separate egsaton.
- The assaed provson does not consttute a rder: t passes the
above test.
atio when a provson s partcuar, unambguous, and
approprate to the appropratons b to whch t beongs, t sha not
be consdered to be a rder
b. Pettoners aege:
- that nstead of provdng a budget for the CAR, t had
the effect of aboshng the CAR
- snce a speca aw created the CAR, the 2000 GAA s
not the pace for amendng or repeang a standng aw.
- However, the CAR was not aboshed. It has ony been
deactvated.
- Abosh - to do away wth, annu, abrogate, destroy competey,
offce ceases to exst;
- Deactvate - render nactve, break up by dschargng or
reassgnng personne, offce contnues to exst, abet dormant.
- But even f the mtaton of the CARs budget had the effect of
aboshng certan offces, the Congress has he power to do so.
- creaton of pubc offces s prmary a egsatve functon
- offce created by the egsature s whoy wthn the power of
that body, and t may abosh the offce f t sees ft.
c. The CAR created through EO 220 s not the autonomous regon
contempated n the Consttuton. EO 220 has not estabshed an
autonomous regona government; rather, t has ony created an
admnstratve regon. It can be consdered a regona coordnatng
agency of the Natona Government.
2, 3: Except for the contenton that the assaed paragraph s a
rder, the rest of the arguments ook nto the wsdom and effcacy
of sad provsons. Potca questons
.till
1. Contenton that Congress cant unateray amend or repea EO
220: Re|ected. There s no such thng as an rrepeaabe aw.
2. Impementaton of EO 220 s an executve prerogatve whe the
sourcng of funds to support CARs actvtes s egsatve. Absent
grave abuse of dscreton, the Court cannot correct the acts of the
Executve or Congress.
&O2O V 3O%(E O' EPE(E!#&#IVE( ELEC#O&L
#I.%!&L
FRANCISCO; |uy 14, 1995
'&C#(
- Petton for revew of the decson of the HRET
- 11 May 1992: Augusto L. Sy|uco, |r. (AS) & |oker P. Arroyo (|A) ran
for congressman for the one dstrct of Makat. Board of canvassers
procams A as wnner. AS fes an eecton protest before HRET,
seekng revson and recountng of baots n 75% of the precncts.
Hs grounds: aeged rreguartes/anomaes n the tabuaton and
entres of votes & massve fraud. |A fes counter-protest
questonng resdence quafcaton of AS; dsmssed by HRET.
- HRET undertakes revson of baots. Serous rreguartes found.
|ustce Gancaycos Report and Recommendaton confrm
rreguartes and anomaes engneered by some HRET offcas and
personne: 0rro+o *otes .ere %ons#stentl+ re&$%e& I .h#le S+3$%o
.as al.a+s %onstantIJ
- Revson competed. Recepton of evdence foowed. |A submts
certfed true copes of the Revson Reports and eecton returns.
AS submts over 200,000 pages of documentary evdence, "mere
photocopes and not certfed or authentcated by comparson wth
the orgna documents or dentfcaton by any wtness.."
- In hs memorandum cum addendum, AS changes hs orgna
posture (revson and recount of baots) to what he cas a "truy
nnovatve and NON-TRADITIONAL process" - the PRECINCT-LEVEL
DOCUMENT-BASED EVIDENCES.
- By reason of the new aegatons and substanta amendments
(whch broaden the scope of hs protest, change hs theory of the
case or ntroduce addtona causes of acton n voaton of Rue 28
Revsed Rues of the Trbuna), HRET ordered hm to show cause
why hs protest shoud not be dsmssed.
- 15 February 1994: by a 6-3 vote (the sx Congressmen-members
as aganst the three |ustces-members), HRET resoved not to
dsmss the protest, to contnue wth the examnaton and
evauaton of the evdence on record, and thereafter to decde the
case on the merts.
- |A moved to dsmss the protest but to no ava. No hearngs were
conducted thereafter.
- 25 |anuary 1995: HRET, by the same 6-3 vote rendered ts now
assaed Decson annung |A's procamaton, & decarng AS as the
duy eected congressman. Sad decson aso refers the case to
COMELEC & the Offce of the speca Prosecutor for approprate
actons.
- Wthout fng MFR, |A fes the present case before SC.
I((%E(
1. WON HRET commtted grave abuse of dscreton n
a. proceedng to decde the protest based on AS "precnct eve
document based anomaes/evdence" theory;
b. renderng |udgment on the knd of evdence before t and the
manner n whch the evdence was procured; &
c. annung eecton resuts n some contested precncts.
2. WON Sy|uco shoud be cted for ndrect contempt
3ELD
1. YES HRET commtted grave abuse of dscreton
a. "he D)re%#n%t le*el &o%$ment /ase& anomal#esCe*#&en%eD theor+
- Ths nnovatve theory broadened the scope of the eecton
protest beyond what AS orgnay sought. Ths s ceary substanta
amendment of the eecton protest expressy proscrbed by Rue 28
of the HRET nterna rues. Improprety of prvate respondent's
beated shft of theory was sensed by ma|orty members of HRET
but they st resoved not to dsmss the protest.t*is a 0lear
in+i0ation o/ grave a6use o/ +is0retion. No further hearngs
were conducted.|A's rig*t to +ue pro0ess was 0learl1
violate+.
- Substanta amendments to the protest maybe aowed ony wthn
the same perod for the fng of the eecton protest
15
whch, under
Rue 16 of the HRET Rues, s ten (10) days after the procamaton
of the wnner. The rue n an eecton protest s that the protestant
or counterprotestant m$st stan& or fall $)on the #ss$es he ha&
ra#se& #n h#s or#g#nal or amen&e& )lea&#ng f#le& )r#or to the la)se of
the stat$tor+ )er#o& for the f#l#ng of )rotest or %o$nter
)rotest. A party s bound by the theory he adopts and by the cause
of acton he stands on and cannot be permtted after havng ost
thereon to repudate hs theory and cause of acton and adopt
another and seek to re-tgate the matter anew ether n the same
forum or on appea. Sprin0iple o/ estoppelT
b. "he =#n& of e*#&en%e $se& an& ho. the+ .ere )ro%$re&
- Photocopes voate the 6est evi+en0e rule: no evdence sha be
receved whch s merey substtutonary n ts nature so ong as the
orgna evdence can be had. Certan vta eecton documents
(such as certfed xerox copy of the number of regstered voters per
precnct and photocopes of statements of votes) were procured at
the soe nstance of the )onente of the ma|orty decson, never
offered n evdence by ether of the partes.
- Ma|orty congressmen-members of the Trbuna by themseves
wthout the partcpaton of any of the three (3) remanng |ustces-
members, decared that 10,484 of the contested sgnature are
fake. Ths grossy voates Rues 68 &5 of HRET Rues (a questons
sha be submtted to the Trbuna as a body; and presence of at
east one (1) |ustce-member s requred to consttute a vad
quorum).
c. N$ll#f#%at#on of ele%t#on res$lts
- HRET proceeded to annu votes wthout a dnt of compance wth
the 2 mandatory requstes for the annument of eecton returns
based on fraud, rreguartes or terrorsm:
. that more than ffty percent (50%) of the tota number of votes
n the precnct or precncts were nvoved, &
. that the votes must be shown to have been affected or vtated
by such fraud, rreguartes or terrorsm.
- Eectons shoud never be hed vod uness they are ceary ega;
t s the duty of the court to sustan an eecton authorzed by aw f
t has been so conducted as to gve a free and far expresson of
the popuar w, and the actua resut thereof s ceary ascertaned.
Absent fraud, mere rreguartes or omssons commtted by
eecton offcas whch do not subvert the expresson of popuar w
cannot countenance the nufcaton of eecton resuts. Coroary,
the msconduct of eecton offcers or rreguartes on ther part w
not |ustfy re|ectng the whoe vote of a precnct (as was done n
ths case) where t does not appear that the resut was affected
thereby, even though the crcumstances may be such as to sub|ect
the offcers to punshment.
MI
These omssons are not decsve
snce actua votng and eecton by regstered voters had taken
pace n the questoned precncts.

- Genera rue: a trbuna renderng a decson must be gven an
opportunty to rectfy ts error through a moton for reconsderaton.
BUT partaty of the ma|orty of the members of the Eectora
Trbuna havng been shown, recourse for a reconsderaton of ts
decson becomes nugatory and an mmedate recourse to ths
Court can be had based on the fundamenta prncpe of due
process. A pror moton for reconsderaton can be dspensed wth f
pettoner's fundamenta rght to due process was voated.
- Persstent and deberate voaton of the Trbuna's own governng
rues and of even the most basc rues of evdence cannot be
|ustfed by smpy nvokng that procedura rues shoud be beray
construed. Rue 80 of the very same nterna rues expressy makes
the Rues of Court, Supreme Court decsons, and Eectora Trbuna
decsons of suppetory appcaton.
- Unwaverng reverence to the rues of evdence as provded by the
Rues of Court and |ursprudence s because they have been tested
through years of experence as the most effectve means of
ferretng out the truth n any |udca controversy. Rues and
unformty of procedure are as essenta to procure truth and
exactness n eectons as n anythng ese.

- Thus, wth the patent nuty of the entre proceedngs before
HRET and ts ma|orty decson n the eecton protest fed by AS,
|oker Arroyos procamaton as the wnnng congressman of the
then one dstrct of Makat s deemed not to have been chaenged
at a.
2. YES Sy|uco shoud be cted for ndrect contempt
- Snce hs statements n hs Addendum whch he prepared wthout
ad of counse appear to serousy undermne the ntegrty of some
members of the Court
- Want of ntenton to undermne the ntegrty of the Court s no
excuse for the anguage empoyed by prvate respondent for t s a
we-known and estabshed rue that derogatory words are to be
taken n the ordnary meanng attached to them by mparta
observers
0ecision WHEREFORE, n vew of the foregong, the petton s
hereby GRANTED, and pubc respondent HRET's ma|orty decson
dated |anuary 25, 1995 s SET ASIDE. Prvate respondent Augusto L.
Sy|uco, |r., havng been found guty of ndrect contempt, s hereby
fned the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to be pad
wthn fve (5) days from recept of ths decson.
.O!DOC V PI!ED&
GRINO-AOUINO; September 26, 1991
'&C#(
- In the oca and congressona eectons hed on May 11, 1987,
Marcano M. Pneda of the Laban ng Demokratkong Ppno (LDP)
and Dr. Emgdo A. Bondoc of the Naconasta Party (NP) were rva
canddates for the poston of Representatve for the Fourth Dstrct
of the provnce of Pampanga.
- On May 19, 1987, Pneda was procamed wnner n the eecton
wth a ead of 3,300 votes. In due tme, Bondoc fed a protest
(HRET Case No. 25) n the House of Representatves Eectora
Trbuna (HRET) whch s composed of (9) members: 3 |ustces of
the Supreme Court and 6 members of the House of Representatves
chosen on the bass of proportona representaton from the
potca partes and the partes or organzatons regstered under
the party-st system represented theren (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987
Consttuton) as foows:
AMEURFINA M. HERRERA Charman
Assocate |ustce, SC
ISAGANI A. CRUZ Member
Assocate |ustce, SC
FLORENTINO P. FELICIANO Member
Assocate |ustce, SC
HONORATO Y. AOUINO Member
Cong, 1st Dst., Benguet, LDP
DAVID A. PONCE DE LEON Member
Cong, 1st Dst., Paawan, LDP
SIMEON E. GARCIA, |R. Member
Cong 2nd Dst., Nueva Ec|a, LDP
|UANITO G. CAMASURA, |R. Member
Cong, 1st Dst., Davao de Sur, LDP
|OSE E. CALINGASAN Member
Cong, 4th Dst., Batangas, LDP
ANTONIO H. CERILLES Member
Cong, 2nd Dst., Zamb de Sur, (GAD, now NP).
- |uy 1989 - Bondoc fed petton
- Oct 1990 - Bondoc won over Pneda by a margn of twenty-three
(23) votes. LDP members n the Trbuna nssted on a
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'0
reapprecaton and recount of the baots cast n some precncts,
deayng the fnazaton of the decson by at east (4) months. The
reexamnaton and re-apprecaton of the baots resuted n
#n%reas#ng Bondoc's ead over Pneda to 107 votes. Cong Camasura
voted wth the SC |ustces and Cong Ceres to procam Bondoc the
wnner of the contest.
- March 4, 1991 - Cong Camasura reveaed to Cong. |ose S.
Co|uangco, |r., LDP Sec Gen that he voted for Bondoc n the fna
tay n the case. Ths reveaton strred a hornets' nest n the LDP
whch went nto a furry of pottng approprate moves to neutraze
the pro-Bondoc ma|orty n the Trbuna.
- March 5, 1991 - 3E# issue+ a !oti0e o/ Promulgation o/
De0ision on "ar0* G5 1FF1 in 3E# Case !o. I5.
- March 13, 1991 - Cong. Co|uangco nformed Cong. Camasura by
etter that on 'e6 I;5 1FF1 LDP *a+ alrea+1 e:pelle+ *im and
Cong Ben|amn Bautsta for havng aegedy heped to organze the
Partdo Ppno of "Dandng" Co|uangco, and for havng nvted LDP
members n Davao de Sur to |on sad potca party. Cong
Co|uangco notfed Speaker Ramon V. Mtra about the ouster of the
two congressmen from the LDP, and asked the HoR, through the
Speaker, to take note of t especay n matters where party
membershp s a prerequste.
- March 14, 1991 - the Charman of the Trbuna, Mme. |us Herrera,
receved a etter dated March 13, 1991, from the Offce of the Sec
Gen of the HoR, nformng the Trbuna that on the bass of the
etter from the LDP, t*e 3o +e0i+e+ to wit*+raw t*e
nomination an+ res0in+ t*e ele0tion o/ Cong Camasura5 $r.
to t*e 3ouse o/ Ele0toral #ri6unal.
- |ustces Herrera, Cruz, and Fecano prompty apprsed the C| and
Assoc |us of the SC of ths "dstressng deveopment' and asked to
be reeved from ther assgnments n the HRET because
promugaton of the decson prevousy schedued for 14 March
1991, s sought to be aborted. The decson reached (5 to 4 vote)
may now be expected to be overturned on a moton for
reconsderaton by the party-tgant whch woud have been
defeated. It was aso sad that:
> Proportona representaton n the Trbuna (Art VI, Sec 17
Const) shoud be amended to provde nstead for a return to the
composton mandated n the 1935 Const: (3) members chosen
by the House or Senate upon nomnaton of the party havng the
argest number of votes and (3) of the party havng the second
argest number of votes: and a |udca component consstng of
three (3) |ustces from the SC
> Suggestons:
+ The Senate Eectora Trbuna coud st as the soe |udge of a
contests reatng to the eecton, returns and quafcatons of
members of the HoR and vce versa. So that there woud be
esser chances of non-|udca eements payng a decsve roe
n the resouton of eecton contests.
+ There shoud aso be a provson n the Consttuton that upon
desgnaton to membershp n the Eectora Trbuna, those so
desgnated shoud dvest themseves of affaton wth ther
respectve potca partes, to nsure ther ndependence and
ob|ectvty. (ke thats possbe)
- Durng HRET open sesson, Trbuna ssued a resouton canceng
the promugaton of the decson n HRET Case No. 25 because the
decson acks the concurrence of the 5 members wthout Cong
Camasura's vote as requred by Sec 24 of the Rues of the Trbuna
and, therefore, cannot be vady promugated.
- March 19, 1991 - SC decned the request of the |ustces to be
reeved of ther membershp n the trbuna and drected them to
do ther dutes. The court even sad that a members of these
bodes are appropratey guded ony by purey ega consderatons
n the decson of the cases before them and that n the
contempaton of the Consttuton the members-egsators, st n
the Trbuna no onger as reps of ther potca partes but as
mparta |udges. The term of offce of every member thereof
shoud be consdered co-extensve wth the correspondng
egsatve term and may not be egay termnated except ony by
death, resgnaton, permanent dsabty, or remova for vad cause,
not ncudng potca dsoyaty.
- March 21, 1991 - petton for %ert#orar#, prohbton and mandamus
was fed by Dr. Bondoc aganst Reps Pneda, Paaco, Camasura, |r.,
or any other rep who may be apponted Vce Rep and HRET prayng
ths Court to:
1. Annu the decson of the HoR of March 13, 1991, 'to wthdraw
the nomnaton and to rescnd the nomnaton of Rep. Camasura,
|r. to HRET
2. Issue a wrt of prohbton restranng whomsoever may be
desgnated n pace of Camasura from assumng and dschargng
functons as a member of the HRET
3. Issue a wrt of mandamus orderng Camasura to mmedatey
reassume and dscharge hs functons as a member of the HRET;
and
4. Grant such other reef as may be |ust and equtabe.
- The Court requred the respondents to comment on the petton
> Cong |uanto G. Camasura, |r. dd not oppose the petton.
> Cong Marcano M. Pneda's pea for the dsmssa of the petton
as the Congress' s the soe authorty that nomnates and eects
from ts members. HRET aegedy has the soe power to remove
any member whenever the rato n the representaton of the
potca partes n the House or Senate s materay changed on
account of death, ncapacty, remo*al or e,)$ls#on from the
)ol#t#%al )art+K that a Trbuna member's term of offce s not co-
extensve wth hs egsatve term, for f a member of the Trbuna
who changes hs party affaton s not removed from the
Trbuna, the consttutona provson mandatng representaton
based on potca affaton woud be competey nufed;

and
that the expuson of Congressman Camasura from the LDP, s
"purey a party affar" of the LDP and the decson to rescnd hs
membershp n the House Eectora Trbuna s the soe
prerogatve of the House-of-Representatve Representatves,
hence, t s a purey potca queston beyond the reach of |udca
revew.
> Cong Magdaeno M. Paaco aeged that the pettoner has no
cause of acton aganst hm because he has not yet been
nomnated by the LDP for membershp n the HRET. Moreover, the
petton faed to mpead the House of Representatves as an
ndspensabe party for t was the House, not the HRET that
wthdrew and rescnded Congressman Camasura's membershp n
the HRET.
> So Gen aso argued that the ncuson of the HRET as a party
respondent s erroneous because the petton states no cause of
acton aganst the Trbuna. The pettoner does not queston any
act or order of the HRET n voaton of hs rghts. What he assas
s the act of the HoR of wthdrawng the nomnaton, and
rescndng the eecton, of Camasura as a member of the HRET.
- Bondoc reped that HRET acknowedged that decson by
canceng the promugaton of ts decson n HRET Case No. 25 to
hs pre|udce. Bondoc aso expaned that Cong Paaco was
mpeaded as one of the respondents because after the HoR had
announced the termnaton of Cong Camasura's membershp n the
HRET severa newspapers reported that the HoR woud nomnate
and eect Paaco to take Camasuras seat n the Trbuna.
I((%E
WON the HoR can nterfere wth the dsposton of an eecton
contest n the HRET through "reorganzng" the representaton n
the trbuna of the ma|orty party

3ELD
- Sec 17 reechoes Sec 11, Artce VI of the 1935 Consttuton,
except the provson on the representaton of the man potca
partes n the trbuna whch s now based on )ro)ort#onal
representaton from a the potca partes, nstead of e4$al
representaton of three members from each of the frst and second
argest potca aggrupatons n the Legsature.
- The use of the word "soe" n both Secton 17 of the 1987
Consttuton and Secton 11 of the 1935 Consttuton underscores
the e,%l$s#*e |ursdcton of the House Eectora Trbuna as |udge of
contests reatng to the eecton, returns and quafcatons of the
members of the House of Representatves (Robes vs. House of
Representatves Eectora Trbuna, G.R. No. 86647, February 5,
1990). The trbuna was created to functon as a non)art#san court.
It s a non-potca body n a sea of potcans.
- To be abe to exercse excusve |ursdcton, the HRET must be
#n&e)en&ent.
The Eectora Commsson, a consttutona organ created for the
specfc purpose of determnng contests reatng to eecton returns
and quafcatons of members of the Natona Assemby ma+ not /e
#nterfere& .#th /+ the 3$&#%#ar+ when and whe actng wthn the
mts of ts authorty, but the Supreme Court has |ursdcton over
the Eectora Commsson for the purpose of determnng the
character, scope and extent of the consttutona grant to the
commsson as soe |udge of a contests reatng to the eecton and
quafcatons of the members of the Natona Assemby. (Angara vs.
Eectora Commsson, 63 Ph. 139.)
T >esol$t#on of the 8o$se of >e)resentat#*es *#olates the
#n&e)en&en%e of the 8>E". Q
The resouton of the HoR s a cear mparment of the consttutona
prerogatve of the House Eectora Trbuna to be the sole 3$&ge of
the eecton contest between Pneda and Bondoc.
T :#slo+alt+ to )art+ #s not a *al#& %a$se for term#nat#on of
mem/ersh#) #n the 8>E". Q
As |udges, the members of the trbuna must be non-partsan. They
must dscharge ther functons wth compete detachment,
mpartaty, and ndependence even ndependence from the
potca party to whch they beong. Hence, "dsoyaty to party"
and "breach of party dscpne," are not vad grounds for the
expuson of a member of the trbuna.
T E,)$ls#on of Congressman Camas$ra *#olates h#s r#ght to se%$r#t+
of ten$re.
Members of the HRET as "soe |udge" of congressona eecton
contests are entted to securty of tenure |ust as members of the
|udcary en|oy securty of tenure under our Consttuton (Sec. 2,
Art. VIII, 1987 Consttuton). Therefore, membershp n the House
Eectora Trbuna may not be termnated except for a |ust cause,
such as, the expraton of the term of offce, hs death, permanent
dsabty, resgnaton from the potca party he represents n the
trbuna, forma affaton wth another potca party, or remova
for other vad cause. A member may not be expeed by the House
of Representatves for "party dsoyaty" short of proof that he has
formay affated wth another potca group. As the records of
ths case fa to show that Congressman Camasura has become a
regstered member of another potca party, hs expuson from the
LDP and from the HRET was not for a vad cause; hence, t voated
hs rght to securty of tenure.
- Snce the expuson of Cong Camasura from the House Eectora
Trbuna by the House of Representatves was not for a awfu and
vad cause, but to un|usty nterfere wth the trbuna's dsposton
of the Bondoc case and to deprve Bondoc of the fruts of the
Trbuna's decson n hs favor, the acton of the House of
Representatves s ceary voatve of the consttutona mandate
(Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Consttuton)
- atio The House Eectora Trbuna, beng an agency ndependent
of the egsature, may not be nterfered wth by the House
0ecision WHEREFORE, the petton for %ert#orar#, prohbton and
mandamus s granted. The decson of the HoR wthdrawng the
nomnaton and rescndng the eecton of Cong |uanto G.
Camasura, |r. as a member of the House Eectora Trbuna s
hereby decared nu and vod a/ #n#t#o for beng voatve of the
Consttuton, and Cong |uanta G. Camasura, |r. s ordered
renstated to hs poston as a member of the HRET. The HRET
Resouton No. 91-0018 dated March 14, 1991, canceng the
promugaton of the decson n HRET Case No. 25 ("Dr. Emgdo
Bondoc vs. Marcano A. Pneda") s aso set asde. Consderng the
unconsconabe deay ncurred n the promugaton of that decson
to the pre|udce of the speedy resouton of eectora cases, the
Court, n the exercse of ts equty |ursdcton, and n the nterest of
|ustce, hereby decares the sad decson DULY PROMULGATED,
effectve upon servce of copes thereof on the partes, to be done
mmedatey by the Trbuna. Costs aganst respondent Marcano A.
Pneda.
Nar*asa, Paras, -#&#n, Me&#al&ea, >egala&o an& :a*#&e, 1r., 11.,
%on%$r.
9$t#erre6, 1r., 1., %on%$rs as %ert#f#e& to /+ the Ch#ef 1$st#%e.
;ernan, C.1., Melen%#o-8errera, Cr$6 an& ;el#%#ano, 11., too= no )art.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P&DILL& D+issentE
-A fundamenta prncpe n our consttutona system s that the
powers of government are dstrbuted among three (3) great
departments. Each separate from, yet coordnate and co-equa wth
the others each one dervng ts authorty drecty from the
fundamenta aw.
- Ths does not extend to the pont that those n authorty n one
department can gnore and treat the acts of those n authorty n
the others, done pursuant to the authorty vested n them, as
nugatory and not bndng n every other department.
- The HoR has the power to nomnate the members of the House
Eectora Trbuna provded that the proportona representaton of
partes s mantaned.
- The power to appont or desgnate a member of the House of
Representatves to be a member of the House Eectora Trbuna
must necessary ncude the power to remove sad member.
- The queston that must be asked n testng the vadty of such
egsatve act s, does the House of Representatves have the
power to do what t has done and not whether the House of
Representatves shoud have done what t has done.
- The |udcary cannot queston a egsatve act done wthn the
consttutona authorty of the egsature The |udca department
has no power to revew even the most arbtrary and unfar acton of
the egsatve department, ta=en #n the e,er%#se of )o.er
%omm#tte& e,%l$s#*el+ to #t /+ the Const#t$t#on. To hod otherwse
woud be to nvadate the prncpe of separaton of powers.

(&"IE!#O D+issentE
- I beeve that the questons as |us Pada rased t - can the Court
annu an act of Congress, revampng ts House Eectora Trbuna?
- s a potca queston and a queston n whch the Court cannot
ntervene.
- The |ursdcton of ths Court ncudes the power to strke down
excesses of any agency of Government, but the Charter dd not
ater or dscard the prncpe of separaton of powers.
- Evdenty, Congressman Camasura's ouster from the Trbuna was
a resut of potca maneuvers wthn the ower house. Ths Court,
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'(
however, s above potcs and |ustces shoud be the ast persons to
get nvoved n the "drty" word of potcs. If they do, they rsk ther
ndependence.
LO4&D& V CO"ELEC
DE CASTRO; |anuary 27, 1983
'&C#(
- |ose Mar Euao Lozada and Romeo Igot fed a petton for
mandamus as a representatve sut
45
to compe the respondent
COMELEC to ca a speca eecton to f up exstng vacances
numberng tweve (12) n the Interm Batasan Pambansa. The
petton s based on Secton 5(2), Artce VIII of the 1973
Consttuton
46
.
- Lozada cams that he s a taxpayer and a bona fde eector of
Cebu Cty and a transent voter of Ouezon Cty, who desres to run
for the poston n the Batasan Pambansa; whe Igot aeges that,
as a taxpayer, he has standng to petton by mandamus the cang
of a speca eecton as mandated by the 1973 Consttuton. As
reason for ther petton, pettoners aege that they are deepy
concerned wth ther dutes as ctzens, and that they fed ths
petton n behaf of a other Fpnos snce sub|ects are of profound
and genera nterest.
I((%E(
1. WON pettoners had standng to fe for petton for
mandamus
2. WON SC has |ursdcton to entertan ths petton
3. WON Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2) n the 1973 Consttuton appes to
the Interm Batasang Pambansa
3ELD
1. pettoners had no standng to fe for petton for mandamus
- As taxpayers, pettoners may not fe the nstant petton, for
nowhere theren s t aeged that tax money s beng egay spent.
45
for and n behaf of those who wsh to partcpate n the eecton rrespectve of party affaton
46
Artce VIII, Sec.5 (2): In case a vacancy arses n the Batasang Pambansa eghteen months or more before a
reguar eecton, the Commsson on Eecton sha ca a speca eecton to be hed wthn sxty (60) days after
the vacancy occurs to eect the Member to serve the unexpred term.
Acton companed of s the nacton of the COMELEC to ca a
speca eecton, and therefore nvoves no expendture of pubc
funds. It s ony when an act companed of, whch may ncude a
egsatve enactment or statute, nvoves the ega expendture of
pubc money that the so-caed taxpayer sut may be aowed.
- As voters, nether have pettoners the requste nterest or
personaty to quafy them to mantan and prosecute the present
petton, for to have ega standng s to have persona and
substanta nterest n the case, or sustan drect n|ury as a resut
of ts enforcement. Interest hed n common by a members of the
pubc s of abstract nature (as s the n|ury that w be sustaned)
and may not be used as standng to sue. Concrete n|ury, whether
actua or threatened, s that ndspensabe eement for one to have
personaty n a dspute.

2. SC has no |ursdcton to entertan ths petton
- The Supreme Court's |ursdcton over the COMELEC s ony to
revew by certorar the atter's decson, orders or rungs. Ths s as
ceary provded n Artce XII-C, Secton II of the 1973
Consttuton
47
. In ths case, there s no such decson, order or
rung. Even from the standpont of an acton for mandamus, wth
the tota absence of a showng that COMELEC has unawfuy
negected or refused the performance of a mnstera duty, t s not
shown that pettoners have a cear rght to the hodng of a speca
eecton whch s equay the cear and mnstera duty of COMELEC.
- Ony the Batasan Pambansa can make the necessary
appropraton for speca eectons, and ths power of the may
nether be sub|ect to mandamus by the courts much ess may
COMELEC compe the Batasan to exercse ts power of
appropraton. From the roe Batasan Pambansa has to pay n the
hodng of speca eectons, whch s to approprate the funds for
the expenses thereof, t woud seem that the ntatve on the
matter must come from sad body, not the COMELEC. The power to
approprate s the soe and excusve prerogatve of the egsatve
4<
Any decson, order or rung of the Commsson may be brought to the Supreme Court on certorar by the
aggreved party wthn thrty days from hs recept of a copy thereof.
body, the exercse of whch may not be compeed through a
petton for mandamus.
4. Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2) n the 1973 Consttuton does not appy to
the Interm Batasang Pambansa
- The cted provson of the 1973 Consttuton s not ntended to
appy to the Interm Batasang Pambansa.
- The strongest reason for ths s the fact that the Interm Batasang
Pambansa was to be composed by the deegates to the
Consttutona Conventon, as we as the then ncumbent Presdent
and Vce-Presdent, and the members or the Senate and House of
Representatves of Congress under the 1935 Consttuton. Wth
such number of representatves representng each congressona
dstrct, or a provnce, not to menton the Senators, there was fet
absoutey no need for fng vacances occurrng n the Interm
Natona Assemby, consderng the uncertanty of the duraton of
ts exstence.
- The provson s ntended to appy to the reguar Batasang
Pambansa, because a provnce or representatve dstrct woud
have ony one representatve n sad body. The need to f up the
Interm Batasang Pambansa s nether mperatve nor urgent, as
there woud aways be adequate representaton for every provnce
whch forms ony part of a certan regon, specay consderng that
the Body s ony transtory n character.
- That the provson s found n the man body of the Consttuton
and not n ncuded n Transtory Provsons adds to the ntenton
that the provson appes ony to the reguar, and not nterm,
Batasang Pambansa.
P&CE#E V (ECE#&2 O' CO""I((IO!
'&C#(
Fezardo S. Pacete aeged that he was apponted by the then
Presdent of the Phppnes on August 31, 1964 as Muncpa |udge
of Pgcawayan, Cotabato. He assumed offce on September 11,
1964 and dscharged hs dutes as such. As hs appontment was
made durng recess of Congress, t was submtted to the
Commsson on Appontments at ts next sesson n 1965.
Appontment was unanmousy confrmed on May 20, 1965 (wth
Senate Presdent and Charman of Commsson on Appontments
Ferdnand Marcos even sendng hm a congratuatory teegram).
Nne months after hs confrmaton, on February 7, 1966, the then
Secretary of |ustce advsed pettoner to vacate hs poston as
muncpa |udge. Pettoner was nformed that on May 21, 1965,
Senator Rodofo Ganzon (a member of the Commsson on
Appontments) wrote to ts Charman statng that he was fng a
moton for reconsderaton of the appontment n vew of
derogatory nformaton whch he had receved.
I((%E(
1. WON the fng of a moton for reconsderaton wth the
Commsson on Appontments (CA), wthout beng acted on,
suffces to set at naught a confrmaton duy made of an a&
#nter#m appontment.
2. WON the ssue s a |ustcabe queston, wth the CA beng an
ndependent organ of the Consttuton.
3ELD
1. As per Atare|os v. Moo, t*e 0on/irmation stan+sP t must
be gven force and effect.
atio Pettoner buttresses hs pea for prohbton on the ground
that the etter of then Senator Ganzon, even on the assumpton
that t was a moton to reconsder an appontment duy confrmed,
was wthout force and effect as t was not approved by the body as
a whoe.
easonin;
a. The controng prncpe s supped by Atare|os v. Moo, whch
nterpreted Rue 21 of the Revsed Rues of the Commsson on
Appontments, whch reads: "Resouton of the Commsson on any
appontment may be reconsdered on moton by a member
presented not more than one (1) day after ther approva. If a
ma|orty of the members present concur to grant a reconsderaton,
the appontment may be ad on the tabe, ths sha be a fna
dsposton of such a moton." 3ol+ing o/ t*e Court was t*at t*e
mere /iling o/ a re0onsi+eration +i+ not *ave t*e e//e0t o/
setting asi+e a 0on/irmation. In the case, Adeguers
(respondent n Atare|os case) theory woud gve to the mere f#l#ng
of a moton for reconsderaton the effect whch t woud have f the
moton a))ro*e&, and hence, woud dspense wth the necessty of
such approva, for whch the concurrence of a ma|orty of the
members present s necessary. Ths s nconsstent wth Rue 21 of
the Revsed Rues of the Commsson.
In 0ase o/ an a+<ournment sine die t*e perio+ /or /iling t*e
motion /or re0onsi+eration *aving e:pire+5 un+er (e0tion
II5 t*en t*e motion /or re0onsi+eration not *aving 6een
a0te+ upon is not approve+ an+ t*ere/ore5 *as no e//e0t
w*atsoever.
What s decsve s that a confrmaton duy made s not nufed
smpy by a moton of reconsderaton beng fed, wthout ts beng
voted upon and approved.
b. "The Presdent sha have the power to make appontments
durng the recess of the Congress, but such appontments sha be
effectve ony unt dsapprova by the CA or unt the next
ad|ournment of Congress."
- A dstncton s made between the exercse of such presdenta
prerogatve requrng confrmaton by the CA when Congress s n
sesson and when t s n recess. In the former, the Presdent
nomnates, and ony upon the consent of the CA may the person
assume offce. As wth a& #nter#m appontments, the appontment
takes effect at once. The appontment s effectve unt dsapprova
by the CA or unt the next ad|ournment n Congress. #*ere must
eit*er 6e a re<e0tion 61 t*e C& or nona0tion on its part.
2. The nsstence of respondent that the queston nvoved s
beyond the |ursdcton of ths Court s untenabe. It woud extend
the boundares of the potca queston doctrne beyond ts
egtmate mts. The courts are caed upon to see to t that prvate
rghts are not nvaded.
- Athough the CA s not a power n our trpartte system of
government, t s to a ntents and purposes, ke the Eectora
Trbunas, when actng wthn the mts of ts authorty, an
ndependent organ. Its actuaton n the exercse of ts power to
approve appontment submtted to t by the Presdent of the
Phppnes s exempt from |udca supervson and nterference,
except on a cear showng of such arbtrary and mprovdent use of
the powers as w consttute a dena of due process.
&VELI!O V C%E!CO
PER CURIAM; March 4, 1949
E(OL%#IO! on Original a0tion in t*e (C
'&C#(
- S$mmar+@ "he Aveno I %ase #ll$strates 3$&#%#al re*#e. of #nternal
affa#rs of the leg#slat$re. "he Co$rt ref$se& to loo= #nto the legal#t+
of the ele%t#on of a Senate Pres#&ent, #n *#e. of the se)arat#on of
)o.ers, the )ol#t#%al nat$re of the %ontro*ers+ an& the SenateGs
%onst#t$t#onal )o.er to ele%t #ts o.n )res#&ent
Before the openng of a mornng sesson of the Senate, Senators
Lorenzo Taada and Prospero Sandad prepared a resouton
enumeratng charges
48
aganst the then Senate Presdent |ose
Aveno. AVELINO presded the sesson and caed the meetng n
order, and except for a senator who was confned n a hospta and
another who s n the Unted States, a the Senators were present.
49
- TANADA sought to be recognzed, but AVELINO and hs foowers
prevented TANADA from deverng hs prvege speech. A
commoton ater ensued, upon whch AVELINO and 9 other senators
eft the sesson ha. Subsequenty, the Senate Presdent Pro-
tempore took the Char and proceeded wth the sesson. The
remanng senators unanmousy approved, among others, a
resouton "decarng vacant the poston of the Presdent of the
Senate and desgnatng. Marano |esus Cuenco Actng Presdent of
48
BRYAN S|: &mong w*i0* were a+vo0a01 o/ t*e gra/t an+ 0orruption in t*e government (parti0ularl1
t*ose 0ommitte+ 61 t*e Li6eral Part15 to w*i0* &VELI!O was a mem6er)P Luestiona6le possession
o/ 0*e09s totaling more t*an P5JJ5JJJ a/ter &VELI!OAs assumption o/ o//i0eP an+ <usti/i0ation o/
ele0toral /rau+.
49
(imilar to t*e 1F;H Const5 t*e (enate is 0ompose+ o/ IG senators un+er t*e 1FM5 Const.
the Senate." The next day the Presdent of the Phppnes
recognzed CUENCO as actng Senate Presdent.
- Hence, the present petton, AVELINO askng the Court to decare
hm the rghtfu Senate Presdent and oust CUENCO.
I((%E
WON SC has |ursdcton over the sub|ect matter
3ELD
NO (6-4 vote)
atio The ssue of the vadty of the eecton of the new Senate
Presdent s a potca queston.
easonin;
- The answer s n the negatve, n vew of the separaton of powers,
the potca nature of the controversy and the consttutona grant
to the Senate of the power to eect ts own presdent, whch power
shoud not be nterfered wth, nor taken over, by the |udcary. Ae
sho$l& a/sta#n #n th#s %ase /e%a$se the sele%t#on of the )res#&#ng
off#%er affe%ts onl+ the Senators themsel*es .ho are at l#/ert+ at
an+ t#me to %hoose the#r off#%ers, %hange or re#nstate them. If the
ma|orty of the Senators want AVELINO to presde, hs remedy es
n the Senate Sesson Ha, not n the Supreme Court.
- The Court w not say nto the egtmate doman of the Senate
on the pea that our refusa to ntercede mght ead nto a crss,
even a revouton. No state of th#ngs has /een )ro*e& that m#ght
%hange the tem)er of the ;#l#)#no )eo)le as )ea%ef$l an& la.-
a/#&#ng %#t#6ens. It s furthermore beeved that the recognton
accorded by the Chef Executve to CUENCO makes t advsabe, to
adopt the hands-off pocy enuncated by ths Court n matters of
smar nature.
0ecision Pet#t#on &#sm#sse&.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
PE'EC#O D+issentE
- "here .as #llegal a&3o$rnment of the morn#ng sess#on. The power
to ad|ourn s one of the excusve prerogatves of a egsatve
chamber. It cannot be exercsed by any snge ndvdua, wthout
usurpaton of the coectve prerogatves. The functons of the
Senate and ts opportunty to transact offca busness cannot be
eft to the dscreton of a snge ndvdua wthout |eopardzng the
hgh purposes for whch a egsatve deberatve body s
estabshed n a democratc soca order.
- There s no provson n the present rues of the Senate whch
expressy or mpedy authorzes an ad|ournment wthout the
consent of the body or one whch authorzes the presdng offcer to
decree mot$ )ro)#o sad ad|ournment, and the sound paramentary
practce and experence n ths country and n the Unted States of
Amerca, upon whch ours s patterned, woud not authorze the
exstence of such a provson.
- AVELINO aeges that he ordered the ad|ournment because the
moton of a senator to sad effect was propery made and met wth
no ob|ecton. The evdence, however, fas to support AVELINOs
cam. The crcumstances ead us to the concuson that ega
ad|ournment and the wak out of AVELINO and hs supporters from
the sesson ha had the purpose of defeatng or, at east, deayng,
acton on the proposed nvestgaton of the charges aganst
AVELINO and of hs mpedng ouster, by the decsve votes of
CUENCO's group.
- "he r$m) sess#on (#.e. the sess#on after the 0VE57N2 gro$)
.al=o$t! ha& no *al#& 4$or$m to transa%t /$s#ness. - The
Consttuton provdes: "A ma|orty of each House sha consttute a
quorum to do busness." |%f Art. VI, Sec. 16 (2), 1987 Const|. The
ma|orty mentoned n the provson cannot be other than the
ma|orty of the actua members of the Senate. The words "each
House" n the above provson refer to the fu membershp of each
chamber of Congress. The Senate s composed of 24 Senators, and
a ma|orty of them cannot be ess than 13. 12 s ony haf of 24.
Nowhere and at no tme has one-haf ever been the ma|orty.
Ma|orty necessary has to be more than one-haf.
'EI& D0on0urE
- 7f the r$m) sess#on .as not a %ont#n$at#on of the morn#ng sess#on,
.as #t *al#&l+ %onst#t$te&U Yes. At the begnnng of the rump
sesson there were at east 14 senators. Aso, n vew of the
absence from the country of one senator, 12 senators consttute a
ma|orty of the Senate of 23 senators. When the Consttuton
decares that a ma|orty of "each House" sha consttute a quorum,
"the House" does not mean "a" the members. There s a dfference
between a ma|orty of "a the members of the House" and a
ma|orty of "the House", the atter requrng ess number than the
frst. Therefore an absoute ma|orty (12) of a the members of the
Senate ess one (23), consttutes consttutona ma|orty of the
Senate for the purpose of a quorum.
E(OL%#IO! on "otion /or e0onsi+eration
'&C#(
- In Aveno II, the Court, n ght of events subsequent to Aveno I
(.e., refusa of the Aveno group to return to the sesson ha
despte the compusory process served upon them), reversed ts
orgna decson and now assumed |ursdcton over the case
I((%E(
1. WON SC w assume |ursdcton over ths case
2. WON eecton of Cuenco as Senate Presdent s vad
3ELD
1. The Court has resoved (7-4 vote) to assume |ursdcton over the
case n the ght of subsequent events whch |ustfy ts nterventon.
2. Party for the reasons stated n the frst resouton of ths Court
and party upon the grounds stated by Fera |and| Perfecto, ||. n
ther separate opnons, to decare that there was a quorum at the
sesson where CUENCO was eected actng Senate Presdent. Chef
|ustce |Moran| agrees wth the resut of the ma|orty's
pronouncement on the quorum, t appearng from the evdence
that any new sesson wth a quorum woud resut n CUENCO's
eecton as Senate Presdent, and that the CUENCO group has been
tryng to satsfy |the consttutona| formasm by ssung
compusory processes aganst senators of the AVELINO group, but
to no ava, because of the atter's persstent efforts to bock a
avenues to consttutona processes. For ths reason, |the Chef
|ustce| beeves that the CUENCO group has done enough to satsfy
the requrements of the Consttuton and that the ma|orty's rung
s n conformty wth substanta |ustce and wth the requrements
of pubc nterest.
0ecision The |udgment of the Court s, therefore, that CUENCO has
been egay eected as Senate Presdent and the petton s
dsmssed.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
'EI& D0on0urE
I mantan my opnon that there was a quorum n the (rump)
sesson. Among others, the amendment of the quorum provson
from "the ma|orty of a the members of the Natona Assemby
consttute a quorum to do busness," nto "a ma|orty of each House
sha consttute a quorum to do busness," shows the ntenton of
the framers of the Consttuton to base the ma|orty, not on the
number fxed or provded for n the Consttuton, but on actua
members or ncumbents, and ths must be mted to actua
members who are not ncapactated to dscharge ther dutes by
reason of death, ncapacty, or absence from the |ursdcton of the
House or for other causes whch make attendance of the member
concerned mpossbe, even through coercve process whch each
House s empowered to ssue to compe ts members to attend the
sesson n order to consttute a quorum.
PE'EC#O D0on0urE
- The words "a the members" used n the orgna, for the
determnaton of the quorum of the Natona Assemby, have been
emnated n the amendment, as regards the Houses of Congress,
because they were a mere surpusage. I, as Member of the Second
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1''
Natona Assemby and n my capacty as Charman of the
Commttee on Thrd Readng, was the one who proposed the
emnaton of sad surpusage, because "ma|orty of each House"
can mean ony the ma|orty of the members thereof, wthout
excudng anyone, that s, of a the members.
The word ma|orty s a mathematca word. It has, as such, a
precse and exact mathematca meanng. A ma|orty means more
than one-haf (1/2). It can never be dentfed wth one-haf (1/2) or
ess than one-haf. The Senate s composed of 24 senators. The
ma|orty of sad senators cannot be ess than thrteen 13. 12 do not
consttute the ma|orty n a group composed of 24 unts. No amount
of menta gymnastcs or |urstc ogodaeday w convnce anyone
that one of two equa numbers consttute a ma|orty part of the two
numbers combned. The 5 fngers of one hand cannot be the
ma|orty of the combned 10 fngers of the two hands. Ma|orty s
ncompatbe wth equaty. It mpes the dea of superorty.
Ma|orty presupposes the exstence of a tota and, n the present
case, the tota number of 24 senators composng the Senate.
- The above pronouncements notwthstandng, we are now ncned
to concude that for the purpose of choosng CUENCO merey as
Actng Senate Presdent, the presence of the 12 senators was
enough quorum. The Consttuton provdes: "A ma|orty of each
House sha consttute a quorum., but a smaer number may
ad|ourn from day to day and may compe the attendance of absent
Members n such manner and under such penates as such House
may provde" |agan, cf Art. VI, Sec. 16 (2), 1987 Const|. The
"smaer number" referred to has to act coectvey and cannot act
as coectve body to perform the functons specfcay vested n t
by the Consttuton uness presded by one among ther number.
The coectve body consttuted by sad "smaer number" has to
take measure to "compe the attendance of absent members," so
as to avod dsrupton n the functons of the respectve egsatve
chamber. Sad "smaer number" may be 12 or even ess than 12
senators to consttute a quorum for the eecton of a temporary or
actng presdent, who w have to act unt normacy s restored.
- At the hearng of ths case, CUENCO manfested that he was
ookng for an opportunty to renounce the poston of Actng
Senate Presdent, and that f AVELINO shoud attend the sessons of
the Senate and nsst on camng the presdency thereof, CUENCO
woud aow AVELINO to presde over the sessons. AVELINOs
refusa to attend the sessons, notwthstandng CUENCOs
commtment to aow hm to presde over them, can and shoud
ogcay be nterpreted as an abandonment whch entas forfeture
of offce.
O("E!& V PE!D&#%!
BENGZON; October 28, 1960
'&C#(
- On |une 23, 1960, Congressman Sergo Osmea, |r., n a prvege
speech devered before the House, made the serous mputatons
of brbery aganst the Presdent. The House of Representatves,
through Resouton No. 59, created a speca commttee of 15
members to nvestgate the truth of the charges aganst the
Presdent. It summoned Osmea to appear before t to
substantate hs charges.
- On |uy 14, 1960, Osmea fed wth the Supreme Court a petton
for "decaratory reef, certorar and prohbton wth premnary
n|uncton" aganst Congressman Sapada Pendatun and the
fourteen other members of the Speca Commttee. He asked that
sad resouton be annued and that sad members of the speca
commttee be en|oned from proceedng n accordance wth t,
partcuary the porton authorzng them to requre hm to
substantate hs charges aganst the Presdent, wth the admonton
that f he faed to do so, he must show cause why the House
shoud not punsh hm. Osmea aeged: (1) the Consttuton gave
hm compete paramentary mmunty, and so, for words spoken n
the House, he ought not to be questoned; (2) that hs speech
consttuted no dsordery behavour for whch he coud be punshed;
and (3) supposng he coud be questoned and dscpned therefor,
the House took up other busness, and Rue XVII, sec. 7 of the Rues
of the House provdes that f other busness has ntervened after
the Member had uttered obnoxous words n debate, he sha not be
hed to answer therefor nor be sub|ect to censure by the House
- Aware of the petton, the speca commttee contnued to perform
ts task, and after gvng Osmena a chance to defend hmsef,
submtted ts report on |uy 18, 1960, fndng sad congressman
guty of serous dsordery behavor. Actng on such report, the
House approved on the same day-before cosng ts sesson-House
Resouton No. 175, decarng hm guty as recommended, and
suspendng hm from offce for ffteen months.
- Thereafter, Osmea took the addtona poston that the House
has no power, under the Consttuton, to suspend one of ts
members.
- On |uy 19, 1960, the respondents fed ther answer, chaenged
the |ursdcton of the Court to entertan the petton, defended the
power of Congress to dscpne ts members wth suspenson,
uphed House Resouton No. .175 and then nvted attenton to the
fact that Congress havng ended ts sesson on |uy 18, 1960, the
Commttee-whose members are the soe respondents-had thereby
ceased to exst.
I((%E(
1. WON the Consttuton gves members of Congress compete
paramentary mmunty for words spoken n the House
2. WON the Speech of Osmea consttuted unruy behavor for
whch he coud be punshed
3. WON Osmea can be hed to answer for or be censured by
the House, gven that other busness had ntervened after gave
the speech n queston
4. WON the House has the power to suspend ts members
3ELD
1. NO. Secton 15, Artce VI of our Consttuton whch provdes that
"for any speech or debate" n Congress, the Senators or Members
of the House of Representatves "sha not be questoned n any
other pace." Ths secton was taken or s a copy of sec. 6, cause I
of Art. 1 of the Consttuton of the Unted States, wheren the
provson has aways been understood to mean that alt&ou;&
e)empt 9rom prosecution or civil actions 9or t&eir :ords
uttered in Con;ress, t&e members o9 Con;ress ma(,
nevert&eless, be Buestioned in Con;ress itsel9.
- Our Consttuton enshrnes paramentary mmunty whch s a
fundamenta prvege chershed n every egsatve assemby of
the democratc word. It guarantees the egsator compete
freedom of expresson wthout fear of beng made responsbe n
crmna or cv actons before the courts or any other forum
outsde of the Congressona Ha. But t does not protect hm from
responsbty before the egsatve body tsef whenever hs words
and conduct are consdered by the atter dsordery or unbecomng
a member thereof.
2. YES. The House s the |udge of what consttutes dsordery
behavor, not ony because the Consttuton has conferred
|ursdcton upon t, but aso because the matter depends many on
factua crcumstances of whch the House knows best but whch can
not be depcted n back and whte for presentaton to, and
ad|udcaton by the Courts. For one thng, f ths Court assumed the
power to determne whether Osmea's conduct consttuted
dsordery behavor, t woud thereby have assumed appeate
|ursdcton, whch the Consttuton never ntended to confer upon a
coordnate branch of the Government. The theory of separaton of
powers fastdousy observed by ths Court, demands n such
stuaton a prudent refusa to nterfere. Each department, t has
been sad, has excusve cognzance of matters wthn ts
|ursdcton and s supreme wthn ts own sphere.
- "The Legsatve power of the Phppne Congress s penary,
sub|ect ony to such mtatons as are found n the Repubc's
Consttuton. So that any power deemed to be egsatve by usage
or tradton, s necessary possessed by the Phppne Congress,
uness the Consttuton provdes otherwse." (Vera vs. Aveno, 77
Ph., 192, 212.)
3. YES. Resouton No. 59 was unanmousy approved by the House,
such approva amounted to a suspenson of the House Rues, whch
accordng to standard paramentary practce may be done by
unanmous consent. Paramentary rues are merey procedura,
and wth ther observance, the courts have no concern. They may
be waved or dsregarded by the egsatve body. Consequenty,
mere faure to conform to paramentary usage w not nvadate
the acton when the requste number of members has agreed to a
partcuar measure."
4. YES. For $n)arl#amentar+ conduct, members of Parament or of
Congress have been, or coud be censured, commtted to prson,
suspended, even expeed by the votes of ther coeagues. The
practce and the tradtona power of egsatve assembes to take,
dscpnary acton aganst ts members, ncudng mprsonment,
suspenson or expuson have been recognzed n the Unted States.
The Rues of Phppne House of Representatves provde that the
paramentary practces of the Congress of the Unted States sha
appy n a suppementary manner to ts proceedngs.
0ecision Petton DISMISSED.
&(#OG& V VILLEG&(
MAKALINTAL; Apr 30, 1974
'&C#(
- Orgna Acton n the SC. Mandamus, n|uncton and/or prohbton
wth premnary mandatory and prohbtory n|uncton
- HB No. 9266 was fed and was passed on the thrd readng
wthout amendments n the House of Representatves (HoR). It was
referred to the Senate Commttee on Provnces and Muncpa
Governments and Ctes headed by Sen. Roxas. Sen. Roxas
suggested a mnor amendment on HB 9266. However, ths
recommendaton was not acted upon by the Senate durng ts
second hearng, and nstead, approved #n toto Sen. Toentnos
substanta amendment on the secton defng the powers and
dutes of the VM.
- After that the Secretary of the Senate sent a etter to the HoR that
HB. No. 9266 had been passed by the Senate wth amendments.
However, the attached amendments were not Sen. Toentnos but
Sen. Roxasamendments. The HoR sgnfed ts approva of HB No.
9266 (wth Roxas amendment) and prnted copes of t whch were
certfed and attested by the Secretary of the HoR, the Speaker of
the HoR, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Senate Presdent.
The Secretary of the House transmtted 4 copes of the b to the
Presdent of the Phppnes, who affxed hs sgnatures by way of
approva - enacted the b nto R.A. No. 4065
50

- The respondent mayor (Vegas) pubcy denounced the RA, then
Sen. Toentno made a press statement that the enroed copy of HB
9266 sgned by the Presdent s not the verson passed by the
Senate snce t dd not contan the amendments he made. The
Senate Presdent then nformed the Presdent that the enroed
copy of the sgned HB 9266 was not the b duy approved by
Congress and that hs sgnature s nvad and had no effect, and
coud not vadate the b whch was not the verson approved by
the Congress. The Presdent then wthdrew hs sgnature on the HB
9266.
- Wth the wthdrawa of sgnatures of the Senate Presdent and the
Presdent of the Phppnes, Vegas ssued crcuars orderng cty
government offcas and operators of busness estabshments to
dsregard the provsons of RA 4065. He kewse ordered the Chef
of Poce to reca the poce offcers assgned to the vce-mayor
presumaby under the sad RA.
- As a reacton, the pettoner vce mayor (Astorga) fed a petton
for "Mandamus, In|uncton and/or Prohbton wth Premnary
Mandatory and Prohbtory In|uncton" to compe respondents to
compy wth the provsons of RA 4065.
- Respondents argued that RA 4056 never became aw snce (1) t
was not the b approved by Congress and (2) entres n the |ourna
of that body and not the enroed b shoud be decsve n the
resouton of the ssue. Snce Mayor Vegas was gong abroad on
an offca trp, Court ssued restranng order for Astorga to not
exercse the powers vested to hm as Actng Mayor under the RA
4065.
I((%E(
1. WON the Court coud resove the ssue regardng the
"enroed b doctrne"
2. WON the attestaton of the presdng offcers of the
Congress approves the b and vadates t nto a aw
50
An Act Defnng the Powers, Rghts and Dutes of the Vce-Mayor of the Cty of Mana, Further Amendng for
the Purpose Secton 10 and 11 of RA No. 409, Otherwse known as the Revsed Charter of the Cty of Mana
3. WON n the absence of the attestaton of the presdng
offcers, the "|ourna entry" n the |ournas of Congress coud
consttute proof of due enactment
4. WON RA 4065 was duy enacted and therefore dd not
become a aw
3ELD
1. atio YES. The enroed copy of the resouton and the
egsatve |ournas are concusve upon the Courts under Secton
313 of Act 190, as amended by Act. No. 2210 as evdence for the
due enactment of a b.
!biter
< compared ths case to the Mabanag v. Lopez Vto where the
Court dened to resove the ssue of WON a resouton of both
Houses of Congress proposng an amendment to the 1935
Consttuton to be appended as an ordnance thereto had been
passed by a "vote for three-fourths of a the members of the
Senate and of the House of Representatves" pursuant to Artce XV
of the Consttuton, sayng that t nvoved a potca queston
(enroed b doctrne) whch s not n the provnce of the |udcary.
- usng |. Bengzons separate opnon n the same case, |. Makanta
sad that the case at bar s |ustcabe snce enroed copy of the
resouton and the egsatve |ournas are concusve upon the
courts based on Secton 313 of Act 190, as amended by Act. No.
2210 as proof of due enactment of provsons of acts.
- bass of the enroed b theory: respect due to coequa and
ndependent departments whch requres the |udca department to
"accept, as havng passed the Congress, a bs authentcated by
t.
2. atio NO. The fna passage of the b ends the awmakng
process and the certfcaton/attestaton of the b s ony a mode
of authentcaton devsed by the Congress whch does not add the
vadty of the b nor cure any defect aready present upon t.
!biter effects of Attestaton of the b: |ust a mode of
authentcaton; sgnfy the Chef Executve that the b beng
presented to hm has been duy approved by Congress and s ready
for hs approva or dsapprova
3. atio YES. If attestaton s absent and s not mandated n
the Consttuton for the vadty of a statute, the courts may resort
to the |ournas and other records of Congress for proof of ts due
enactment.
!biter Attestaton by the presdng offcers s not mandated n the
Consttuton as a proof of due enactment of a b, but requres a
|ourna of the Congress proceedngs |comparson of Consttutons:
1935 const vs 1987 Const: Sec 10(4) = Art VI, sec 26 (2); Sec.
21(2) = Art VI, sec 27(1)|
4. atio NO. Gven that (1) the Court coud resove the ssue
regardng the enroed b doctrne, (2) that the Court coud use
the attestaton of the presdng offcers of Congress and, n the
absence of the atter, the records of the proceedngs of the
Congress entered nto the |ournas of Congress as proof of the
due enactment of RA 4065 snce the aw s deemed enacted after
the passage of the b n the 3
rd
readng and the attestaton of the
presdng offcers |ust serve as a mode of authentcatng the b,
(3) that, upon referrng to the |ourna entres of the proceedngs
of congress, the Court dscovered that substanta and engthy
amendments were ntroduced to the HB but were not
ncorporated n the prnted text whch was sgned by the
Presdent of the Phppnes, and (4) that the Presdent of the
Phppnes and of the Senate aready wthdrew ther sgnatures,
then RA 4065 was not duy enacted and therefore dd not become
a aw.
0ecision RA 4065 was decared not to have been duy enacted and
therefore dd not become aw. TRO made permanent. |8 concur, 2
no part, 1 dd not take part (I dont know the dfference), 1 on eave
= 12 ony|
"&#I!E4 V "O'E
FERNANDO; March 24, 1972
'&C#(
- Pettoners Manue Martnez and Fernando Bautsta, Sr. were
deegates of the 1971 Consttutona Conventon facng crmna
prosecuton
o Martnez was charged wth fasfcaton of a pubc document for
statng under oath n hs certfcate of canddacy for deegate to
the Consttutona Conventon that he was born on |une 20, 1945,
when n truth he was born on |une 20, 1946
o Bautsta was accused of voatng Secton 51 of the Revsed
Eecton Code n that he gave and dstrbuted free of charge, food,
drnks, and cgarettes at two pubc meetngs
- Both wanted the respectve warrants of arrest ssued aganst
them to be quashed, by vrtue of the paramentary mmunty they
en|oy as deegates, traceabe to Secton 15 Artce VI of the
Consttuton as construed together wth Artce 145 of the Revsed
Pena Code
I((%E(
1. WON the pettoners are mmune from arrest
2. WON Secton 15 Artce VI of the Consttuton shoud be
construed together wth Artce 145 of the Revsed Pena Code,
thereby expandng congressona mmunty
3ELD
1. No. Parl#amentar+ #mm$n#t+ &oes not %o*er %r#m#nal arrests.
Under Secton 15 of Repubc Act No. 6132, otherwse known as
the 1971 Consttutona Conventon Act, deegates are entted
to the paramentary mmuntes of a senator or a
representatve.
Artce VI Secton 15 of the Consttuton provdes: "The Senators
and Members of the House of Representatves sha n a cases
except treason, feony, and breach of peace, be prveged from
arrest durng ther attendance at the sessons of the Congress,
and n gong to and returnng from the same; and for any
speech o debate theren, they sha not be questoned n any
other pace."
Immunty from arrest does not cover any prosecuton for
treason, feony and breach of peace
o Treason-evyng war aganst the Repubc and adherng to
enemes and gvng them ad and comfort
o Feony-an act or omsson punshabe by aw
o Breach of peace-covers any offense whether defned by RPC
or any speca statute
Hstory of paramentary mmunty shows that t was never
ntended to exempt members of the Natona Assemby from
crmna arrest
The power or rght of the State to cam prveges s due to the
fact that t has the rght to carry out ts functon wthout
obstace
In Engand, operaton of paramentary prvege excudes a
crmes, appes ony to prosecutons of cv nature
There s a fu recognton of the necessty to have members of
the Congress, and kewse, deegates of the Consttutona
Conventon, entted to the utmost freedom to enabe them to
dscharge responsbtes
However, when t comes to freedom from arrest, t woud
amount to the creaton of a prveged cass f notwthstandng
ther abty for a crmna offense, they woud be mmune
durng ther attendance n Congress and n gong to and
returnng from the same.
A egsator or a deegate can perform hs functons effcenty
and we wthout the need for any transgresson of crmna aw.
If a egsator or deegate s facng crmna prosecuton, he
shoud be treated ke any other ctzen consderng that there s
a strong pubc nterest n seeng to t that a crme shoud not
go unpunshed.
2. No. 0rt#%le 14 of the >e*#se& Penal Co&e #s #no)erat#*e.
Artce 145 penazes a pubc offcer or empoyee who sha,
durng the sesson of Congress, arrest or search any member
thereof, except n case such member has commtted a crme
punshabe under the RPC by a penaty hgher than prson
mayor.
RPC took effect on |anuary 1, 1932, before the enforcement of
the 1935 Consttuton
Art. XVI, Sec, 2 of the 1935 Consttuton states: "A aws of the
Phppne Isands sha contnue n force unt the nauguraton
the Commonweath of the Phppnes; thereafter, such aws
sha reman operatve, uness nconsstent wth ths
Consttuton, unt amended, atered, modfed or repeaed by
the Congress of the Phppnes."
Artce 145 whch accords egsators a generous treatment
exemptng them from arrest even f warranted under the pena
aw, s nconsstent wth the Consttuton, and s consequenty
noperatve.
$I"E!E4 V C&.&!G.&!G
CONCEPCION; August 3, 1966
'&C#(
- Ordnary Cv Acton for the recovery of severa sums of money by
way of damages for the pubcaton of an aegedy beous etter of
defendant Bartoome Cabangbang
- Defendant moved to dsmss upon ground that etter s a
prveged communcaton and not beous snce he was a member
of the House of Representatves and Charman of House Commttee
on Natona Defense
- The etter n queston s an open etter to the Presdent of the
Phppnes dated Nov 14, 1958 whe congress was presumaby not
n sesson.
- Defendant caused the pubcaton of the etter n severa
newpapers.
- The open etter was an expos on aegedy three operatona
pans. The frst pan s sad to be an nsdous pan or a massve
potca bud up of then Sec. of Nat Defense, |esus Vagas, by
propagandzng and gamorzng hm n such a way as to be
prepared to become canddate for Presdent n 1961. (Pan II - A
coup detat;Pan III - A modfcaton of Pan I)
- The etter aso mpcated that the "panners" have under ther
contro the foowng : (1) Co. Ncanor |menez , (2)Lt.Co. |ose
Lukban,(3) Capt. Caros Abert, (4)Co Fde Lamas, (5) Lt. Co |ose
regaa, (6)Ma|. |ose Reyna..."7t #s of %o$rse )oss#/le that the
off#%ers ment#one& a/o*e are $n.#tt#ng tools of the )lan of .h#%h
the+ ma+ ha*e a/sol$tel+ no =no.le&ge.J
- Lower Court dsmssed
- Pettoners appeaed
I((%E(
1. WON the pubcaton s a prveged communcaton
2. (f not) WON t s beous
3ELD
1. NO. The pubcaton n queston s not absoutey prveged. It
was an open etter to the Presdent pubshed by the defendant
when the Congress was not n sesson. And n thus causng t to be
pubshed he was not performng hs offca duty, ether as a
member of Congress or as offcer of any House Commttee.
- The phrase "speech or debate theren" as used n Artce VI, Sec
15 of the 1935 Consttuton refers to utterances made by
congressmen n the performance of ther offca functons, such as
speeches devered, statements made, or votes cast n the has of
Congress whe t s n sesson, as we as bs ntroduced n
Congress whether t s n sesson or not, and other acts performed
by Congressmen, ether n congress or outsde the premses
housng ts offces, n the dscharge of ther dutes as members of
Congress and of Congressona Commttees duy authorzed to
perform ts functon as such, at the tme of the performance of the
acts n queston.
2. NO. The etter n queston s not suffcent to support pantffs
acton for damages. Athough the etter says that pantffs are
under the contro of the panners, the defendant kewse added
that t was possbe that pantffs are unwttng toos of the pan
whch they may have absoutey no knowedge. The statement s
not derogatory to the pantffs, to the pont of enttng them to
recover damages.
PEL&E4 V &%DI#O GE!E&L
CONCEPCION; September 24, 1965
'&C#(
- Durng the perod from September 4 to October 29, 1964 the
Presdent of the Phppnes, purportng to act pursuant to Secton
68 of the Revsed Admnstratve Code, ssued Executve Order Nos.
93 to 121, 124 and 126 to 129; creatng 33 muncpates.
- &C (e0tion 8;
- provdes, among others, that the Presdent may by executve
order defne the boundary of muncpaty, ncrease or dmnsh ts
terrtory provded that the authorzaton of the Congress of the
Ph sha frst be obtaned.
- The pettoner argued that these EOs are nu and vod because of
& IMHJ (e0tion M whch provdes that barros may "not be
created or ther boundares atered nor ther names changed"
except by Acts of Congress or of the correspondng provnca board
"upon petton of a ma|orty of the voters n areas affected" and the
"recommendaton of the counc of the muncpaty n whch the
proposed barro s stuated."
- +rocedure Emmanue Peaez, as Vce Presdent of the
Phppnes and as taxpayer, nsttuted the present cv acton, for a
wrt of prohbton wth premnary n|uncton, aganst the Audtor
Genera, to restran hm, as we as hs representatves and agents,
from passng n audt any expendture of pubc funds n
mpementaton of sad executve orders and/or any dsbursement
by sad muncpates.
- The mayors who were adversey affected by the EOs ntervened n
the case.
- Atty. Enrque Fernando and Emma Ousumbng-Fernando
appeared as amc curae.
I((%E(
1. WON the executve orders are nu and vod upon the ground
that Secton 68 of RAC, whch was the bass of the EOs has been
mpedy repeaed by RA 2730.
2. WON the power of the Presdent to create muncpates under
RAC amount to an undue deegaton of egsatve power.

3ELD
1. Yes. RA 2370s dena of the presdenta authorty to create a
new /arr#o mpes a negaton of the bgger power to create
muncpates, each of whch conssts of severa barros.
2. Yes. The authorty to create muncpa corporatons s
essentay leg#slat#*e n nature. There coud ony be a due
deegaton of egsatve power f the aw s (a) compete n tsef - t
must set forth the pocy to be executed, carred out or
mpemented by the "deegate" - and (b) fx a standard - the mts
of whch the deegate must conform n the performance of hs
functons.
- Sec 28 of RAC does not meet these we setted requrements for
a vad deegaton of the power to fx the detas n the enforcement
of a aw. It does not enuncate any pocy to be carred out or
mpemented by the Presdent. Nether does t gve a standard
suffcenty precse to avod the ev effects of the power the
Presdent.
easonin;
a. adherence to precedent (Schechter Poutry Corp vs. US)
- It was hed here that n Recovery Act there was an undue
deegaton of egsatve power because t suppes no standards for
any trade, ndustry or actvty.
b. Consttutona provson (ncompatbe and nconsstent wth RAC)
- Sec 10 of Art VII of 1935 Consttuton ordans:
"The Presdent sha have 0ontrol of a the executve
departments, bureaus, or offces, exercse genera supervson
over a oca governments as may be provded by L&7. (ta=e
note@ s$%h %ontrol &oes not #n%l$&e the a$thor#t+ e#ther to
a/ol#sh or %reate!
0ecision The Executve Orders are decared nu and vod a/
#n#t#o and the respondent are permanenty restraned from passng
n audt any expendture of pubc funds n mpementaton of sad
Eos or any dsbursement by the muncpates concerned.
&!&%L# V !&4&E!O
OZAETA; |uy 18, 1950
'&C#(
- Ths refers to two and deas entered nto by the Phppne
government as foows:
1. -EEN0V7S"0 ES"0"E
- The Phppne government eased from San |uan de Dos Hospta
for twenty fve years the Buenavsta estate and had an opton to
purchase the same for P 3.0 mon. Ths purchase opton was
exercsed by the then occupaton repubc by tenderng the owner
the sum of P 3.0 mon and, on ts re|ecton, depostng the sad
funds n Court on |une 21, 1944 together wth the accrued rentas
of P 324,000.
- San |uan de Dos on |une 29, 1946 sod ths same property to
Ernest H. Burt, an non-resdent Amercan for P 5,000,000 wth the
nta downpayment of P 10,000 wth the baance payabe under
very favorabe terms. Burt was unabe to compy wth the terms
agreed.
2. "0M-2-2N9 ES"0"E
- On May of 1946, the same Burt purchase from Phppne Trust
Corporaton, the Tambobong estate for P 1.2 mon wth a
downpayment of P 10,000.00 and terms whch are as generuous as
those from San |uan de Dos. There was however no other payment
receved from Burt.
- The Phppne government, through the Rura Progress
Admnstraton, acqured ths same property from ts orgna owner
for the sum of P 750,000 and subsequenty nsttuted a notara
demand upon Burt for the resouton and canceaton of hs
contract of purchase wth Phppne Trust for non payment. The
Court of Frst Instance n ths case ordered the canceaton of
Burts tte and the ssuance of a new one under the name of Rura
Progress Admnstraton.
- For one reason or another, despte the fact the Phppne
government aready owned both the above estate, t agan bought
the same from Burt for a tota consderaton of P 5,000,000 (P 4.5
mon for Buenavsta and P 500,000 for Tambobong). The
government pad ntay P 1,000,000 for Buenavsta and the fu
amount of P 500,000 for the Tambobong estate through two
corporatons actng as Burts attorneys-n-fact. These two were
represented n the trasacton by one and the same person, |ean L.
Arnaut.
- It was aso brought out that the Rura Progress Admnstraton was
headed at that tme by the |ustce secretary who was at the same
tme Charman of the Phppne Natona Bank, the nsttuton that
ent the funds to Rura Progress.
- The transactons resuted nto a pubc outcry whch ed nto the
Phppne Senate adoptng Resouton 8 whch created a speca
commttee to nvestgate the Buenavsta and Tambobong Estates
dea.
- The commttee was tasked, among others, wth determnng:
a. the vadty, honesty, proprety of the purchase
b. the farness of the purchase prce
c. the partes nvoved/responsbe for the dea
- Durng the pubc hearngs of the Commttee, varous wtnesses
were caed. Among them and apparenty the most mportant was
|ean Arnaut, the person who represented Burt n the transactons.
- Durng the sad hearng, Arnaut confrmed recevng the money
from the government and wthdrawng, n cash, P 440,000 whch he
gave to someone on nstructon of Burt. When asked to dentfy the
person he gave the money to, he reped that he dd not know hs
name despte the fact that he met the person on many occasons.
When pressed to answer, he aso sad that answerng the queston
mght ncrmnate hm. Based on ths refusa, the senate approved
a resouton on May 15, 1950 arragnng hm for contempt and
subsequenty found hm guty of the charge. He was commtted to
the custody of the Senate Sergeant at arms unt he reveas the
name of the person he gave the money to. The Senate ad|ourned
three days ater. The work of the Commttee however was
extended va Resouton 16.
- Arnaut fed an orgna acton for the ssuance of a wrt of Habeas
Corpus wth the Supreme Court to obtan hs reease cted the
foowng grounds:
a. the Senate has no power to punsh hm for contempt snce the
requested nformaton s not matera to the ntended egsaton
and hs refusa to answer has not mpeded or obstructed the
egsated process. The Senate has aready approved bs reated
to the transactons.
b. the Senate acks the authorty to commt hm n contempt for a
term beyond ts egsatve sesson.
c. the nformaton sought w be sef-ncrmnatng
- ror to dscussng the ssues, the Supreme Court went nto the
genera prncpes of aw wth regard the power of ether house of
Congress to punsh a person not a member for contempt as ths
case s the frst of ts knd to be tred under the Phppne
consttuton. In so dong, the Supreme Court had to draw from
Amercan precedents n recognton of the fact that the Consttuton
of the Phppnes were patterned after argey Amercan nsttutons
and practces. The dscussons were as foows:
a. There s no expressed provsons n the consttuton whch
grant power to ether House to nvestgate or exact testmones to
exercse egsatve functon. However, ths power of nqury, and
the process to enforce t, s a necessary eement to enabe the
body to wsey and effectvey perform ther respectve egsatve
functons. In the absence of nformaton that t requres, Congress
has no other recourse but to get the same from others who have
them. At tmes, the nformaton requred are not entrey accurate
or compete. Gven ths, Congress has the mped coercve to
obtan such nformaton.
b. The power to compe s mted to nformaton requred n a
matter nto whch Congress has |ursdcton to nqure.
I((%E(
WON the wrt of Habeas Corpus shoud be granted
3ELD
a. The requested nformaton s needed to compy wth the drecton
of the senate as contaned n Resouton Nos. 8 & 16 to secure the
names of the persons responsbe for the transacton. The
materaty of the queston asked n the pubc hearng shoud be
determned by ts drect reaton to the matter beng nqured nto
and not by ts ndrect reaton to any proposed or possbe
egsaton. The ony tme that the Supreme Court may nterfere
wth the Senate s when a pettoner s beng forced to answer
questons whch are not pertnent to the matter nqury. In ths case
and ctng M%9ra#n *s :a$ghert+, Congress woud be guty of a
cear abuse of authorty n the exercse of ts power. As to whether
the nformaton sought to be ected s matera to an proposed
egsaton, the Court coud not say as ths s not wthn ther scope.
- Ctng the case >e@ Cha)man, where the pettoner was |aed for
contempt of the US Senate for refusng to answer questons wth
regard accounts of Senators n hs company, the Supreme Court
hed that the Phppne Senate has the authorty to compe Arnaut
and f he so refuses to gve the nformaton, aso the power fnd hm
n contempt and to mprson hm unt he compes wth sad
requrement.
b. The power of the Senate to commt Arnaut to prson does not
end wth the termnaton of the egsatve sesson. The opnon of
|ustce Macom was cted wth regard the Can&#&o 5o)e6 case
where he opnes that the mprsonment of Lopez termnates when
the House of Representatves ad|ourns. Ctng however the M%9ra#n
case agan, the Court sad that, unke the House of
Representatves whch osses a ts members every four years
(hence ts term s ony four years), the Senate s deemed as a
contnung body whose members are eected for a sx year term
and are so dvded that ony a thrd of the seats become vacant
every two years. Hence, the power of the Senate to hod Arnaut s
a contnung power. The ony caveat of the Supreme Court n ths
case s that f the Senate dsregards the proper mtaton to |a
partes n contempt, the remedy s wth the Court.
c. Arnauts cam to sef ncrmnaton cannot be sustaned ctng
Mason *s ES as a precedent. The Court must be gven the chance
to determne from a the facts and crcumstances whether the
wtness s |ustfed n refusng to answer any queston whch coud
ncrmnate hm. Arnauts testmony was obvousy fase. He
obvousy knew the name of the person he gave the money to. Hs
refusa to testfy truthfuy s punshabe wth contempt.
0ecision Petton s dened
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
#%&(O! D+issentE
- The power of the egsatve body to punsh for contempt s based
on the necessty for ts attanment of the ends. The power s
however not absoute. And ths s precsey where dsagreement
occur.
- |ustce Tuason s of the opnon that the queston beng asked has
no reaton whatsoever to the contempated egsaton. A stated
reason for the nsstence on gettng an answer to the queston as to
who receved the money s supposedy to vndcate or cear the
names of the persons suspected of gettng the money (Antono
Ourno, one of the suspects, s the brother of Presdent Ourno).
The Senate s not the proper forum for such vndcaton. The
Senate nvestgaton seems to have ony one ob|ectve and ths s
to prepare the way for court acton snce they coud not expect the
|ustce department to take the ntatve to nvestgate and
prosecute the responsbe partes as t seems that the Secretary of
the |ustce department had a hand n the transacton. Ths s not
the a duty of the Legsatve department.
- The Commttees report has been submtted to the entre Senate.
And as a matter of fact three bs were passed by the Senate n
connecton wth the nvestgaton. Ths beng the case there s no
need to extract names. The mportance of names s when t comes
to a crmna prosecuton.
- In endng, |ustce Tuason stated that the nvestgaton of the
Senate s commendabe and ega. Hs man ob|ecton es n the
fact that the Senate has overstepped ts authorty and trespassed
on the terrtory of other braches of government "when t
mprsoned a wtness for contumacy on a pont that s unmportant,
useess, mpertnent and rreevant, et aone moot".
LID&(&! V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
SANCHEZ; October 25, 1967
'&C#(
- On |une 18, 1966, the Chef Executve sgned nto aw House B
1247, known as Repubc Act 4790, now n dspute. The body of the
statute, reproduced n haec verba, reads:
SECTION 1. Barros Togag, Madaum, Bayanga, Langkong,
Sarakan, Kat-bo, Dgakapan, Magabo, Tabangao, Tongko,
Coodan, Kabamakawan, Kapatagan, Bongabong, Apang,
Dagowan, Bakks, Bungabung, Losan, Matmos and Magoatung,
n the Muncpates of Butg and Baabagan, Provnce of Lanao
de Sur, are separated from sad muncpates and consttuted
nto a dstnct and ndependent muncpaty of the same provnce
to be known as the Muncpaty of Danaton, Provnce of Lanao
de Sur. The seat of government of the muncpaty sha be n
Togag.
SEC. 2. The frst mayor, vce-mayor and councors of the new
muncpaty sha be eected n the nneteen hundred sxty-seven
genera eectons for oca offcas.
SEC. 3. Ths Act sha take effect upon ts approva.
- It came to ght ater that barros Togag and Madaum |ust
mentoned are wthn the muncpaty of Budon, Provnce of
Cotabato, and that Bayanga, Langkong, Sarakan, Kat-bo,
Dgakapan, Magabo, Tabangao, Tongko, Coodan, and
Kabamakawan are parts and parce of another muncpaty, the
muncpaty of Parang, aso n the Provnce of Cotabato and not of
Lanao de Sur. Bara Ldasan, a resdent and taxpayer of Parang,
Cotabato, prays that Repubc Act 4790 be decared
unconsttutona; and that Comeec's resoutons of August 15, 1967
and September 20, 1967 mpementng the same for eectora
purposes, be nufed.
I((%E(
1. WON the tte of RA 4790 conforms wth the consttutona
requrement that the sub|ect of a b sha be expressed n the tte
NO
2. WON RA 4790 may st be savaged wth reference to the nne
barros n Lanao de Sur NO
3. WON pettoner has ega standng to chaenge the statute YES
3ELD
1. The tte - "An Act Creatng the Muncpaty of Danaton, n the
Provnce of Lanao de Sur" 8 - pro|ects the mpresson that soey
the provnce of Lanao de Sur s affected by the creaton of
Danaton. Not the sghtest ntmaton s there that communtes n
the ad|acent provnce of Cotabato are ncorporated n ths new
Lanao de Sur town. The phrase "n the Provnce of Lanao de Sur,"
read wthout subtety or contorton, makes the tte mseadng,
deceptve. Such tte dd not nform the members of Congress as to
the fu mpact of the aw; t dd not apprse the peope n the towns
of Budon and Parang n Cotabato and n the provnce of Cotabato
tsef that part of ther terrtory s beng taken away from ther
towns and provnce and added to the ad|acent Provnce of Lanao
de Sur; t kept the pubc n the dark as to what towns and
provnces were actuay affected by the b.
2. Where a porton of a statute s rendered unconsttutona and the
remander vad, the parts w be separated, and the consttutona
porton uphed. But when the parts of the statute are so mutuay
dependent and connected, as condtons, consderatons,
nducements, or compensatons for each other, as to warrant a
beef that the egsature ntended them as a whoe, and that f a
coud not be carred nto effect, the egsature woud not pass the
resdue ndependenty, then, f some parts are unconsttutona, a
the provsons whch are thus dependent, condtona, or connected,
must fa wth them. When the foregong b was presented n
Congress, unquestonaby, the totaty of the twenty-one barros -
not nne barros - was n the mnd of the proponent thereof. That
ths s so, s pany evdent by the fact that the b tsef, thereafter
enacted nto aw, states that the seat of the government s n
Togag, whch s a barro n the muncpaty of Budon n Cotabato.
And then the reduced area poses a number of questons, thus:
Coud the observatons as to progressve communty, arge
aggregate popuaton, coectve ncome suffcent to mantan an
ndependent muncpaty, st appy to a motey group of ony nne
barros out of the twenty-one?
3. Pettoner s a quafed voter. He expects to vote n the 1967
eectons Hs rght to vote n hs own barro before t was annexed
to a new town s affected. He may not want, as s the case here, to
vote n a town dfferent from hs actua resdence. He may not
desre to be consdered a part of htherto dfferent communtes
whch are formed nto the new town; he may prefer to reman n
the pace where he s and as t was consttuted, and contnue to
en|oy the rghts and benefts he acqured theren. He may not even
know the canddates of the new town; he may express a ack of
desre to vote for anyone of them; he may fee that hs vote shoud
be cast for the offcas n the town before dsmemberment. Snce
by consttutona drecton the purpose of a b must be shown n ts
tte for the beneft, amongst others, of the communty affected
thereby, 16 t stands to reason to say that when the consttutona
rght to vote on the part of any ctzen of that communty s
affected, he may become a sutor to chaenge the consttutonaty
of the Act as passed by Congress.
"ILLE V "&DO
BARRERA; |uy 31, 1961
'&C#(
- These are dfferent cases taken together as they present ony one
dentca queston
- 1
st
case: Manue Gonzaes fed compant aganst B Mer at the
DoL, camng that he s a drver of Mer and was arbtrary
dsmssed wthout separaton pay
- Mer fed petton for prohbton aganst Hearng Offcer Mardo of
the DoL on ground that HO has no |ursdcton to hear and decde
on the case
- Court rendered decson though that Reorg. Pan 2-A dd not
repea |udcary Act that conferred to CFI orgna |ursdcton to take
cognzance of money cams re voatons of abor standards
- 2
nd
case: Cresenco Estano fed compant at the DoL aganst Chn
Hua Tradng Co., for not beng pad overtme and vacaton eave
pay as a drver n the company
- same crcumstances as 1
st
case, and court ssued permanent
n|uncton aganst hearng the cases by the Hearng Offcer, as
Reorg. Pan 2-A s nu and vod.
- 3
RD
case: Numerana Raganas fed wth CFI a compant aganst
Sen Bee Tradng Company for beng underpad, not beng pad
overtme, wthout sck eave and vacaton eave pay, as a
seamstress
- Sun Bee fed moton to dsmss, and nssted that CFI does not
have |ursdcton as money cams must be fed wth Regona
Offce of DoL under Reorg. Pan 2-A
- 4
th
case: Vcente Romero fed case aganst Sa Seng at the DoL
Sa Leng dd noy\t fe an answer and a decson was rendered n
favor of Romero. But Labor Admnstrator Hernando refused to
ssue the wrt of executon of the ecson as he beeved that Sa
Seng deserved to be heard
they nsst as we that Reorg. Pan s not vady passed as a
statute and unconsttutona
- 5
th
case: Marano Pabare fed at the DoL a compant aganst
Fred Wson and Co., as he was summary dsmssed whout cause,
wthout separaton pay, and wthout suffcent notce.
- They moved to dsmss as t s ony an admnstratve body, wth
no power to ad|udcate money cams
- Certorar, prohbton and n|ucton was fed as we - that Reorg
Pan s nu and vod nsofar as t vest orgna excusve
|ursdcton over money cams
I((%E(
1. WON Reorganzaton Pan 20-A, prepared and submtted under
the authorty of RA 997 as amended by RA 1241, s vad, nsofar as
t confers |ursdcton to the Regona Offces of the Department of
Labor to decde on cams of aborers for wages, overtme and
separaton pay, etc.
2. WON Reorganzaton Pan 20-A was vady passed by Congress
3ELD
1. No t s not vad.
- Whe the Reorganzaton Commsson coud create functons, t
referred merey to admnstratve and not |udca functons such as
decdng on money cams. |udca power rests excusvey on the
|udcary
- Whe egsature may confer admnstratve boards quas-|udca
powers, t must be ncdent to the exercse of admnstratve
dunctons
- Conferment of quas-|udca functons cannot be mped from a
mere grant of power to create f$n%t#ons n connecton wth
reorganzaton of the Executve
2. No t was not vady passed by Congress
- A aw s not passed by mere sence or non-acton of Congress
even f t be stated n Sec 6(a) of RA 997
- It s contrary to we-setted and we-understood paramentary
aw- that two houses are to hod separate sessons for ther
deberatons and the determnaton of the one upon a proposed
aw s to be submtted to the separate determnaton of the other.
#&!&D& V #%VE&
ESCOLIN; Apr 24, 1985
'&C#(
- Petton to revew the decson of the Executve Assstant to the
Presdent.
- Invokng the peopes rght to be nformed on matters of pubc
concern, a rght recognzed n Secton 6, Artce IV of the 1973
consttuton, pettoners seek a wrt of mandamus to compe
respondent pubc offcas to pubsh, and/or cause the pubcaton
n the Offca Gazette, of varous presdenta decrees, etters of
nstructons, genera orders, procamatons, executve orders, etter
of mpementaton and admnstratve orders. The respondents
woud have ths case dsmssed on the ground that pettoners have
no ega personaty to brng ths petton. Pettoners mantan that
snce the sub|ect of the petton concerns a pubc rght and ts
ob|ect s to compe pubc duty, they need not show any specfc
nterest. Respondents further contend that pubcaton n the OG s
not a sne qua non requrement for the effectvty of aws where the
aws themseves provde for ther own effectvty dates.
I((%E
WON pubcaton n the Offca Gazette s an ndspensabe
requrement for the effectvty of the PDs, LOIs, genera orders,
EOs, etc. where aws themseves provde for ther own effectvty
dates
3ELD
Yes. It s the peopes rght to be nformed on matters of pubc
concern & coroary access to offca records, & to documents &
papers pertanng to offca acts, transactons, or decsons, sha be
afforded the ctzens sub|ect to such mtaton as may be provded
by aw (Sec. 6, Art. IV, 1973 Consttuton). Laws, to be vad &
enforceabe, must be pubshed n the OG or otherwse effectvey
promugated. The fact that a PD or LOI states ts date of effectvty
does not precude ther pubcaton n the OG as they consttute
mportant egsatve acts. The pubcaton of presdenta ssuances
"of pubc nature" or "of genera appcabty" s a requrement of
due process. Before a person may be bound by aw, he must frst
be offcay nformed of ts contents.
0ecision Respondents ordered to pubsh n Offca Gazette a
unpubshed presdenta ssuances of genera appcaton, and
uness so pubshed sha have no bndng force and effect.
Important +oint It ustrates how decrees & ssuances ssued by
one man - Marcos - are n fact aws of genera appcaton and
provde for penates. The consttuton afforded Marcos both
executve & egsatve powers.
- The generaty of aw (CC Art. 14) w never work w/o constructve
notce. The rung of ths case provdes that pubcaton consttutes
the necessary constructve notce & s thus the cure for gnorance
as an excuse.
- Ignorance w not even mtgate the crme.
#&!&D& V #%VE&
'&C#(
- In the decson of ths case on Apr 24, 1985, the Court affrmed
the necessty for the pubcaton of some of these decrees,
decarng n the dspostve porton as foows:
"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to pubsh to
the Offca Gazette a unpubshed presdenta ssuances whch
are of genera appcaton, and uness so pubshed, they sha
have no bndng force and effect."
- Ths s a moton for reconsderaton/carfcaton of the frst
decson, specfcay, on the foowng questons:
I((%E(
1. What s meant by "aw of pubc nature" or "genera
appcabty"?
2. Must a dstncton be made between aws of genera appcabty
and aws whch are not?
3. What s meant by "pubcaton"?
4. Where s the pubcaton to be made?
5. When s the pubcaton to be made?
3ELD
1 & 2. The term "aws" shoud refer to a aws and not ony to
those of genera appcaton, for strcty speakng a aws reate to
the peope n genera abet there are some that do not appy to
them drecty. We hod therefore that a statutes, ncudng those of
oca appcaton and prvate aws, sha be pubshed as a condton
for ther effectvty, whch sha begn ffteen days after pubcaton
uness a dfferent effectvty date s fxed by the egsature.
Covered by ths rue are presdenta decrees and executve orders
promugated by the Presdent n the exercse of egsatve powers
whenever the same are vady deegated by the egsature or, at
present, drecty conferred by the Consttuton. Admnstratve rues
and reguatons must aso be pubshed f ther purpose s to
enforce or mpement exstng aw pursuant aso to a vad
deegaton.
3. The pubcaton must be n fu or t s no pubcaton at a snce
ts purpose s to nform the pubc of the contents of the aws. The
mere menton of the number of the presdenta decree, the tte of
such decree, ts whereabouts (e.g., "wth Secretary Tuvera"), the
supposed date of effectvty, and n a mere suppement of the
Offca Gazette cannot satsfy the pubcaton requrement. Ths s
not even substanta compance.
51
4. We have no choce but to pronounce that under Artce 2 of the
Cv Code, the pubcaton of aws must be made n the Offca
Gazette, and not esewhere, as a requrement for ther effectvty
after ffteen days from such pubcaton or after a dfferent perod
provded by the egsature.
5. We aso hod that the pubcaton must be made forthwth, or at
east as soon as possbe, to gve effect to the aw pursuant to the
sad Artce 2. There s that possbty, of course, athough not
suggested by the partes that a aw coud be rendered
unenforceabe by a mere refusa of the executve, for whatever
reason, to cause ts pubcaton as requred. Ths s a matter,
however, that we do not need to examne at ths tme.
L&.&! !G DE"O)&#I)O!G PILIPI!O V CO""I((IO! O!
ELEC#IO!(
TINGA; February 24, 2004
51
Ths was the manner n whch the Genera Appropratons Act for FY 1975, a presdenta decree undenaby of
genera appcabty and nterest, was "pubshed" by the Marcos admnstraton. The evdent purpose was to
wthhod rather than dscose nformaton on ths vta aw.
'&C#(
- LDP together wth other potca partes formed a coaton caed
?oal#s+on ng Nag=a=a#sang P#l#)#no (?NP!
- KNP has chose Fernando Poe as ts Standard Bearer for the
Presdent of the Phs n the May 2004 eectons
- LDP fed wth COMELEC a petton to certfy nomnaton of
canddates for the upcomng eectons
- on Dec. 8, 2003, LDP fed a Manfestaton nformng the COMELEC
a) that ony the Party Charman, Senator Edgardo Angara or hs
authorzed representatve may endorse the certfcate of
canddacy of the partys offca canddates
b) that LDP had paced ts Secretary Genera, Representatve
Agapto Aquno, on "ndefnte forced eave" and Ambassador
Enrque Zadvar was the Actng Sec-Gen
- Rep. Aquno contended that the Party Charman does not have
authorty to mpose dscpnary sanctons on the Sec-Gen and
asked COMELEC to dsregard the Manfestaton
- pendng resouton, a Certfcate of Nomnaton was fed wth
COMELEC, namng Sen. Panfo Lacson as LDPs Standard Bearer for
presdent; the certfcate was sgned by Rep. Aquno
- the COMELEC, notng that the confct was an nterna party
matter and that the perod for fng for the Certfcate of
Nomnaton was about to end, granted the petton for both
Pettoner (Angara) and Oppostor (Aquno) n that t recognzed a
the canddates nomnated by both partes as the offca canddates
of the LDP dentfyng each set of canddates as the "Angara Wng"
and the "Aquno Wng"
- Angara fed the present petton assang the COMELEC
Resouton for havng been ssued wth grave abuse of dscreton
I((%E
WON COMELEC gravey abused ts dscreton when t apped equty
and dvded LDP nto "wngs"
3ELD
YES there was grave abuse of dscreton. The ony ssue to be
resoved by the Commsson was who as between the Charman
and the Secretary Genera had the authorty to sgn the certfcates
of canddacy. To resove the ssue, the COMELEC need ony to refer
to the Party Consttuton. Equty s apped ony f there absence of
aw that can be apped to resove the ssue whch s not the case
here.
- as provded n the 1987 Consttuton the COMELEC has the
authorty to ascertan the dentty of the potca partes and ts
egtmate offcers; consequenty t has the power to sette any
controversy regardng eadershp of the party as an ncdent to ts
power to regster potca partes. Ths matter s mportant n
determnng as to who between Aquno and Angara had the
authorty to certfy LDPs canddates
- Accordng to the Party Consttuton, t s the Charman who has
the power to sgn documents n behaf of the party; the Sec-Gen
has power to sgn documents onl+ .hen a$thor#6e& /+ the
Cha#rman. That Aquno had been gven authorty n the past, as
found by the COMELEC durng the 2001 eectons, t does not
foow that sad authorty s st exstng snce t can be gathered
n Angaras Manfestaton that Aqunos authorty had been
revoked, whch the Charman may do so n hs dscreton as
mped n hs authorty to grant such power
- However, the ack of authorty of Aquno to certfy canddates
does not cance the certfcates he sgned. The canddates named
w ony be treated as ndependent canddates foowng
COMELEC Resouton No. 6453, secton 7
- The COMELEC, by aowng two wngs to nomnate ther own
canddates, confused the eectorate as to whch set of canddates
truy represent the deooges that the LDP represents
- The consttutona pocy towards a free and open party system
envsons a system that sha "evove accordng to the free choce
of the peope" and not one moded by the COMELEC
.ILL&!#E( V CO"ELEC
CALLE|O; |une 15, 2004
'&C#(
- On 12/22/97, Congress enacted RA 8436, authorzng COMELEC to
use an automated eecton system (AES) for the process of votng,
countng of votes and canvassng/consodatng resuts of the
natona and oca eectons for May 11 98. Aso aowed the
acquston of automated countng machnes (ACM) and other
devces to adopt new eectora forms and prntng materas.
However, the faure of the machnes to read baots correcty
deferred mpementaton of modernzaton pan.
- 10/29/02, COMELEC ssued Resouton No. 02-0170, a t*ree-
p*ase mo+erni,ation program for the 2004 eectons.
o Phase 1 P %om)$ter#6e& reg#strat#on an& *al#&at#on
Encountered probems n mpementaton because machne was
revertng to od stng of voters
o Phase 2 P %om)$ter#6e& *ot#ng an& %o$nt#ng
Scrapped because COMELEC had to mantan manua votng and
countng system due to the probems encountered wth
vadaton
o Phase ( P Ele%tron#% transm#ss#on of $noff#%#al res$lts (whch s
chaenged n ths case)
- Despte faure of the frst 2 phases, COMELEC through ts
commssoners st decded to mpement Phase 3
- GMA ssued EO 172 whch aocated P250,000,000 to fund the AES
for the May 10 04 eectons. Aso ssued EO 175, gvng an
addtona P500M budget for the AES pro|ect.
- Senate Presdent Dron had msgvngs about the proposed
eectronc transmsson of resuts because accordng to the
Consttuton (Art VII, Sec 4), Congress has the soe authorty to
canvass votes for Presdent and VP. Impementng Phase 3 woud
be pre-emptve of the authorty of Congress and woud aso ack
consttutona authorty
- Asde from Drons apprehenson, there were budget probems for
mpementaton because the money aocated by GMA had aready
been used for phases 1 and 2. COMELEC, however, st conducted a
fed test of the eectronc transmsson of resuts (phase 3) on
04/27/04 (Separate opnons of COMELEC offcas found on p. 277.
Read |ust n case.)
- COMELEC, 2 weeks before the natona and oca eectons,
approved E(OL%#IO! 8H1I statng the mpementaton of phase
3 and decared that resuts of each cty/muncpaty sha be
eectroncay transmtted n advance to COMELEC, Mana. They
estabshed a Natona Consodaton Center (NCC), Eectronc
Transmsson Centers (ETC) for each cty/muncpaty and a speca
ETC at COMELEC for the absentee voters. (procedure p. 278). Note
that the resuts garnered n the procedure are of unoffca
character.
- Hence, pettoner and pettoners-n-nterventon brought ther
msgvngs to SC.
I((%E(
1. WON pettoners have ocus stand
2. WON COMELEC commtted grave abuse of dscreton amountng
to ack or excess of |ursdcton n ssung RA 6712
3ELD
1. Pettoners cam ther standng as taxpayers and snce the
Resouton obvousy nvoves the expendture of funds, they do
have the requste standng to queston ts vadty. Most of the
pettoners-n-nterventon are aso part of NAMFREL, the ctzens
authorzed arm to conduct an unoffca quck count durng
eectons. Lasty, Dron and De Veneca are heads of Congress, the
soe authorty for canvassng votes for Presdent and VP.
2. The resouton usurps the tabuaton of eecton resuts based on
a copy of the eecton returns the soe and excusve authorty of
Congress to canvass votes for Presdent and VP. COMELECs cam
that t s not prohbted because t s an unoffca vote s
unacceptabe.
- the resouton goes aganst the consttutona provson that no
money sha be pad out of the treasury except n pursuance of an
appropraton made by aw (Sec 29, Art VI). Because the tabuaton
n the resouton s unoffca n character, t s not an appropraton
made by aw. In fact, t may be consdered a feony under Art 217
under the Pena Code (maversaton of pubc funds/property).
- t dsregards exstng aws that any unoffca countng of votes s
done by NAMFREL by usng a copy of the eecton returns. Not even
COMELEC s authorzed to use a copy of eecton returns for
countng.
- COMELEC faed to notfy authorzed representatves of accredted
potca partes and a canddates of the proposed use of
technoogy for the eectons under Sec 52 of the Omnbus Eecton
Code. There are 2 condtons that COMELEC must compy wth
before undertakng technoogy for eectora purposes: take nto
account the stuaton prevang and the funds avaabe, and notfy
authorzed representatves. These condtons gve the affected
peope an opportunty to ob|ect f need be. Detas on p 302-303.
- resouton has no consttutona and statutory bass for COMELEC
to undertake a separate and unoffca tabuaton of resuts. It aso
doesnt make sense that Phase 3 of the program shoud go on
when the frst two phases have been scrapped. They shoud be
taken as a whoe and not ndependent of each other. In the frst
pace, there s a great possbty that the unoffca resuts w dffer
greaty from the offca count so what s the use of spendng a
that money for somethng uncertan, somethng that the NAMFREL
had aways undertaken? It s an unnecessary waste of government
funds and effort.
- COMELEC uses the probem of dagdag-bawas as a reason for the
resouton. Accdg to them, modernzaton of the eecton w
decrease the possbty of dagdag bawas but t doesnt make sense
because dagdag-bawas s a resut of human nterventon. No
matter how modern the technoogy for eectora purposes s, there
w aways be the need for human nterventon so the probem w
not be eradcated.
0ecision PETITION GRANTED. Resouton No. 6712 s NULL AND
VOID.
PLD# V P%.LIC (EVICE CO""I((IO!
MAKALINTAL; August 29, 1975
'&C#(
- September, 1964 - the Pubc Servce Commsson assessed
severa pubc uttes for supposed supervision an+ regulation
/ees for that year
- PLDT (P214,353.60); Mana Eectrc Company - P727,526.00;
Bonao Eectroncs Corporaton - P11,610.40; Phppne Stearn
Navgaton Company - P23.921.60; and Genera Shppng Company
- P33,146.80
- #*e assesse+ /ees were 6ase+ upon t*e value o/ t*e
respe0tive properties or eLuipment pursuant to Secton 40(e)
of the Pubc Servce Act as amended by Repubc Act 3792
- After payng the demanded amounts, the sad corporatons sent
Separate etters to the Commsson, (except the Phppne Steam
Navgaton Company whch fed a forma petton nstead)
reLuesting /or re0onsi+eration o/ t*e assessments ther
ground: under the sad Secton 40(e), su0* assessments s*oul+
6e 6ase+ not on t*e value o/ t*e properties 6ut upon t*e
su6s0ri6e+ an+ pai+ up 0apital sto09s o/ t*e 0orporations.
- 28 September 1966-Pubc Servce Commsson dened request
for reconsderaton. Ther reason:
o the cause Dor of the )ro)ert+ an& e4$#)ment, :&ic&ever is
&i;&erD n secton 40(e) of the Pubc Servce Act as an
aternatve base for supervson fees coectbe, appes to both
stock and non-stock corporatons.
o to use the vaue of property and equpment as an aternatve
base for fxng the rates ony n case of pubc servces not
ssung shares woud resut n unreasonabe dscrmnaton
aganst the atter
o a comma after the words "capta subscrbed or pad" and
another after the words "Capta nvested," mmedatey
precedng the cause "property and equpment, whchever s
hgher," ndcates the ntenton of the egsature to consttute
the atter as an aternatve of both stock and non-stock corp.
I((%E(
1. WON the aw tsef draws a dstncton between pubc uttes
ssung shares and those that do not as the capta nvested s
dffcut to ascertan where no shares have been ssued. Thus, the
vaue of ther property or equpment shoud provde as an
aternatve rate base for ths cass of operators
2. WON reance on the use of comma/punctuaton shoud have
bearng
3. WON there s aeged dsproporton of the tota amount to be
coected as supervsory fees
3ELD
1. NO. No showng of dffcuty n ascertanng actua capta
nvestment of pubc servce operators that do not ssue stocks.
These companes are requred to submt annua reports of fnances
and operatons
2. reance on punctuaton s too rsky a method of statutory
constructon
- the punctuaton of the provson n queston has undergone no
ateraton at a
- the consderanda on punctuaton was merey empoyed to
renforce ts man argument that nothng n the aw |ustfes a
dscrmnatory appcaton of the vaue of the property or
equpment (as aternatve rate base) soey to operators not ssung
shares of capta stock.
3. the very statute ndcates that such fees as are theren fxed
were desgned to rase revenue for the genera expenses of the
Commsson, and were not mted to rembursement of actua
expendtures n supervson.
- we are n accord wth pettoner operators that the Commsson
was n error n coectng the fees n queston on de bass of the
orgna cost of ther property and equpment wthout due
aowance for deprecaton.
0ecision |udgment MODIED n the sense that the supervson fees
payabe under Repubc Act No. 3792 shoud be computed upon
present vaues of propery and equpment n use; the appeaed
resouton of the Pubc Servce Commsson s AFFIRMED
&((OCI&#IO! O' P3ILIPPI!E COCO!%# DE(ICC&#O( V
P3ILIPPI!E COCO!%# &%#3OI#2
MENDOZA; February 10, 1998
'&C#(
- Nov. 5, 1992 APCD brought sut to en|on PCA from ssung permts
to appcants for the estabshment of new desccated coconut
processng pants- ssuance woud voate PCAs Admn. Order
No.02 seres of 1991 as appcants were seekng to operate n
congested areas
- Nov.6 tra court ssued TRO en|onng PCA from ussung censes
- Pendng the case, PCA ssued on March 24, 1993 Resouton
No.018-93 provdng for the wthdrawa of the PCA from a
reguaton of coconut product processng ndustry; regstraton
woud be mted to the montorng of ther voumes of producton
and admn of quaty standards
- PCA then ssued certfcates of regstraton to those wshng to
operate desccated coconut processng pants
I((%E
- Whether or not the PCA can renounce the power to reguate
mpct n the aw creatng t for that s what the resouton n
queston actuay s.
3ELD
- The power gven to the PCA "to formuate and adopt a genera
program of devt for the coconut and other pams o ndustry" s
not a rovng commsson to adopt any program deemed necessary
to promote the devt of the coconut and other pam os ndustry,
but one to be exercsed n the context of the reguatory structure.
easonin;
- PCA was orgnay created by PD232 on |une 30, 1973 to take
over the powers and functons of the Coconut Coordnatng Counc,
the Ph. Coco Admn, and the Ph. Coco Research Insttute
- By PD1468 on |une 11, 1978, t was made an ndependent pubc
corp...charged wth carryng out States pocy to promote the rapd
ntegrated devt and growth of the coco and other pam o ndustry
and to ensure that the coco farmers become drect partcpants and
benefcares through a reguatory scheme set up by aw
- Aug.28, 1982 by EO826 govt temporary prohbted the openng
of new coco processng pants and on Dec.6 phased out some of
the exstng ones--- because of overproducton n the ndustry
resutng, utmatey, n the decne of the export performance of
coco-based products
- Oct.23, 1987 PCA adopted Resouton No.058-87 authorzng
estabshment and operaton of addtona DCN pants because of
ncreased demand n word market
- The above measures were adopted wthn the framework of
reguaton as estabshed by aw "to promote rapd ntegrated devt
and growth of coco and other pam o ndustry and to ensure that
the coco farmers become drect partcpants and benefcares
- the questoned resouton aows not ony ndscrmnate openng
of new pants, but the vrtua dsmantng of the reguatory
nfrastructure
- PD1468 Art.II Revsed Coco Code-the roe of the PCA s to
"formuate and adopt a genera program of devt for the coco and
other pam o ndustry n a ts aspects"
o By mtng the purpose of reg. to merey montorng voumes of
producton and admn. Of quaty standards, PCA n effect
abdcates ts roe and eaves t amost competey to market
forces how the ndustry w deveop
- Consttuton Art.XII
o Sec.6 ...duty of the State to promote dstrbutve |ustce and to
ntervene when the common good so demands
o Sec.19 State sha reguate or prohbt monopoes when pubc
nterest so requres
o Any change n pocy must be made by the egsatve dept of
the govt. The reguatory system has been set up by aw. It s
beyond the power of an admnstratve agency to dsmante t.
0ecision Petton GRANTED; resouton NULL and VOID
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
O"EO D+issentE
- The resouton dereguatng the coco ndustry s a vad exercse of
deegated egsaton. Such resouton s n harmony wth the
ob|ectves sough to be acheved by the aws regardng the coco
ndustry, partcuary "to promote acceerated growth and devt of
the coco ndustry" and "the rapd ntegrated devt and growth of
the coconut ndustry"
- The tme has come for admn poces and reguatons to adapt to
ever-changng busness needs rather than to accommodate
tradtona acts of the egsature
- Trmmng down an admn agencys functons of regstraton s not
an abdcaton of the power to reguate but s reguaton tsef
(&!#I&GO V G%I!GO!&
PANGANIBAN; November 18, 1998
'&C#(
- On |uy 27, 1998, the Senate of the Phppnes convened for the
frst reguar sesson of the eeventh Congress. Eectons for the
offcers of the Senate were hed on the same day wth Fernan and
Tatad nomnated to the poston of Senate Presdent. Fernan was
decared the duy eected Presdent of the Senate. The foowng
were kewse eected: Senator Ope as presdent pro tempore, and
Sen. Dron as ma|orty eader.
- Senator Tatad manfested that he was assumng the poston of
mnorty eader, wth the agreement of Senator Santago. He
expaned that those who had voted for Senator Fernan comprsed
the "ma|orty," whe ony those who had voted for hm, the osng
nomnee, beonged to the "mnorty."
- On |uy 30, 1998, the ma|orty eader nformed the body that he
was n recept of a etter sgned by the seven Lakas-NUCD-UMDP
senators, statng that they had eected Senator Gungona as the
mnorty eader. By vrtue thereof, the Senate Presdent formay
recognzed Senator Gungona as the mnorty eader of the Senate.
- On |uy 31, 1998, Senators Santago and Tatad nsttuted an
orgna petton for quo warranto to seek the ouster of Senator
Gungona as mnorty eader of the Senate and the decaraton of
Senator Tatad as the rghtfu mnorty eader. They aege that
Senator Gungona had been usurpng, unawfuy hodng and
exercsng the poston of Senate mnorty eader, a poston that,
accordng to them, rghtfuy beonged to Senator Tatad.
I((%E(
1. WON the Court have |ursdcton over the petton
2. WON there s an actua voaton of the Consttuton
3. WON Gungona s usurpng, unawfuy hodng and exercsng
the poston of Senate mnorty eader
4. WON Fernan acted wth grave abuse of dscreton n recognzng
Gungona as the mnorty eader
3ELD
1. Yes, the court has |ursdcton. It s we wthn the power and
|ursdcton of the Court to nqure whether ndeed the Senate or ts
offcas commtted a voaton of the Consttuton or gravey abuse
ther dscreton n exercse of ther functons and prerogatves
- The pettoners cam that Secton 16 (1), Artce VI of the
Consttuton, has not been observed n the seecton of the Senate
mnorty eader. They aso nvoke the Court's "expanded" |udca
power "to determne whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton" on the part
of respondents.
- Aveno v. Cuenco tacked the scope of the Court's power of
|udca revew; that s, questons nvovng an nterpretaton or
appcaton of a provson of the Consttuton or the aw, ncudng
the rues of ether house of Congress. Wthn ths scope fas the
|ursdcton of the Court over questons on the vadty of egsatve
or executve acts that are potca n nature, whenever the trbuna
"fnds consttutonay mposed mts on powers or functons
conferred upon potca bodes or prevous consttutons, the 1987
Consttuton s expct n defnng the scope of |udca power. The
present Consttuton now fortfes the authorty of the courts to
determne n an approprate acton the vadty of the acts of the
potca departments. It speaks of |udca prerogatve n terms of
duty, vz.:
- "|udca power ncudes the duty of the court of |ustce to sette
actua controverses nvovng rghts whch are egay demandabe
and enforceabe, and to determne whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of
|ursdcton on the part of any branch or nstrumentaty of the
Government."
2. No, there was no actua voaton of the Consttuton.
- Whe the Consttuton mandates that the Presdent of the Senate
must be eected by a number consttutng more than one haf of a
the members thereof, t does not provde that the members who
w not vote for hm sha pso facto consttute the "mnorty", who
coud thereby eect the mnorty eader. Very, no aw or reguaton
states that the defeated canddate sha automatcay become the
mnorty eader.
- Whe the Consttuton s expct on the manner of eectng a
Senate Presdent and a House Speaker, t s, however, dead sent
on the manner of seectng the other offcers n both chambers of
Congress. A that the Charter says s that "each House sha choose
such other offcers as t may deem necessary." The method of
choosng who w be such other offcers s merey a dervatve of
the exercse of the prerogatve conferred by the consttutona
provson. Therefore, such method must be prescrbed by the
Senate tsef, not by ths Court.
- Congress very has the power and prerogatve to provde for such
offcers as t may deem. And t s certany wthn ts own
|ursdcton and dscreton to prescrbe the parameters for the
exercse of ths prerogatve. Ths Court has no authorty to nterfere
and unateray ntrude nto that excusve ream, wthout runnng
afou of consttutona prncpes that t s bound to protect and
uphod - the very duty that |ustfes the Court's beng.
Consttutona respect and a becomng regard for the soveregn
acts of a coequa branch prevents ths Court from pryng nto the
nterna workngs of the Senate.
3. No, Respondent Gungona was not usurpng, unawfuy hodng
and exercsng the poston of Senate mnorty eader.
- Usurpaton generay refers to unauthorzed arbtrary assumpton
and exercse of power by one wthout coor of tte or who s not
entted by aw. In order for a quo warranto proceedng to be
successfu, the person sung must show that he or she has a cear
rght to the contested offce or to use or exercse the functons of
the offce aegedy usurped or unawfuy hed by the respondent.
In ths case, pettoners dd not present suffcent proof of a cear
and ndubtabe franchse to the offce of the Senate mnorty
eader.
4. No, Respondent Fernan dd not act wth grave abuse of
dscreton n recognzng Respondent Gungona as the mnorty
eader.
- By grave abuse of dscreton s meant such caprcous or
whmsca exercse of |udgment as s equvaent to ack of
|ursdcton. The abuse of dscreton must be patent and gross as to
amount to an evason of postve duty or a vrtua refusa to perform
a duty en|oned by aw, or to act at a n contempaton of aw as
where the power s exercsed n an arbtrary and despotc manner
by reason of passon and hostty.
- Respondent Fernan dd not gravey abuse hs dscreton as Senate
Presdent n recognzng Respondent Gungona as the mnorty
eader.The atter beongs to one of the mnorty partes n the
Senate, the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP. By unanmous resouton of the
members of ths party that he be the mnorty eader, he was
recognzed as such by the Senate Presdent. Such forma
recognton by Respondent Fernan came ony after at east two
Senate sessons and a caucus, wheren both sdes were beray
aowed to artcuate ther standponts.
- Under these crcumstances, we beeve that the Senate Presdent
cannot be accused of "caprcous or whmsca exercse of
|udgment" or of "an arbtrary and despotc manner by reason of
passon or hostty." Where no provson of the Consttuton, the
aws or even the rues of the Senate has been ceary shown to
have been voated, dsregarded or overooked, grave abuse of
dscreton cannot be mputed to Senate offcas for acts done
wthn ther competence and authorty.
$O3! 3&2 PEOPLE( &L#E!&#IVE CO&LI#IO! V LI"
CARPIO-MORALES; October 24, 2003
'&C#(
- +etitioners: |ohn Hay Peopes Aternatve Coaton, Mateo Carno
Foundaton Inc., Center for Aternatve Systems Foundaton, Inc.,
Regna Vctora Benafn represented and |oned by her mother Esa
Benafn, Izabe Luyk represented and |oned by her mother Rebecca
Luyk, Katherne Pe represented and |oned by her mother
Rosemare Pe, Soedad Camo, Aca Pacaso aas "Kevab," Betty
Strasser, Ruby Gron, Ursua Perez aas "Ba-yay," Edberto
Carava, Carmen Caromna, La Yaranon, Dane Mondoc
- espondents: Vctor Lm, Presdent Bases Converson and
Deveopment Authorty; |ohn Hay Poro Pont Deveopment
Corporaton, Cty of Baguo, TUNTEX, ASIAWORLD, DENR
- Petton for prohbton, mandamus and decaratory reef wth
prayer for temporary restranng order (TRO) and/or wrt of
n|uncton assang the consttutonaty of Presi+ential
Pro0lamation !o. GIJ, Seres of 1994, "Creatng and Desgnatng
a Porton of the Area Covered by the Former Camp |ohn Hay as the
|ohn Hay Speca Economc Zone Pursuant to Repubc Act No.
7227"
- & HIIH: An Act Acceeratng the Converson of Mtary
Reservatons nto other Productve Uses, Creatng the Bases
Converson and Deveopment Authorty for ths Purpose, Provdng
Funds therefor and for Other Purposes OR >.ases Conversion
an+ Development &0t o/ 1FFI?
> settng out pocy to acceerate sound and baanced converson
nto aternatve productve uses of former mtary bases under
the 1947 Phppne-Unted States of Amerca Mtary Bases
Agreement, namey Cark and Subc mtary reservatons
ncudng extenson Camp |ohn Hay Staton n Baguo
> created Bases Converson and Deveopment Authorty (BCDA),
Subc Speca Economc (and free port) Zone (Sebuc SEZ)
> granted Subc SEZ ncentves such tax and duty-free
mportatons, exempton of busnesses from oca and natona
taxes
> gave authorty to the Presdent to create through executve
procamaton, sub|ect to the concurrence of the oca government
unts drecty affected, other Speca Economc Zones (SEZ) n
Cark (Pampanga), Waace Ar Staton (La Unon), and Camp |ohn
Hay (Baguo)
- #u; 16, 199C - BCDA entered "o& an+ Es0row &greement
wth TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD, prvate corporatons under aws of
Brtsh Vrgn Isands, n preparng for a |ont venture for
deveopment of Poro Pont n La Unon and Camp |ohn Hay as a
premer tourst destnatons and recreaton centers
- 0ec 16, 199C - BCDA, TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD executed a $oint
Venture &greement (|VA) bndng themseves to put up a |ont
venture company caed .aguio International Development
an+ "anagement Corporation easng areas wthn Camp |ohn
Hay and Poro Pont for toursm and recreaton
.an;;uanian; +an;lun;sod o/ .aguio Cit1As esolutions to
.CD&
> .ept $9, 199C -to excude a the barangays party and totay
ocated wthn Camp |ohn Hay from the reach and coverage of
any pan or program for deveopment
> Jan 19, 199= - abdcaton, waver or qutcam of ts ownershp
over homeots beng occuped by resdents of 9 barangays
surroundng C|H
> Feb $1, 199= - 15-pont concept of the deveopment of C|H
whch ncudes protecton of the envronment, makng of a famy-
orented tourst destnaton, prorty n empoyment of Baguo
resdents, free access to base area, guaranteed partcpaton of
the cty government n the management and operaton of the
camp, excuson of the prevousy mentoned 9 bgys, abty for
oca taxes of busnesses
.CD&-#%!#EB-&(I&7OLD response
> modfed the proposa stressng the need to decare C|H a SEZ
as a condton to ts fu deveopment accordng to RA 7227
- *a( 11, 199= - sanggunan passed resouton askng mayor to
order determnaton of reaty taxes whch may be coected from
rea propertes of C|H checkng f C|H rea propertes exempt from
taxes and economc actvty from oca and natona taxes
- June 199= - sanggunan passed Resouton No. 255 (Seres of
1994) see=#ng and s$))ort#ng sub|ect to ts concurrence, the
ssuance of Pres. Ramos of presdenta procamaton decarng area
of 288.1 hectares of the camp as a SEZ n accordance to RA 7227
- Jul( D, 199= - Ramos ssued Proc No. 420 estabshng a SEZ on
Camp |ohn Hay whch reads
Pursuant to powers vested n me by the aw and the resouton of
concurrence by the Cty Counc of Baguo. create and
desgnate. former Camp |ohn Hay. as |ohn Hay Speca
Economc Zone
Se% 1. Co*erage of 1ohn 8a+ SEV@ 288.1 hectares out of 677
hectares surveyed and verfed by DENR
Se% 2. 9o*ern#ng -o&+@ pursuant to Sec 15 of RA 7227, the Bases
Converson and Deveopment Authorty (BCDA) s estabshed to
govern |HSEZ, a$thor#6e& to &eterm#ne $t#l#6at#on an& &#s)os#t#on
of lan&s sub|ect to prvate rghts and #n %ons$ltat#on an&
%oor&#nat#on .#th the C#t+ 9o*ernment of -ag$#o after
%ons$ltat#on .#th #ts #nha/#tants, and to promugate necessary
poces, rues, and reguatons to govern and reguate the zone
thru the |ohn Hay Poro Pont Deveopment Corporaton (|HPPDC),
the mpementng arm for ts economc deveopment and
optmum utzaton
Se% (. 7n*estment Cl#mate #n 18SEV@ pursuant to Sec 5(m) and
Secton 15 of RA 7227, the |H Poro Pont Deveopment
Corporaton sha mpement necessary poces, rues and
reguatons governng the zone, ncudng #n*estment #n%ent#*es,
n consutaton wth pertnent government departments. The
zone sha have a the appcabe ncentves of the SEZ under Se%
12 of >0 7227 and those appcabe ncentves granted n the
E,)ort Pro%ess#ng Vones, the 2mn#/$s 7n*estment Co&e of 19'7,
the ;ore#gn 7n*estment 0%t of 1991, and ne. #n*estment la.s
that w be enacted.
Se% 4. >ole of :e)artments, -$rea$s, 2ff#%es, 0gen%#es an&
7nstr$mental#t#es@ A heads of departments, etc of the
government are &#re%te& to g#*e f$ll s$))ort to BCDA and/or
mpementng subsdary or |ont venture to factate necessary
approvas to expedte programs.
Se% . 5o%al 0$thor#t+@ The affected oca government unts sha
reta#n /as#% a$tonom+ an& #&ent#t+.
- #pril $D, 199D - petton for prohbton, mandamus and
decaratory reef chaengng Proc. No. 420s consttutonaty or
vadty as we as the egaty of MoA and |VA between BCDA and
TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD
- +etitionerEs #lle;e:
1. Proc. No. 420 grants ta, e,em)t#ons #s #n*al#& an& #llegal as t
s an unconsttutona exercse by the Presdent of a power
granted ony to the Legsature
2. Proc. No. 420 l#m#ts the )o.ers an& #nterferes .#th the
a$tonom+ of the C#t+ of -ag$#o s nvad, ega and
unconsttutona
3. Proc. No. 420 s unconsttutona that t voates the r$le that all
ta,es sho$l& /e $n#form an& e4$#ta/le
4. MoA havng been entered nto ony by &#re%t negot#at#on s
ega
5. terms an& %on&#t#ons of the MoA s ega
6. the conceptua deveopment )lan of res)on&ents not ha*#ng
$n&ergone en*#ronmental #m)a%t assessment s beng egay
consdered wthout a vad envronmenta mpact assessment
- a TRO and/or wrt of premnary n|uncton prayed to en|on
BCDA, |HPPDC and the cty government from mpementng Proc.
No. 420 and TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD from proceedng wth ther
pan respectng C|Hs deveopment pursuant to the |VA
- Pu6li0 respon+ents (.CD&5 $3PPDC5 Cit1 o/ .aguio) &llege
1. ssues are moot an& a%a&em#% because n November 21, 1995
BCDA formay notfed TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD of the revocaton
of the MoA and |VA
2. n mantanng the vadty of Proc. No. 420, extendng to the
|HSEZ economc ncentves to those en|oyed by Subc SEZ
(estabshed n RA 7227), the procamaton merey mpements
the leg#slat#*e #ntent of sad aw to turn the US mtary bases nto
h$/s of /$s#ness a%t#*#t+ or #n*estment
3. &en+#ng Pro%. No. 420 &erogates the lo%al a$tonom+ of -ag$#o
C#t+ or voatve of the equa protecton cause
4. pettoners have no stan&#ng to beng sut even as taxpayers n
the a/sen%e of an a%t$al %ontro*ers+
5. dsregarded herarchy of courts and the doctrne of exhauston
of admnstratve remedes
- Petitioners epl1
1. doctrne of exhauston of admnstratve remedes does not
appy snce they are nvokng the excusve authorty of SC under
Secton 21 of RA 7227 to en|on or restran mpementaton of
pro|ects for converson of the base areas
2. they possess standng to brng petton as taxpayers
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON pettoners voated doctrne of exhauston of
admnstratve remedes
2. WON ssues regardng TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD s moot and
academc
3. WON present petton compes wth the requrements of SCs
exercse of |ursdcton over consttutona ssues
S$/stant#*e
4. WON Proc. No. 420 s consttutona by provdng for natona
and oca tax exempton wthn and grantng other economc
ncentves to the |ohn Hay SEZ
5. WON Proc. No. 420 s consttutona for mtng or nterferng
wth oca autonomy of Baguo Cty
3ELD
1. Athough |udca pocy of SC entas not entertanng decaratory
reef or drect resort to t except when the redress sought cannot
be obtaned n the proper courts, or when exceptona and
compeng crcumstances warrant avament of a remedy wthn
and cang for the exercse of SCs prmary |ursdcton, un+er (e0
I1 o/ & HIIH5 onl1 (C *as t*e power to en<oin
implementation o/ pro<e0ts /or t*e +evelopment o/ t*e
/ormer %( militar1 reservations therefore SC w take
cognzance of ths petton.
easonin;
- Aso SC retans fu dscretonary power to take cognzance of such
petton. Besdes, remandng ths case to the ower courts may
unduy proong ad|udcaton of the ssues
- transformaton of an area n C|H nto a SEZ s not a smpe re-
cassfcaton of an area TF a cruca ssue. Converson nvoves
> foca pont for nvestments by oca and foregn enttes
> ste for vgorous busness actvty spurrng countrys economc
growth
> ke Sub SEZ, turnng nto sef-sustanng, ndustra,
commerca, fnanca and nvestment center
> crtca nks to a host of envronmenta and soca concerns
affectng communtes are ocated and naton n genera
> chaenges n provdng an ecoogcay sustanabe,
envronmentay sound, equtabe transton for cty n C|H
reverson to government property e.g. probem of scarcty of
water suppy n Baguo Cty
2. Revocaton of the agreements wth prvate respondents made
ssues regardng them as moot and academc.
3. Yes, present petton compes wth requrements for |udca
revew.
easonin;
- Requstes of exercse of power of |udca revew
1. e:isten0e o/ an a0tual or an appropriate 0ase
> not con|ectura or antcpatory; defnte and concrete;
partes ptted aganst each other due to ther adverse ega
nterests
> n present case, there s a rea cash of nterests and rghts
between pettoners and respondents arsng from ssuance of
Proc. No. 420 convertng a porton of C|H nto a SEZ where
pettoners nsst Proc. No. 420 has unconsttutona provsons
and the respondents camng otherwse
> P#mentel, 1r. * 0g$#rre@ By the mere enactment of the
questoned aw or the approva of the chaenged act, the
dspute s deemed to have rpened nto a |udca controversy
even wthout an overt act. Indeed, even a snguar voaton
of the Consttuton and/or aw s enough to awaken |udca
duty
I. personal an+ su6stantial interest o/ t*e part1 raising
t*e 0onstitutional Luestion
> RA 7227 requres concurrence of the affected oca
government unts to the creaton of SEZs and ths grant by
aw on LGUs of the rght to concurrence s equvaent to
vestng a ega standng on LGUs (recognton of rea nterests
of communtes n the utzaton of such base areas)
> as INHABITANTS OF BAGUIO, assang Proc No. 420, s
)ersonal and s$/stant#al that they have sustaned or w
sustan &#re%t #n3$r+ as a resut of the government act beng
chaenged; mater#al #nterest for what s at stake n the
enforcement of Proc. No. 420 s the very economc and soca
exstence of the peope of Baguo Cty
> 9ar%#a * -oar& of 7n*estments: resdents of Lmay, Bataan
where SC characterzed ther nterest n the estabshment of
a petrochemca pant n ther pace as a%t$al, real, *#tal an&
legal for t woud affect not ony ther economc fe but even
the ar they breathe
> Pettoners Edberto Carava and La Yaranon were duy
eected councors of Baguo at the tme; dutes ncuded
decdng for and on behaf of ther consttuents on the
queston of concurrence to Proc. No. 420; they opposed Res.
No. 255 whch supported Proc. No. 420
M. plea+e+ in t*e earliest opportunit1
G. 0onstitutional Luestion is t*e lis mota o/ t*e 0ase
- 3 and 4 no queston snce acton fed purposey to brng forth
consttutonaty ssues
4. Uness mted by a provson n the Consttuton, f there s no
express extenson of tax exempton and other economc ncentves
granted by aw, any presdenta procamaton grantng such
extenson through mpcaton s unconsttutona because t
voates Art VI Sec 28(4) whch gves the egsature, not the
executve, the fu power to exempt any person or corporaton or
cass of property from taxaton and ts power to exempt beng as
broad as ts power to tax.
easonin;
- Art VI Sec 28(4): No aw grantng any tax exempton sha be
passed wthout the concurrence of a ma|orty of a the members of
Congress.
- Sec 3 Proc. No. 420: 7n*estment Cl#mate #n 18 SEV@ . the zone
sha have a the appcabe ncentves of the SEZ under Sec 12 of
RA 7227 and those appcabe ncentves granted n the Export
Processng Zones, the Omnbus Investment Code of 1987, the
Foregn Investment Act of 1991 and new nvestment aws that may
be herenafter enacted
> Sec 12 RA 7227: (u6i0 (E4
(b & c) exempton from tarff or custom dutes, natona and
oca taxes of busness enttes
(d) free market and trade of specfed goods or propertes
(f) berazed bankng and fnance
(g) reaxed mmgraton rues for foregn nvestors
- deberatons of Senate confrm excusvty to Subc SEZ of the
tax and nvestment prveges
(dscussng Sec 12 RA 7227)
0ngara@ . we must confne these poces to Subc and
provde that "THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE OF SUBIC SHALL
BE ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
POLICIES". t s very cear that these prncpes and poces
are appcabe ony to Subc as a free port
. so we agreed that we w smpy mt the defnton of
pweors and descrpton of the zone to Subc but that does not
excude the possbty of creatng other economc zones
wthn the baseands
. the provson now w be confned ony to Subc
> RA 7916: The Speca Economc Zone Act of 1995
- prvege of export processng zone-based busnesses of
mportng capta equpment and raw materas free from taxes,
dutes and other restrctons
> Omnbus Investment Code of 1987
- tax and duty exemptons, tax hoday, tax credt, and other
ncentves
> RA 7042: Foregn Investments Act of 1991
- appcabty to the sub|ect zone of rues governng foregn
nvestments n the Phppnes
- It s cear that under Sec 12 RA 7227 ONLY the SUBIC SEZ whch
was granted by Congress wth tax exempton, nvestment
ncentves and the ke and no express extenson of the aforesad
benefts to other SEZs st to be created at the tme va presdenta
procamaton ; aso grant of prveges to |H SEZ fnds no support n
the other aws specfed under Sec 3 Proc. No. 420 whch are
aready extant before the ssuance of the procamaton or the
enactment of RA 7227
- SC can vod an act or pocy of the potca departments of the
govt on two grounds - nfrngement of the Consttuton or grave
abuse of dscreton - and ceary, Proc. No. 420 nfrnges upon the
Consttuton
5. NO because when the aw merey emphaszes or reterates the
statutory roe or functons s has been granted.
easonin;
- under RA 7227, BCDA s entrusted wth the foowng
(a) to o.n, hol& an&Cor a&m#n#ster the mtary reservatons of |ohn
Hay Ar Staton, Waace Ar Staton, ODonne Transmtter
Staton. whch may be transferred to t by the Presdent
- such broad rghts of ownershp and admnstraton vested n BCDA
over C|H, BCDA vrtuay has contro over t sub|ect to certan
mtatons of aw
0ecision Sec 3 of Proc. NO.420 s nu and vod and decared no
ega force and effect. Proc. No. 420, wthout the nvadated
porton, remans vad and effectve
("&# CO""%!IC&#IO!(5 I!C V !&#IO!&L
#ELECO""%!IC&#IO!( CO""I((IO!
YNARES-SANTIAGO; August 12, 2003
'&C#(
- |une 16, 2000 - !#C5 pursuant to its rule<ma@in; and
re;ulator( po:ers5 issue+ "emoran+um Cir0ular ("C) !o.
1M-8-IJJJ. It promugated rues and reguatons on the /#ll#ng of
tele%omm$n#%at#ons ser*#%es:
1. Bng statements sha be receved by the servce subscrber
(SS) not later than (0 &a+s from the en& of ea%h /#ll#ng %+%le. In
case t s receved beyond 30 days, SS sha have a grace perod
wthn whch to pay the b. Durng such perod, SS sha not be
dsconnected from servce by the pubc teecommuncatons
entty (PTE).
2. There sha be no %harge for %alls that are &#*erte& to a *o#%e
ma#l/o,, voce prompt, recorded message or smar facty
excudng the customers own equpment.
3. P"Es shall *er#f+ #&ent#f#%at#on an& a&&ress of ea%h )$r%haser
of )re)a#& S7M %ar&s. Prepad ca cards and SIM cards sha be
*al#& for at least 2 +ears from the date of frst use. Hoders of
prepad SIM cards sha be gven 45 days from the date t s fuy
consumed but not beyond 2yrs 45 days from date of frst use to
repensh SIM card. The *al#&#t+ of an #n*al#& S7M %ar& shall /e
#nstalle& $)on re4$est of the SS at no a&&tl %harge except the
presentaton of a vad prepad ca card.
4. SS sha be $)&ate& of the rema#n#ng *al$e of the#r %ar&s
before the start of every ca usng the cards.
5. The unt of bng for (Ceuar Mobe Teephone) CMT servce
whether postpad or prepad sha be re&$%e& from 1m#nC)$lse
to 6se%C)$lse. The authorzed rates per mnute sha be dvded
by 10.
- The MC provded that t sha ta9e e//e0t 15 +a1s a/ter its
pu6li0ation n a newspaper of genera crcuaton and three
certfed copes furnshed at the UP Law Center.
- |une 22, 2000 - MC was pubshed n the Phppne Star; MC
provsons regardng sae and use of prepad cards & unt of bng
took effect 90 days from effectvty of MC
- August 30, 2000 - !#C issue+ a "emoran+um to all C"#
servi0e operators ((O) w*i0* 0ontaine+ measures to
minimi,e in0i+en0e o/ stealing o/ 0ell p*one units. It drected
CMT SO to:
1. Strcty compy wth MC re4$#r#ng the )resentat#on an&
*er#f#%at#on of the dentty and addresses of prepad SIM card
customers
2. Requre a respectve )re)a#& S7M %ar& &ealers to compy wth
MC
3. :en+ a%%e)tan%e to the net.or=s those %$stomers $s#ng stolen
%ell )hone $n#ts or ce phone unts regstered to somebody ese
when propery nformed of a nformaton reatve to the stoen
ce phone unts
4. Share all ne%essar+ #nfo of stoen ce phone unts to a other
CMT SO n order to prevent ther use
5. >e4$#re all e,#st#ng )re)a#& S7M %ar& %$stomers to reg#ster and
present vad dentfcaton cards.
- October 6, 2000 - !#C issue+ anot*er "emoran+um
a++resse+ to all P#Es5 w*i0* was >/or stri0t 0omplian0e.?
1. A prepad cards and a SIM packs used by subscrbers of
prepad cards sod on Oct. 7, 2000 and beyond sha be vad for
at east 2 years from date of frst use.
2. The bng unt sha be on a 6sec puse effectve October 7,
2000.
< +rocedure
October 20, 2000 - I(L&CO" an+ PIL#EL /ile+ against t*e
!#C an a0tion /or De0laration o/ !ullit1 o/ "C (t*e .illing
Cir0ular) an+ o/ t*e O0t. 8 "emoran+um, wth prayer for
n|uncton and TRO n the RTC-OC on the grounds that-
a. NTC has no |ursdcton to reguate the sae of consumer
goods snce such |ursdcton beongs to the DTI under the
Consumer Act of the Phs
b. MC s oppressve and voatve of the Due Process Cause
(deprvaton of property)
c. MC w resut n the mparment of the vabty of prepad
servce by unduy proongng the expraton of prepad SIM
and ca cards
d. Requrements of dentfcaton of prepad card buyers and
ca baance announcement are unreasonabe
GLOBE and SMART fed a |ont Moton to Admt Compant-n-
Interventon
October 27, 2000 - #C issue+ #O en<oining !#C /rom
implementing "C
November 20, 2000 - RTC dened NTCs moton to dsmss for ack
of mert. In|uncton s granted, pendng fnaty of the decson of
the case.
October 9, 2001 - C& grante+ !#CAs petition /or 0ertiorari
an+ pro*i6ition.
|anuary 10, 2002 - Motons for Reconsderaton were dened by
CA
I((%E(
1. WON the Regona Tra Court has |ursdcton to hear ths case
2. WON the Doctrne on Exhauston of Admnstratve Remedes s
appcabe
3ELD
!biter Admnstratve agences possess quas-egsatve or rue-
makng powers and quas-|udca or admnstratve ad|udcatory
powers.
@uasi-legislative power s the power to make rues and
reguatons, whch shoud be wthn the scope of the statutory
authorty granted by the egsature to such admnstratve
agency. The reguatons must be germane to the purposes of
the aw, and not n contradcton to the standards prescrbed by
aw.
@uasi-<u+i0ial power s exercsed by an admnstratve agency
when t performs n a |udca manner an act whch s essentay
of an executve nature, where the power to act n such a
manner s ncdenta to or reasonaby necessary for the
performance of the admnstratve duty entrusted to t.
1. Yes.
atio In cases assang the vadty of a rue or reguaton ssued
by an admnstratve agency n the performance of ts OUASI-
LEGISLATIVE functon, the reguar courts have |ursdcton. The
power of |UDICIAL REVIEW s vested n the courts by the
Consttuton. The Doctrne of Prmary |ursdcton s onl+ appcabe
when the admnstratve agency s exercsng ts OUASI-|UDICIAL
functon.
- &rt.VIII (e0.1 1F;H Consti- |udca power ncudes the duty of
the courts of |ustce to determne whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of dscreton on the part of any branch or
nstrumentaty of the govt.
- Do0trine o/ Primar1 $uris+i0tion- The courts w not determne
a controversy nvovng a queston whch s wthn the |ursdcton of
the admnstratve trbuna pror to the resouton of that queston
by the admnstratve trbuna, where the queston demands the
exercse of sound admnstratve dscreton requrng the speca
knowedge, experence and servces of the admn. trbuna to
determne technca matters of fact.
2. No.
atio In questonng the vadty or consttutonaty of a rue
ssued by an admnstratve agency, n exercse of ts OUASI-
LEGISLATIVE powers, a party need not exhaust admnstratve
remedes before gong to court. Ony |udca revew of decsons of
admnstratve agences made n the exercse of ther quas-|udca
functon s sub|ect to the exhauston doctrne (Assoc. of Ph.
Coconut Desccators v. PHILCOA).
- Even f the Doctrne on Exhauston of Admnstratve Remedes s
appcabe, records show that pettoners have comped wth such
requrement:
- Durng deberaton stages of MC, pettoners regstered ther
protests and submtted proposed schemes for the Bng Crcuar.
- After ssuance of MC, pettoners wrote successve etters askng
for the suspenson and reconsderaton of the MC.
- Such etters were not acted upon and nstead, NTC ssued
10/06/00 Memorandum. Ths was taken by pettoners as a cear
dena of ther requests.
0ecision Consodated pettons are GRANTED. The decson of CA
and ts Resouton are reversed. The case s REMANDED to the RTC-
OC for contnuaton of the proceedngs.
#/ 2II: ,1,C5/I2,
GO!4&LE( V "&CO(
(SEE DIGEST UNDER DOMINIUM AND IMPERIUM)
"&CO( V "&!GL&P%(
CORTES; September 15, 1989
'&C#(
Mr. Marcos and the mmedate members of hs famy fed a
petton for mandamus and prohbton askng the court to order the
respondents to ssue trave documents to them and to en|on the
mpementaton of the Presdents decson to bar ther return to the
Phppnes. Pettoners state that the rght of the Marcoses to return
to the Phppnes s guaranteed under Sectons 1 and 6 of the B of
Rghts, argung that before the rght to trave may be mpared by
any authorty/agency of the government, there must be egsaton
to that effect. They aso nvoke generay accepted prncpes of
nternatona aw: (1) Art. 13, par. 2 of the Unversa Decaraton of
Human Rghts, whch provdes that everyone has the rght to eave
any country, ncudng hs own, and to ret$rn to h#s o.n %o$ntr+,
and (2) Art. 12, par. 2 of the Internatona Covenant on Cv and
Potca Rghts, whch states that "no one sha be arbtrary
deprved of the rght to enter hs own country." Respondents
contend that the ssue of whether the two rghts camed by the
Marcoses code wth the more prmorda and transcendenta rght
of the state to securty and safety of ts natonas nvoves a
potca queston and s non-|ustcabe. In support thereof, they cte
Sectons 4 and 5 of the Consttuton. They aso pont out that the
decson to bar Marcos and famy from returnng to the Phppnes
for reasons of natona securty and pubc safety has nternatona
precedents.
I((%E(
1. WON the Presdent has the power under the Consttuton to bar
the Marcoses from returnng to the Phppnes.
2. WON the Presdent acted arbtrary or wth grave abuse of
dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton when she
determned that the return of the Marcoses to the Phppnes poses
a serous threat to natona nterest and wefare and decded to bar
ther return.
3ELD
1. Yes. Athough the 1987 Consttuton mposes mtatons on the
exercse of s)e%#f#% powers of the Presdent, t mantans ntact
what s tradtonay consdered as wthn the scope of "executve
power." Coroary, the powers of the Presdent cannot be sad to
be mted ony to the specfc powers enumerated n the
Consttuton. In other words, executve power s more than the sum
of the specfc powers so enumerated.
- The request/demand of the Marcoses to be aowed to return to
the Phppnes cannot be consdered n ght soey of the
consttutona provson guaranteeng berty of abode and the rght
to trave, sub|ect to certan exceptons, or of case aw whch ceary
never contempated stuatons even remotey smar to the present
one. It must be treated as a matter that s appropratey addressed
to those resdua unstated powers of the Presdent whch are
mpct and correatve to the paramount duty resdng n that
offce to safeguard and protect genera wefare.
2. No. The Presdent dd not act arbtrary and caprcousy and
whmscay n determnng that the return of the Marcoses poses a
serous threat to the natona nterest and wefare and n prohbtng
ther return. The documented hstory of the efforts of the Marcoses
and ther foowers to destabze the country and the precarous
state of the economy were the factua bases for the Presdent to
concude that the return of the Marcoses durng that tme woud
ony exacerbate and ntensfy the voence drected aganst the
State and nstgate more chaos. The State, actng through the
Government, s not precuded from takng preemptve acton
aganst threats to ts exstence f, though st nascent, they are
perceved as apt to become serous and drect. The preservaton of
the State - the fruton of the peopes soveregnty - s an obgaton
n the hghest order. The Presdent, sworn to preserve and defend
the Consttuton and to see the fathfu executon of the aws,
cannot shrk from that responsbty.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
'E!&! D0on0urE
Hstory and tme-honored prncpes of consttutona aw have
conceded to the Executve Branch certan powers n tmes of crss
or grave and mperatve natona emergency. Many terms are
apped to these powers: "resdua," "nherent," "mora," "mped,"
"aggregate," "emergency." Whatever they may be caed, the fact
s that these powers exst, as they must f the governance functon
of the Executve Branch s to be carred out effectvey and
effcenty.
G%#IEE4 D+issentE
The berty of abode and of changng the same wthn the mts
prescrbed by aw may be mpared ony upon awfu order of the
court, not of an executve offcer, not even the Presdent. I do not
thnk that we shoud dfferentate the rght to return home from the
rght to go abroad or to move around n the Phppnes. If at a, the
rght to come home must be more )referre& than any other aspect
of the rght to trave.
C%4 D+issentE
Marcos s entted to the same rght to trave and berty of abode
that Aquno then nvoked.
P&&( D+issentE
The former Presdent, as a Fpno ctzen, has the rght to return to
hs own country, except ony f prevented by the demands of
natona safety and natona securty.
P&DILL& D+issentE
Wth or wthout restrctng egsaton, the rght to trave may be
mpared or restrcted n the nterest of natona securty, pubc
safety, and pubc heath. Power of the state to restrct the rght to
trave fnds abundant support n poce power. The government
faed to present convncng evdence to defeat Marcos rght to
return to ths country.
(&"IE!#O D+issentE
The rght to return to ones own country cannot be dstngushed
from the rght to trave and freedom of abode. Whe the Presdent
may exercse powers not expressy granted by the Consttuton but
may necessary mped therefrom, the atter must yed to the
paramountcy of the B of Rghts. Under the new Consttuton, the
rght to trave may be mpared ony wthn the mts provded by
aw. The Presdent has been dvested of the mped power to
mpar the rght to trave. The determnaton of whether the Marcos
return poses a threat to natona securty shoud not be eft soey
to the Chef Executve; the Court tsef must be satsfed that the
threat s not ony cear but aso present.
E(#&D& V DE(IE#O
PUNO;
(SEE DIGEST UNDER REMAKING THE CONSTITUTION)
VILLE!& V (ECE#&2 O' I!#EIO
LAUREL; Apr 21, 1939
'&C#(
- |ose D. Vena, then Mayor of Makat, sought to restran the
Secretary of the Interor (SI) and hs agents from proceedng wth
the nvestgaton aganst hm unt ths case was setted by the SC.
- Upon the request of the SI, the Dvson of Investgaton of the
Department of |ustce conducted an nqury nto the conduct of
Vena. He was found to have commtted brbery, extorton,
macous abuse of authorty and unauthorzed practce of the aw
professon.
- Feb. 8, 1939 - SI recommended to the Presdent that Vena be
suspended so as to prevent the coercon of wtnesses. The
Presdent verbay granted the recommendaton on the same day.
- Feb. 9,1939- SI suspended Vena from offce and nstructed the
Provnca Governor of Rza to advse Vena of hs suspenson.
- Feb. 13,1939-SI wrote Vena specfyng the charges aganst hm
and notfyng hm that Emano Anonas was the speca nvestgator
of the case.
- Feb. 17, 1939- the date set by Anonas when the forma
nvestgaton woud begn. But eventuay postponed to March
28,1939 due to severa ncdents and postponements.
- Hence, ths petton for Prem In|uncton. Vena contends that:
> SI has no |ursdcton or authorty to suspend hm, to fe
admnstratve charges aganst hm, and to decde the merts of
the charges because the power to suspend, to try and punsh
muncpa eectve offcas s odged n some other agences of
the government.
> SIs acts are nu and vod because:
+ SI usurped the power gven by the Consttuton to the
Presdent when SI suspended hm (Vena).
+ SI must exercse the power to supervse n accordance wth
the provsons of aw and the provsons of aw governng the
tras and charges of aganst eectve muncpa offcas are
those contaned n sec. 2188 of the Admnstratve Code as
amended.
+ SI s exercsng an arbtrary power by convertng hmsef nto
a companant and at the same tme the |udge of the charges
he fed aganst hm.
+ SIs acton ddnt foow the procedure under Sec. 2188 of the
AC, whch requres that a compant be based on a prvate
persons or ctzens sworn statement.
- Vena prays that a wrt of Premnary In|uncton be ssued to stop
the SI and hs agents from proceedng further wth the nvestgaton
unt ths case s heard; that SI be decared as wthout authorty to
suspend hm and order hs renstatement n offce; that SI be
decared as wthout authorty to fe charges aganst hm and to
nvestgate such charges.
- Hs petton for the wrt of premnary n|uncton was dened.
- The Soctor Genera contends that:
> Sec. 79 (C) n reaton wth sec. 86 of the Revsed AC expressy
empowers the SI to "order the nvestgaton of any act or conduct
of any person n the servce of any bureau or offce under hs
department" and n connecton therewth to "desgnate an offca
or person who sha conduct such nvestgaton."
> Sec. 2188 of the Revsed AC, nvoked by Vena, doesnt
precude SI from exercsng the powers stated n Sec. 79 n
connecton to Sec. 86. Aso, that nvoked secton, must be read n
reaton to sec. 37 of the Reorganzaton Law of 1932.
> Vena ddnt queston the |ursdcton of the SI at the start of
the nvestgaton but merey contended that such charges were
not n accordance wth aw for the reason that they ddnt bear
the oaths of the compants.
> The authorty of a department head to order the nvestgaton
of a subordnate necessary carres wth t by mpcaton the
authorty to take such measures as he may deem necessary to
accompsh the purpose of the nvestgaton, ncudng suspendng
the offcer; pus, the Presdent authorzed the suspenson.
> Courts of Equty have no power to restran pubc offcas by
n|uncton from performng any offca act, whch they are
requred by aw to perform, or acts, whch are not n excess of the
authorty, and dscreton reposed n them.
I((%E(
1. WON the SI has the ega authorty to order an nvestgaton, by a
speca nvestgator apponted by hm, of the charges of corrupton
and rreguarty aganst Vena.
2. WON the SI has the ega authorty to suspend Vena pendng
the nvestgaton of the charges.
3ELD
1. The SI s nvested wth authorty to order the nvestgaton of the
charges aganst the pettoner, Vena, and to appont a speca
nvestgator for that purpose.
- Sec. 79 of the Revsed AC speaks of drect contro, drecton and
supervson over bureaus and offces under the |ursdcton of the SI
but t shoud be nterpreted n reaton to sec. 86 of the same Code
whch grants to the Dept of Interor "executve supervson over the
admnstraton of provnces, muncpates, chartered ctes and
other oca potca subdvsons."
- Ctng Panas v. G: " Supervson s not a meanngess thng. It s
an actve power. It s certany not wthout mtaton, but t at east
mpes authorty to nqure nto facts and condtons n order to
render the power rea and effectve. If supervson s to be
conscentous and ratona, and not automatc and bruta, t must
be founded upon knowedge of actua facts and condtons
dscosed after carefu study and nvestgaton."
2. There s no cear and express grant of power to the secretary to
suspend a mayor of a muncpaty who s under nvestgaton.
- NOTE: There was an argument regardng the verba approva or
acquescence of the Presdent to the suspenson. It was sad that f
the |ustces were to accept that the Presdent had the authorty to
suspend the pettoner, then the suspenson made by the SI, snce
the Presdent approved t, shoud be sustaned. Then ths was
foowed by the dscusson regardng certan acts of the Presdent
that coud not be vadated by subsequent approva or ratfcaton.
There are certan consttutona powers and prerogatves of the
Chef Executve that shoud be exercsed n person (.e. suspenson
of the wrt of habeas corpus and procamaton of marta aw and
the exercse of pardon.) But there were doubts regardng the verba
approva by the Presdent of the suspenson f such coud be
consdered as ratfcaton n aw (wth aw gvng the power to
suspend beng the Chef Exec.) Hence, the rato.
atio "xxx.under the presdenta type of government whch we
have adopted and consderng the departmenta organzaton
estabshed and contnued n force by par. 1, sec. 12, Art.VII of our
(1935) Consttuton, a executve and admnstratve organzatons
are ad|uncts of the Executve Department, the heads of the varous
executve departments are assstants and agents of the Chef
Executve, and, e,%e)t #n %ases .here the Ch#ef E,e%$t#*e #s
re4$#re& /+ the Const#t$t#on or the la. to a%t )ersonall+, the
mutfarous executve and admnstratve functons of the Chef
Executve are performed by and through the executve
departments, and the acts of the secretares of such departments,
performed and promugated n the reguar course of busness, are,
$nless &#sa))ro*e& or re)ro/ate& /+ the Ch#ef E,e%$t#*e,
presumptvey the acts of the Chef Executve."
!biter Wth reference to the Executve Dept of the Govt, there s
one purpose whch s crysta-cear and s ready vsbe wthout the
pro|ecton of |udca searchght, and that t s, the estabshment of
a snge, not pura, Executve.
- The Frst Secton of Artce VII of the Consttuton, deang wth the
Executve Department, begns wth the enuncaton of the prncpe
that "The executve power sha be vested n a Presdent of the
Phppnes."
- Wthout mnmzng the mportance of the heads of the varous
departments, ther personaty s reaty but the pro|ecton of that of
the Presdent.
- Ctng Chef |ustce Taft n Myers v. US- "each head of a
department s, and must be, the Presdents ater ego n the
matters of that department where the Presdent s requred by aw
to exercse authorty."
- As a matter of executve pocy, they may be granted
departmenta autonomy as to certan matters but ths s by mere
concesson of the executve, n the absence of vad egsaton n
the partcuar fed.
- The Presdent shoud be answerabe for the acts of admnstraton
of the entre Executve Department before hs own conscence
Note Read ths case n reaton to Sec. 1 and 17 of Art. 7 of the
1987 Consttuton.
(ECE#&2 O' #3E DEP&#"E!# O' #&!(PO#&#IO!
&!D CO""%!IC&#IO!( V "&.&LO#
BUENA; February 27, 2002
'&C#(
- On February 19, 1996, then DOTC Secretary |esus B. Garca, |r.
ssued Memoran&$m 2r&er No. 96-7( addressed to Land
Transportaton Franchsng Reguatory Board (LTFRB) Charman
Dante Lantn drectng hm to "effect the transfer of regona
functons of that offce to the DOTC-CAR Regona Offce."
- On March 13, 1996, Roberto Mabaot fed a petton for certorar
and prohbton wth prayer for premnary n|uncton and/or
restranng order aganst DOTC Secretary and LTFRB char, prayng
among others that Memorandum Order No. 96-735 be decared
"ega and wthout effect."
- On March 20, the ower court ssued a temporary restranng order
en|onng DOTC Secretary from mpementng Memorandum Order
No. 96-735. The ower court ssued a wrt of premnary n|uncton
on Apr 8, 1996.
- On |anuary 29, 1997, then DOTC Secretary Amado Lagdameo
ssued :e)artment 2r&er No. 97-102 estabshng the DOTC-CAR
Regona Offce "as the Regona Offce of the LTFRB-CAR and sha
exercse the regona functons of the LTFRB n the CAR."
- On March 31, 1999, the ower court rendered a decson decarng
Memorandum Order Nos. 96-735 and 97-1025 "nu and vod and
wthout any ega effect as beng voatve of the provson of the
Consttuton aganst encroachment on the powers of the egsatve
department and aso of the provson en|onng appontve offcas
from hodng any other offce or empoyment n the Government."
I((%E
WON the assaed memorandum orders estabshng the DOTC
Regona Offce as an LTFRB Regona Offce s unconsttutona for
beng an undue exercse of egsatve power.
3ELD
- The Presdent may, through hs/her duy consttuted potca
agent and alter ego, egay and vady decree the reorganzaton of
the Natona Government n exercse of authorty granted by aw.
- A pubc offce may be created through any of the foowng
modes: (1) by the Consttuton (fundamenta aw), (2) by aw
(statute duy enacted by Congress), or (3) by authorty of aw. The
creaton and estabshment of LTFRB-CAR Regona Offce was
made pursuant to the thrd mode.
- The Presdent, through Admnstratve Order No. 36 drected the
varous departments and agences of government to mmedatey
undertake the creaton and estabshment of ther regona offces
n CAR.
- It s as f the Presdent hmsef carred out the creaton and
estabshment of the LTFRB-CAR Regona Offce, when n fact, the
DOTC Secretary drecty and merey sought to mpement the Chef
Executves Admnstratve Order.
- The Presdents contro over a executve departments come from
Secton 17, Artce VII of the 1987 Consttuton, whe the contnung
authorty to reorganze the natona government s vested by
Presdenta Decree No. 1772 whch amended Presdenta Decree
No. 1416 (as rued n Larn Vs. Executve Secretary).
- Vena vs Secretary of the Interor: "wthout mnmzng the
mportance of the heads of varous departments, ther personaty
s n reaty but the pro|ecton of that of the Presdent." Thus, ther
acts, "performed and promugated n the reguar course of
busness, are, uness dsapproved or reprobated by the Chef
Executve, presumptvey the acts of the Chef Executve."
- The desgnaton and subsequent estabshment of DOTC-CAR as
the Regona Offce of the LTFRB n CAR and the concomtant
exercse and performance of functons by the former as the LTFRB-
CAR Regona Offce fa wthn the scope of the contnung authorty
of the Presdent to effectvey reorganze the DOTC (and other
departments).
- In ths |ursdcton, reorganzaton s regarded as vad provded t
s pursued n good fath. A reorganzaton s carred out n good
fath f t s for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy
more effcent. The reorganzaton n ths case was decreed "n the
nterest of servce" and "for purposes of economy and more
effectve coordnaton of the DOTC functons n CAR."
- The assaed orders are aso not n voaton of Sectons 7 and 8 of
Artce IX-B of the Consttuton snce the organc personne of the
DOTC-CAR are, n effect, merey desgnated to perform the
addtona dutes and functons of an LTFRB Regona Offce sub|ect
to the drect supervson and contro of the LTFRB Centra Offce,
pendng the creaton of a reguar LTFRB Regona Offce.
.E!G%E# EBPLO&#IO! V DEP&#"E!# O' &GIC%L#%E
&!D !&#%&L E(O%CE(
FERNANDO; February 28, 1977
'&C#(
- Sofa Reyes fed wth the Bureau of Mnes an adverse cam
aganst a domestc Mnng corporatons (Benguet Exporaton, Inc.)
Lode Lease Agreement coverng three mnng cams n Benguet,
Mountan Provnce.
- Bureau of Mnes dsmssed the adverse cam
- Reyes appeaed to the Department of Agrcuture and Natura
Resource mantanng the suffcency of her adverse cam
- At frst the Department dsmssed the appea but on a second
moton for reconsderaton and ordered a forma hearng of the
case
- Benguet Exporaton, Inc. fed petton for revew
I((%E(
1. WON the decson rendered by the Drector of Lands approved by
the Secretary, upon a queston of fact, s |ustcabe
2. WON the Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura Resources can be
precuded from conductng hs own nqury
3. WON Secretary Pascua, n cang for a hearng, faed to abde
by the requrements of the aw
3ELD
1. A decson rendered by the Drector of Lands and approved by
the Secretary of Agrcuture and commerce, upon a queston of fact
s concusve and not sub|ect to be revewed by the courts uness
there s a showng that such decson was rendered n consequence
of fraud, mposton or mstake, other than error of |udgment n
estmatng the vaue or effect of evdence, regardess of whether or
not t s consstent wth the preponderance of evdence, so ong as
there s some evdence upon whch the fndng n queston coud be
made
easonin;
Acts of a department head, performed and promugated n the
reguar course of busness are, uness dsapproved or reprobated
by the Chef Executve, presumaby the acts of the Chef Executve
2. The State actng through the egsature through ts power of
mperum actng as a soveregn reguatng property to come up
wth rues wth whch to exercse ts power of domnum as owner of
the property cannot act arbtrary but n accordance wth aw
easonin;
Indefeasbty of a tte over and prevousy pubc s not a bar to an
nvestgaton by the Drector of Lands as to how such tte has been
acqured
3. The Mnng Act speaks of fndngs of facts of the Drector of
Mnes "when affrmed by the Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura
Resources beng fna and concusve," n whch case the aggreved
party may fe a petton for revew wth ths Court where ony
questons of aw may be rased
easonin; No such affrmance by the secretary thats why he
ordered a hearng. It s but a rght and proper n the nterest of
|ustce that a forma hearng on the merts of ths case be
conducted
0ecision: petton for revew s DISMISSED for ack of mert.
Unanmous
L&!(&!G V G&CI&
CONCEPCION; December 11, 1971
'&C#(-
- 8 consodated pettons of wrt of habeas corpus.
Other pettons:
L-33965 Arenda vs Sec of Natona Defense
L-33973 Davd vs Garca
L-33982 Prudente v Yan, Garca
L-34004 Tomas vs Garca
L-34013 Rmando vs Garca
L-34039 De Castro vs Rabago
L-34265 Oreta vs Garca
L-34339 Ovar vs Garca
- August 21, 1971 - Paza Mranda bombng. 8 persons ded, severa
n|ured
- August 23, 1971- Presdent Marcos ssued Procamaton No. 889
suspendng the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus, by vrtue of
the powers vested upon the Presdent by ART VII Secton 10 of the
1935 Consttuton. Hs reason was that "awess eements have
created a state of awessness and dsorder affectng pubc safety
and the securty of the State." and that "pubc safety requres
mmedate and effectve acton"
- Severa peope were apprehended and detaned ncudng the
pettoners on "reasonabe beef" that they had "partcpated n the
crme of nsurrecton or rebeon."
- August 30, 1971 - Procamaton 889-A amended Procamaton
889.
- September 18 and 25, October 4, 1971 -- Procamatons 889-B,
889-C and 889-D fted the suspenson of the prvege of the wrt of
habeas corpus n some provnces, sub-provnces, ctes, EXCEPT n
Bataan, Benguet, Buacan, Camarnes Sur, Ifugao, Isabea, Laguna,
Lanao, North and South Cotabato, Nueva Ec|a, Nueva Vscaya,
Pampanga, Ouezon, Rza, Tarac, Zambaes, Aurora, Ourno, and
18 ctes ncudng Mana.
I((%E(
1. WON the Court had authorty to and shoud nqure nto the
exstence of the factua bases requred by the Consttuton for the
suspenson of the prvege of the wrt
2. WON the Procamaton was vad/ consttutona. WON t comped
wth ART III Secton 1 par 14
52
and ART VII Secton 10 par 2
53
of the
Consttuton?
3. WON the Presdent act arbtrary n ssung PN 889
4. WON the Pettoners are covered by PN 889. WON pettoners
detaned shoud be reeased
3ELD
1. YES. Upon deberaton, the Court abandoned the doctrne n
-ar%elon * -a=er and Montenegro * CastaMe&a (determnaton by
the Presdent of exstence of any of the grounds prescrbed by the
Consttuton for the suspenson of the wrt of habeas corpus shoud
be concusve upon the courts. The Presdent, wth a the
52
"The prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus sha not be suspended except n cases of nvason, nsurrecton, or
rebeon, when the pubc safety requres t, n any way of whch events the same may be suspended wherever
durng such perod the necessty for such suspenson sha exst."
53
"The Presdent sha be commander-n-chef of a armed forces of the Phppnes, and, whenever t becomes
necessary, he may ca out such armed forces to prevent or suppress awess voence, nvason, nsurrecton, or
rebeon. In case of nvason, nsurrecton, or rebeon, or mmnent danger thereof when the pubc safety
requres t, he may suspend the prveges of the wrt of habeas corpus, or pace the Phppnes or any part
thereof under marta aw."
ntegence sources was n a better poston than the SC to
ascertan the rea state of peace and order). The grant of power to
suspend the prvege s nether absoute no unquafed. The
authorty to suspend the prvege of the wrt s crcumcsed,
confned, restrcted (more so because t s stated n the negatve -
Hshall not /eI e,%e)tJ), and ke the mtatons and restrctons
mposed upon the egsatve department, adherence thereto and
compance therewth may, wthn proper bounds, be nqured nto
by courts of |ustce.
- The Executve s vested wth the power to suspend the prvege of
the wrt, and the Executve s supreme wthn ts own sphere,
however, the separaton of powers goes hand n hand wth the
system of checks and baances. The authorty to determne
whether or not the Executve acted wthn the sphere aotted to
hm s vested n the |udcary.
2. YES.
a. Procamaton 889, as amended by Procamaton 889-A, decared
the exstence of an uprsng -- "awess eements xxx |oned and
banded ther forces together for the avowed purpose of stagng,
undertakng, wagng and are a%t$all+ engage& #n an armed
nsurrecton and rebeon xxx"
b. The 2 condtons for a vad suspenson a) there must be
nvason, nsurrecton, or rebeon or mmnent danger thereof
and b) pubc safety must requre the aforementoned suspenson
are PRESENT.
c. The 1
st
condton can be attested through |ursprudence (there
were a ot of cases aready - HUKBALAHAP, etc). The emergence
and estabshment of CPP NPA s proof of the exstence of a
rebeon.
d. The 2
nd
condton s |ustfed through the reports of the acts of the
NPA (ts nftraton of severa mass-based organzatons, varous
kngs and bombngs, encounters wth the mtary, etc) and the
threat t poses to the pubc safety. Accordng to ntegence
reports, the CPP and ts front organzatons are capabe of
preparng powerfu exposve, and that there was a pan of a seres
of assassnatons, kdnappngs, mass destructon of property, etc.
3. NO. The Presdent dd not act arbtrary. He had possesson of
ntegence reports, he consuted hs advsers, and had reason to
fee that the stuaton was crtca. The suspenson of the prvege
of the wrt n the entre Phppnes was |ustfed as he coud not
have ascertaned the paces to be excuded at the tme of the
procamaton, and he graduay fted the suspenson.
4. Some pettoners were aready reeased and wth respect to
them, the ssue s moot an+ a0a+emi0. As to pettoners Davd,
Fepe, Ovar, de os Reyes, de Rosaro and Sson, st under
detenton, they have been charged wth voaton of the Ant-
Subverson Act/ accused of overt a0ts 0overe+ by the PN 889.
The PN 889 beng vad, ther reease may not be ordered by the
SC, but the CFI s drected to act wth utmost dspatch n conductng
the premnary nvestgaton of the charges and to ssue
correspondng warrants of arrest f probabe cause s found or
otherwse , to order ther reease.
0ecision Presdent dd not act arbtrary. PN 889 not
unconsttutona. Pettons L33964, L33965, L33982, L34004,
L34013, L34039, L34265 +ismisse+. CFI to conduct nvestgaton
and ssue warrants of arrest or order of reease as to pettoners st
under detenton.
0ll %on%$r. ;ernan&o &#ssents onl+ as to the fo$rth #ss$e.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
'E!&!DO D+issentE
- I fnd t dffcut to accept the concuson that the sx pettoners
st under detenton shoud be set free.
- The pettoners ought not to be further deprved of ther berty n
the absence of a warrant of arrest for whatever offense they may
be hed to answer, to be ssued by a |udge after a fndng of
probabe cause. That s to compy wth the consttutona
requrement aganst unreasonabe search and sezure.
- To keep them n confnement after ordnary processes of the aw
are to be avaed of s to gnore the safeguard of the B of Rghts
that no person sha be hed to answer for a crmna offense
wthout due process of aw.
&@%I!O V PO!CE E!ILE
MAKALINTAL; September 17, 1974
'&C#(
- September 21, 1972, Presdent Ferdnand E. Marcos sgned
Procamaton No. 1081, procamng a state of Marta Law n the
Phppnes
- September 22, 1972, Genera Order No. 2 was sgned by the
Presdent whch provded an order to the Secretary of Natona
Defense to arrest and take nto custody the ndvduas named n
the st for beng partcpants n the conspracy to seze potca and
state power n the country and to take over the government by
force
- Secretary of Natona Defense, |uan Ponce Enre, mmedatey
effected the arrest of the heren pettoners
- Pettoners sought reef from Court, fng pettons for habeas
corpus
- Respondents fed ther "Return to Wrt and Answer to the
Petton" and prayed that the petton be dsmssed
- Pendng resouton of these Pettons, pettoners, except for two
(Sen. Bengno Aquno, |r. and Sen. |ose Dokno), were reeased from
custody on dfferent dates under a "Condtona Reease"
- December 28, 1973, Dokno fed a Moton to Wthdraw Petton,
mputng deay n the dsposton of hs case, and asseveratng that
because of the decson of the Court n the Ratfcaton Cases and
the acton of the Members of the Court n takng an oath to support
the New Consttuton, he cannot "reasonaby expect to get |ustce
n ths case"
- The respondents opposed the moton on the grounds that there s
a pubc nterest n the decson of these cases and that the reasons
gven for the moton to wthdraw are untrue, unfar and
contemptuous.
- The Court dened Doknos moton wth a vote of 5 to 7
- "a9alintal5 4al+ivar5 'ernan+o5 #ee*an9ee5 "uUo,-Palma5
&Luino an+ .arre+o vote+ to grant Dio9noAs motion to
wit*+raw petition
I((%E(
1. WON the Court has |ursdcton to nqure nto the consttutona
suffcency of the procamaton of marta aw
2. WON Procamaton No. 1081 s vad gven then the
crcumstances requred by the Consttuton for the procamaton of
a state of marta aw
3. WON pettoners were egay detaned enttng them the reef
of ha/eas %or)$s
3ELD
A pettons dsmssed except those whch have been prevousy
wthdrawn by the respectve pettoners wth the approva of ths
Court.
"a9asiar5 Esguerra5 'ernan+e,5 "uVo, Palma an+ &Luino5
$$., concur.
Castro5 $.5 n a separate opnon, expans hs reasons for hs
concurrence n the dsmssa of a the pettons.
'ernan+o5 $.5 concurs and dssents n a separate opnon.
#ee*an9ee5 $.5 fes a separate opnon.
.arre+o5 $.5 concurs n the dsmssas n a separate opnon.
&ntonio5 $.5 concurs n a separate opnon.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
7O! t*e Court *as <uris+i0tion to inLuire into t*e
0onstitutional su//i0ien01 o/ t*e pro0lamation o/ martial law
(<usti0ia6ilit1 o/ t*e martial law pro0lamation)
C&(#O D<usti0ia6leE
- cted 5ansang *s. 9ar%#a where the Court asserted the power to
nqure nto the "exstence of the factua bases for the suspenson
of the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus n order to determne
the suffcency thereof."
- The |udca department can determne the exstence of condtons
for the exercse of the Presdents powers and s not bound by the
rectas of hs procamaton. But whether n the crcumstances
obtanng pubc safety requres the suspenson of the prvege of
the wrt of habeas corpus or the procamaton of marta aw s
ntay for the Presdent to decde. The Presdents fndngs as to
necessty s persuasve upon the courts.
'E!&!DO D<usti0ia6leE
- The acton taken by any or both the potca branches whether n
the form of a egsatve act or an executve order coud be tested
n court. Where prvate rghts are affected, the |udcary has the
duty to ook nto ts vadty. A showng that penary power s
granted ether department of government may not be and obstace
to |udca nqury. Its mprovdent exercse or the abuse thereof
may gve rse to a |ustcabe controversy. Necessary then, t
becomes the responsbty of the courts to ascertan whether the
two coordnate branches have adhered to the mandate of the
fundamenta aw. The queston thus posed s |udca rather than
potca.
- The range of permssbe nqury to be conducted by the Court s
necessary mted to the ascertanment of whether or not such a
suspenson, n the ght of the credbe nformaton furnshed by the
Presdent, was arbtrary. The queston before the |udcary s not
the correctness but the reasonabeness of the acton taken.
- Referred to 5ansang *s. 9ar%#a where the Court sustaned the
presdenta procamaton suspendng the prvege of the wrt of
habeas corpus as there was no showng of arbtrarness n the
exercse of a prerogatve beongng to the executve, the |udcary
merey actng as a check on the exercse of such authorty. Chef
|ustce Concepcon n hs opnon: In the exercse of such authorty,
the functon of the Court s merey to check, not to suppant the
Executve, or to ascertan merey whether he has gone beyond the
consttutona mts of hs |ursdcton, not to exercse the power
vested n hm or the determne the wsdom of hs act.
#EE3&!)EE D<usti0ia6leE
"t has the authorty to nqure nto the exstence of sad factua
bases |stated n the procamaton suspendng the prvege of the
wrt of habeas corpus or pacng the country under marta aw as
the case may be, snce the requrements for the exercse of these
powers are the same and are provded n the very same cause| n
order to determne the consttutona suffcency thereof."32 The
Court stressed theren that "ndeed, the grant of power to suspend
the prvege s nether absoute nor unquafed. The authorty
conferred upon by the Consttuton, both under the B of Rghts
and under the Executve Department, s mted and condtona.
The precept n the B of Rghts estabshes a genera rue, as we
as an excepton thereto. What s more, t postuates the former n
the negatve, evdenty to stress ts mportance, by provdng that
'(t)he prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus sha not be suspended
x x x.' It s ony by way of excepton that t permts the suspenson
of the prvege 'n cases of nvason, nsurrecton, or rebeon'-or
under Art. VII of the Consttuton, 'mmnent danger thereof-'when
the pubc safety requres t, n any of whch events the same may
be suspended wherever durng such perod the necessty for such
suspenson sha exst.' Far from beng fu and penary, the
authorty to suspend the prvege of the wrt s thus crcumscrbed,
confned and restrcted, not ony by the prescrbed settng or the
condtons essenta to ts exstence, but aso, as regards the tme
when and the pace where t may be exercsed. These factors and
the aforementoned settng or condtons mark, estabsh and defne
the extent, the confnes and the mts of sad power, beyond whch
t does not exst. And, ke the mtatons and restrctons mposed
by the Fundamenta Law upon the egsatve department,
adherence thereto and compance therewth may, wthn proper
bounds, be nqured nto by the courts of |ustce. Otherwse, the
expct consttutona provsons thereon woud be meanngess.
Surey, the frames of our Consttuton coud not have ntended to
engage n such a wastefu exercse n futty."
.&EDO DLuali/ie+ vote- <usti0ia6leE
- The nqury whch the Consttuton contempates for the
determnaton of the consttutona suffcency of a procamaton of
marta aw by the Presdent shoud not go beyond facts of |udca
notce and those that may be stated n the procamaton,, f these
are by ther very nature capabe of unquestonabe demonstraton.
- Whe a decaraton of marta aw s not absoutey concusve, the
Courts nqury nto ts consttutona suffcency may not, contrary
to what s mped n Lansang, nvove the recepton of evdence to
be weghed aganst those on whch the Presdent has acted, nor
may t extend to the nvestgaton of what evdence the Presdent
had before hm. Such nqury must be mted to what s undsputed
n the record and to what accords or does not accord wth facts of
|udca notce.
- It s entrey up to the Court to determne and defne ts own
consttutona prerogatves vs--vs the procamaton and the
exstng marta aw stuaton, gven the reasons for the decaraton
and ts avowed ob|ectves.
1. The Consttuton s the supreme aw of the and. Ths means
among other thngs that a the powers of the government and
of a ts offcas from the Presdent down to the owest emanate
from t.
2. The |udcary provsons of the Consttuton pont to the
Supreme Court as the utmate arbter of a confcts as to what
the Consttuton or any part thereof means.
3. In the same way the Supreme Court s the desgnated
guardan of the Consttuton, the Presdent s the specfcay
assgned protector of the safety, tranquty and terrtora
ntegrty of the naton. Ths responsbty of the Presdent s hs
aone and may not be shared by any other Department.
4. The Consttuton expressy provdes that "n case of
nvason, nsurrecton or rebeon or mmnent danger thereof,
when the pubc safety requres t, the Executve may pace the
Phppnes or any part thereof under marta aw"
5. In the same manner that the Executve power conferred
upon the Executve by the Consttuton s compete, tota and
unmted, so aso, the |udca power vested n the Supreme
Court and the nferor courts, s the very whoe of that power,
wthout any mtaton or quafcaton.
6. Even the basc guarantee of protecton of fe, berty, or
property wthout due process of aw ready reveas that the
Consttutons concern for ndvdua rghts and bertes s not
entrey above that for the natona nterests, snce the
deprvaton t en|ons s ony that whch s wthout due process
of aw and aws are aways enacted n the natona nterest or to
promote and safeguard the genera wefare.
7. Whereas the B of Rghts of the 1935 Consttuton expcty
en|ons that the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus sha not
be suspended, there s no smar n|uncton whether expressed
or mped aganst the decaraton of marta aw.
- Potca questons are not per se beyond the Courts |ursdcton.
but that as a matter of pocy, mpct n the Consttuton tsef, the
Court shoud abstan from nterferng wth the Executves
Procamaton.
&!#O!IO Dpoliti0al LuestionE
- The rght of a government to mantan ts exstence s the most
pervasve aspect of soveregnty. To protect the naton's contnued
exstence, from externa as we as nterna threats, the
government "s nvested wth a those nherent and mped powers
whch, at the tme of adoptng the Consttuton, were generay
consdered to beong to every government as such, and as beng
essenta to the exercse of ts functons"
- These powers whch are to be exercsed for the naton's
protecton and securty have been odged by the Consttuton under
Artce VII, Secton 10 (2) thereof, on the Presdent of the
Phppnes, who s cothed wth excusve authorty to determne
the occason on whch the powers sha be caed forth.
- Cted -ar%elon *s. -a=er : The exstng doctrne at the tme of the
framng and adopton of the 1935 Consttuton was that of Barceon
v. Baker. It enuncated the prncpe that when the Governor-
Genera wth the approva of the Phppne Commsson, under
Secton 5 of the Act of Congress of |uy 1, 1902, decares that a
state of rebeon, nsurrecton or nvason exsts, and by reason
thereof the pubc safety requres the suspenson of the prveges
of habeas corpus, ths decaraton s hed concusve upon the
|udca department of the government. And when the Chef
Executve has decded that condtons exst |ustfyng the
suspenson of the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus, courts w
presume that such condtons contnue to exst unt the same
authorty has decded that such condtons no onger exst. These
doctrnes are rooted on pragmatc consderatons and sound
reasons of pubc pocy. The "doctrne that whenever the
Consttuton or a statute gves a dscretonary power to any person,
such person s to be consdered the soe and excusve |udge of the
exstence of those facts" has been recognzed by a courts and
"has never been dsputed by any respectabe authorty." The
potca department accordng to Chef |ustce Taney n Mart#n *.
Mott, s the soe |udge of the exstence of war or nsurrecton, and
when t decares ether of these emergences to exst, ts acton s
not sub|ect to revew or abe to be controed by the |udca
department of the State.
"&)&(I& Dpoliti0al LuestionE
&@%I!O Dpoliti0al LuestionE
'E!&!DE4 Dpoliti0al LuestionE
- The Consttuton s suffcenty expct n ocatng the power to
procam marta aw. It s smary expct n specfyng the
occasons for ts exercse. "In case of nvason, nsurrecton, or
rebeon, or mmnent danger thereof, when the pubc Safety
requres t, he (the Presdent as Commander-n-Chef of a armed
forces of the Phppnes) may suspend the prveges of the wrt of
habeas corpus or pace the Phppnes or any part thereof under
marta aw."
- The power to procam marta aw s excusvey vested n the
Presdent. The procamaton and ts attendant crcumstances
therefore form a potca queston.
- Uness ths Court decdes that every act of the executve and of
the egsature s |ustcabe there can be no cearer exampe of a
potca queston than Procamaton No. 1081. It s the exercse by
the hghest eectve offca of the and of a supreme potca duty
excusvey entrusted to hm by the Consttuton. Our peope have
entrusted to the Presdent through a specfc provson of the
fundamenta aw the awesome responsbty to wed a powerfu
weapon. The peope have entrusted to hm the estmaton that the
pers are so omnous and threatenng that ths utmate weapon of
our duy consttuted government must be used.
- The Supreme Court was not gven the |ursdcton to share the
determnaton of the occasons for ts exercse. It s not gven the
authorty by the Consttuton to expand or mt the scope of ts use
dependng on the aegatons of tgants. It s not authorzed by the
Consttuton to say that marta aw may be procamed n Isabea
and Suu but not n Greater Mana. Much ess does t have the
power nor shoud t even exercse the power, assumng ts
exstence, to nufy a procamaton of the Presdent on a matter
excusvey vested n hm by the Consttuton and on ssues so
potcay and emotonay charged. The Court's functon n such
cases s to assume |ursdcton for the purpose of fndng out
whether the ssues consttute a potca queston or not. Its functon
s to determne whether or not a queston s ndeed |ustcabe.
- Granted that Procamaton No. 1081 s not potca but |ustcabe,
t s st vad because the presdent has not acted arbtrary n
ssung t.
E(G%E& Dpoliti0al LuestionE
- I mantan that Procamaton No. 1081 s consttutona, vad and
bndng; that the veracty or suffcency of ts factua bases cannot
be nqured nto by the Courts and that the queston presented by
the pettons s potca n nature and not |ustcabe. Whether or
not there s consttutona bass for the Presdents acton s for hm
to decde aone.
- Rued -ar%elon *s. -a=er over 5ansang *s. 9ar%#a
"%!O4-P&L"& D<usti0ia6leE
Wth Lansang, the hghest Court of the and takes upon tsef the
grave responsbty of checkng executve acton and savng the
naton from an arbtrary and despotc exercse of the presdenta
power granted under the Consttuton to suspend the prvege of
the wrt of habeas corpus and/or procam marta aw; that
responsbty and duty of the Court must be preserved and fufed
at a costs f We want to mantan ts roe as the ast buwark of
democracy n ths country.
7O! Pro0lamation !o. 1J;1 is vali+ given t*en t*e
0ir0umstan0es reLuire+ 61 t*e Constitution /or t*e
pro0lamation o/ a state o/ martial law
C&(#O Dvali+E
- Our Consttuton authorzes the procamaton of marta aw n
cases not ony of actua nvason, nsurrecton or rebeon but aso
of "mmnent danger" thereof.
- The so caed "open court" theory does not appy to the Phppne
stuaton because our 1935 and 1973 Consttutons expressy
authorze the decaraton of marta aw even where the danger to
pubc safety arses merey from the mmnence of nvason,
nsurrecton, or rebeon. Moreover, the theory s too smpstc for
our day, what wth the unversay recognzed nsdous nature of
Communst subverson and ts overt operatons
'E!&!DO Dvali+E
Whe t s beyond queston that the 1973 Consttuton stpuates, n
a transtory provson, that: A procamatons, orders, decrees,
nstructons, and acts promugated, ssued, or done by the
ncumbent Presdent sha be part of the aw of the and, and sha
reman *al#&, legal, /#n&#ng, an& effe%t#*e even after ftng of
marta aw or the ratfcaton of ths Consttuton, uness modfed,
revoked, or superseded by subsequent procamatons, orders,
decrees, nstructons, or other acts of the ncumbent Presdent, or
uness expressy and expcty modfed or repeaed by the reguar
Natona Assemby.
#EE3&!)EE Dno pronoun0ementE
.&EDO Dvali+E
The procamaton had merey put the Consttuton n a state of
anesthesa, snce a ma|or surgery s needed to save the natons
fe.
"%!O4-P&L"& Dvali+E
The extreme measure taken by the Presdent to pace the entre
country under marta aw was necessary. The Presdent's acton
was nether caprcous nor arbtrary. An arbtrary act s one that
arses from an unrestraned exercse of the w, caprce, or persona
preference of the actor, one whch s not founded on a far or
substanta reason, s wthout adequate determnng prncpe,
nonratona, and soey dependent on the actor's w. Such s not
the case wth the act of the Presdent, because the procamaton of
marta aw was the resut of condtons and events, not of hs own
makng, whch undoubtedy endangered the pubc safety and ed
hm to concude that the stuaton was crtca enough to warrant
the exercse of hs power under the Consttuton to procam marta
aw
7O! petitioners were illegall1 +etaine+ entitling t*em t*e
relie/ o/ &abeas corpus
C&(#O DlegalE
- Gven the vadty of the procamaton of marta aw, the arrest
and detenton of those reasonaby beeved to be engaged n the
dsorder or n fomentng t s we ngh beyond questonng.
- In the cases at bar, the respondents have |ustfed the arrest and
detenton of the pettoners on the ground of reasonabe beef n
ther compcty n the rebeon and nsurrecton. Except Dokno
and Aquno, a the pettoners have been reeased from custody,
athough sub|ect to defned restrctons regardng persona
movement and expresson of vews. As the danger to pubc safety
has not abated, I cannot say that the contnued detenton of Dokno
and Aquno and the restrctons on the persona freedoms of the
other pettoners are arbtrary, |ust as I am not prepared to say that
the contnued mposton of marta rue s un|ustfed.
'E!&!DO Dpro0lamation o/ martial law +oes not
automati0all1 0arr1 t*e suspension o/ t*e writ o/ *a6eas
0orpusE
It s not to be dened that where such a state of affars coud be
traced to the wshes of the Presdent hmsef, t carres wth t a
presumpton of vadty. The test s agan arbtrarness as defned
n Lansang. Whe the detenton of pettoners coud have been
vady ordered, as dctated by the very procamaton tsef, f t
contnued for an unreasonabe ength of tme, then hs reease may
be sought n a habeas corpus proceedng.
.&EDO DlegalE
- The mposton of marta aw automatcay carres wth t the
suspenson of the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus n any
event, the Presdenta order of arrest and detenton cannot be
assaed as deprvaton of berty wthout due process.
- The prmary and fundamenta purpose of marta aw s to
mantan order and to nsure the success of the batte aganst the
enemy by the most expedtous and effcent means wthout oss of
tme and wth the mnmum effort. Ths s sef-evdent. The arrest
and detenton of those contrbutng to the dsorder and especay
of those hepng or otherwse gvng ad and comfort to the enemy
are ndspensabe, f marta aw s to mean anythng at a.
&!#O!IO DlegalE
- The Court s precuded from nqurng nto the egaty of arrest
and detenton of pettoners. Havng concuded that the
Procamaton of Marta Law on September 21, 1972 by the
Presdent of the Phppnes and ts contnuance are vad and
consttutona, the arrest and detenton of pettoners, pursuant to
Genera Order No. 2 dated September 22, 1972 of the Presdent, as
amended by Genera Order No. 2-A, dated September 26, 1972,
may not now be assaed as unconsttutona and arbtrary.
- It shoud be mportant to note that as a consequence of the
procamaton of marta aw, the prvege of the wrt of habeas
corpus has been mpedy suspended. Authortatve wrters on the
sub|ect vew the suspenson of the wrt of habeas corpus as an
ncdent, but an mportant ncdent of a decaraton of marta aw.
'E!&!DE4 Dt*e privilege o/ t*e writ o/ *a6eas 0orpus is
ipso /a0to suspen+e+ upon a pro0lamation o/ martial lawE
"%!O4-P&L"& Dnot legal5 t*e pro0lamation o/ martial law
+i+ not 0arr1 wit* it t*e automati0 suspension o/ t*e
privilege o/ t*e writ o/ *a6eas 0orpusE
- Frst, from the very nature of the wrt of habeas corpus whch as
stressed n the eary porton of ths Opnon s a "wrt of berty" and
the "most mportant and most mmedatey avaabe safeguard of
that berty", the prvege of the wrt cannot be suspended by mere
mpcaton. The B of Rghts (Art. III, Sec. 1(14), 1935 Consttuton,
Art. IV, Sec. 15, 1973 Consttuton) categorcay states that the
prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus sha not be suspended
except for causes theren specfed, and the procamaton of marta
aw s not one of those enumerated.
- Second, the so-caed Commander-n-Chef cause, ether under
Art. VII, Sec. 10(2), 1935 Consttuton, or Art. IX, Sec. 12, 1973
Consttuton, provdes specfcay for three dfferent modes of
executve acton n tmes of emergency, and one mode does not
necessary encompass the other, vz, (a) cang out the armed
forces to prevent or suppress awessness, etc., (b) suspenson of
the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus, and (c) pacng the
country or a part thereof under marta aw. In the atter two
nstances even f the causes for the executve acton are the same,
st the exgences of the stuaton may warrant the suspenson of
the prvege of the wrt but not a procamaton of marta aw and
vce versa.
- Thrd, there can be an automatc suspenson of the prvege of
the wrt when, wth the decaraton of marta aw, there s a tota
coapse of the cv authortes, the cv courts are cosed, and a
mtary government takes over, n whch event the prvege of the
wrt s necessary suspended for the smpe reason that there s no
court to ssue the wrt; that, however, s not the case wth us at
present because the marta aw procamed by the Presdent
uphods the supremacy of the cv over the mtary authorty,and
the courts are open to ssue the wrt.
I.P V 4&"O&
KAPUNAN; August 15, 2000
'&C#(
- In vew of the aarmng ncrease n voent crmes n Metro Mana,
Presdent Estrada, n a verba drectve, ordered the PNP and the
Marnes to conduct |ont vsbty patros for the purpose of crme
preventon and suppresson.
- The Secretary of Natona Defense, the Chef of Staff of the AFP,
the Chef of Staff of the PNP and the Secretary of the Interor and
Loca Government were tasked to execute and mpement the sad
order.
- The PNP Chef, through Poce Superntendent Edgar Agpay,
formuated Letter o/ Instru0tion JICIJJJ, whch contans the ff:
> Purpose: for the suppresson of crme preventon and other
serous threats to natona securty
> Stuaton: Crmna ncdents n Metro Mana have been
perpetrated not ony by ordnary crmnas but aso by organzed
syndcates whose members ncude actve and former
poce/mtary personne. The poce vsbty patro n urban
areas w reduce the ncdence of crmes specay those
perpetrated by actve or former poce/mtary personne.
> Msson: sustaned street patrong to mnmze or eradcate a
forms of hgh-profe crmes especay those perpetrated by
organzed crme syndcates whose members ncude those that
are we-traned, dscpned and we-armed actve or former
PNP/mtary personne
> Concept n |ont Vsbty Patro Operatons:
a. Conducted |onty by the Natona Capta Regon
Poce Offce and the Phppne Marnes to curb crmnaty n
Metro Mana and to preserve the nterna securty of the
state aganst nsurgents and other serous threat to natona
securty, athough the prmary responsbty over Interna
Securty Operatons st rest upon the AFP.
b. Prncpe of ntegraton of efforts: work cohesvey
and unfy efforts to ensure a focused, effectve and hostc
approach n addressng crme preventon.
c. A provsona "as= ;or%e "$l$ngan sha be
organzed to provde the mechansm, structure and
procedures for the ntegrated pannng, coordnatng,
montorng and assessng the securty stuaton.
d. Areas for depoyment: Monumento Crce, SM Cty
North Edsa, Araneta Shoppng Center, Greenhs, SM
Megama, Makat Commerca Center, LRT/MRT Statons and
the NAIA and Domestc Arport.
- On |anuary 17, 2000, the IBP fed petton to annu LOI 02/2000
and to decare the depoyment of the Marnes, nu and vod and
unconsttutona because no emergency stuaton obtans n Metro
Mana as woud |ustfy the depoyment of soders for aw
enforcement work (voates Art 2, Sec. 3), depoyment consttutes
an nsdous ncurson by the mtary n a cvan functon of
government (voates Art. 16, Sec. 5), and depoyment creates a
dangerous tendency to rey on the mtary to perform cvan
functons of the government. It aso makes the mtary more
powerfu than what t shoud reay be under the Consttuton.
- The Presdent confrmed hs prevous drectve on the depoyment
of the Marnes n a Memorandum, dated 24 |anuary 2000,
addressed to the AFP Chef of Staff and PNP Chef. The Presdent
expressed hs desre to mprove the peace and order stuaton n
Metro Mana through more effectve crme preventon program
ncudng ncreased poce patros. He further stated that to
heghten poce vsbty n the Metropos, augmentaton from the
AFP s necessary. Invokng hs powers as Commander-n Chef
under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Consttuton, the Presdent drected
the AFP Chef of Staff and PNP Chef to coordnate wth each other
for the proper depoyment and utzaton of the Marnes to assst
the PNP n preventng or suppressng crmna or awess voence.
Fnay, the Presdent decared that the servces of the Marnes n
the ant-crme campagn are merey temporary n nature and for a
reasonabe perod ony.
I((%E(
1. WON the Presdents factua determnaton of the necessty of
cang the armed forces s sub|ect to |udca revew
a. WON pettoner has ega standng
2. WON the cang of the armed forces to assst the PNP n |ont
vsbty patros voates the consttutona provsons on civilian
supremac(, over the mtary and the cvan character of the PNP
3ELD
1. 2n 1$&#%#al >e*#e.
Rato 1: When questons of consttutona sgnfcance are rased,
the Court can exercse ts power of |udca revew ony f the
foowng requstes are comped wth, namey: (1) the exstence of
an actua and approprate case; (2) a persona and substanta
nterest of the party rasng the consttutona queston; (3) the
exercse of |udca revew s peaded at the earest opportunty;
and (4) the consttutona queston s the s mota of the case.
Rato 2: When the ssues rased are of paramount mportance to
the pubc, the Court may brush asde techncates of procedure.
a. The IBP has not suffcenty comped wth the requstes of
standng n ths case.
> Defnton of ocus stand
+ a persona and substanta nterest n the case such that the
party has sustaned or w sustan drect n|ury as a resut of
the governmenta act that s beng chaenged
+ "nterest" means a matera nterest, an nterest n ssue
affected by the decree, as dstngushed from mere nterest n
the queston nvoved, or a mere ncdenta nterest
+ gst: whether a party aeges such a persona stake n the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete
adverseness whch sharpens the presentaton of ssues upon
whch the court depends for umnaton of dffcut
consttutona questons
> The mere nvocaton by the IBP of ts duty to preserve the rue
of aw and nothng more, whe undoubtedy true, s not suffcent
to cothe t wth standng n ths case
> IBP has faed to present a specfc and substanta nterest n
the resouton of the case. It has not shown any specfc n|ury,
whch t has suffered or may suffer by vrtue of the questoned
government act.
2. "he Pres#&ent &#& not %omm#t gra*e a/$se of &#s%ret#on #n %all#ng
o$t the Mar#nes
:ef#n#t#on of )ol#t#%al 4$est#on
- concerned wth ssues dependent upon the wsdom, not the
egaty, of a partcuar act or measure beng assaed
- (Tanada v. Cuenco) questons whch are to be decded by the
peope n ther soveregn capacty, or n regard to whch fu
dscretonary authorty has been deegated to the egsatve or
executve department; f an ssue s ceary dentfed by the text
of the Consttuton as matters for dscretonary acton by a
partcuar branch of government or to the peope themseves
then t s hed to be a potca queston
- (Baker v. Carr) promnent on the surface of any case hed to be
a potca queston s found a textuay demonstrabe
consttutona commtment of the ssue to a coordnate potca
department; or a ack of |udcay dscoverabe and manageabe
standards for resovng t; or the mpossbty of decdng wthout
an nta pocy determnaton of a knd ceary for non|udca
dscreton; or the mpossbty of a courts undertakng
ndependent resouton wthout expressng ack of the respect
due coordnate branches of government; or an unusua need for
questonng adherence to a potca decson aready made; or the
potentaty of embarrassment from mutfarous pronouncements
by varous departments on the one queston
Rato 3: When the grant of power s quafed, condtona or sub|ect
to mtatons, the ssue of whether the prescrbed quafcatons or
condtons have been met or the mtatons respected, s |ustcabe
-the probem beng one of egaty or vadty.
Rato 4: When potca questons are nvoved, the Consttuton
mts the determnaton as to whether or not there has been grave
abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton on
the part of the offca whose acton s beng questoned.
- grave abuse of dscreton: caprcous or whmsca exercse of
|udgment that s patent and gross as to amount to an evason of
postve duty or a vrtua refusa to perform a duty en|oned by
aw, or to act at a n contempaton of aw, as where the power s
exercsed n an arbtrary and despotc manner by reason of
passon or hostty
- There s no evdence to support the asserton that there exst no
|ustfcaton for cang out the armed forces. Lkewse, there s no
evdence to support the proposton that grave abuse was
commtted because the power to ca was exercsed n such a
manner as to voate the consttutona provson on cvan
supremacy over the mtary.
"here #s a %lear te,t$al %omm#tment $n&er 0rt. V77, Se%. 1', )ar. 1
of the Const#t$t#on to /esto. on the Pres#&ent f$ll &#s%ret#onar+
)o.er to %all o$t the arme& for%es an& to &eterm#ne the ne%ess#t+
for the e,er%#se of s$%h )o.er "he f$ll &#s%ret#onar+ )o.er of the
Pres#&ent to &eterm#ne the fa%t$al /as#s for the e,er%#se of the
%all#ng o$t )o.er #s also #m)l#e& an& f$rther re#nfor%e& #n the rest
of the sa#& )ro*#s#on.
- Congress may revoke procamaton of marta aw or suspenson
of the wrt of habeas corpus and the Court may revew the
suffcency of the factua bass thereof. There s no such
equvaent provson deang wth the revocaton or revew of the
Presdents acton to ca out the armed forces
- E,)ress#o $n#$s est e,%l$s#o alter#$s. Where the terms are
expressy mted to certan matters, t may not, by nterpretaton
or constructon, be extended to other matters.
- Fr. Bernas: graduated power of the Presdent as Commander-n-
Chef; when he exercses ths esser power of cang on the
armed forces, when he says t s necessary, hs |udgment cannot
be revewed by anybody
- Besdes the absence of textua standards that the Court may
use to |udge necessty, nformaton necessary to arrve at such
|udgment mght aso prove unmanageabe for the courts. On the
other hand, the Presdent has a vast ntegence network to
gather nformaton.
"he &e)lo+ment of the Mar#nes &oes not *#olate the %#*#l#an
s$)rema%+ %la$se nor &oes #t #nfr#nge the %#*#l#an %hara%ter of the
)ol#%e for%e
Consttutes permssbe use of mtary assets for cvan aw
enforcement
- mted partcpaton by the Marnes
- rea authorty beongs to the PNP
Depoyment of the Marnes does not unmake the cvan
character of the poce force
- the rea authorty n these operatons s odged wth the head
of a cvan nsttuton, the PNP, and not wth the mtary
- snce none of the Marnes was ncorporated or ensted as
members of the PNP, there can be no appontment to a
cvan poston to speak of
- the Marnes render nothng more than assstance requred n
conductng the patros; there can be no "nsdous ncurson"
of the mtary n cvan affars nor can there be a voaton of
the cvan supremacy cause n the Consttuton
Mtary assstance to cvan authortes n varous forms
perssts n Phppne |ursdcton
- Mtary assstance n: eectons, admnstraton of the Ph.
Red Cross, reef and rescue operatons, conduct of censure
exams, santary nspectons, conduct of census work, etc.
- Systematc, unbroken, executve practce, ong pursued to
the knowedge of Congress and, yet, never before questoned
- Mutua support and cooperaton between the mtary and
cvan authortes, not derogaton of cvan supremacy
0ecision Pet#t#on &#sm#sse&
- 10 concur (Kapunan, Davde, Meo, Pursma, Pardo, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santago, De Leon)
- 5 concur n the resut (Puno, Vtug, Mendoza, Panganban,
Ousumbng)
- 1 on offca eave (Beoso)
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P%!O
- Potca questons are defned as those questons whch under the
Consttuton, are to be decded by the peope n ther soveregn
capacty, or n regard to whch fu dscretonary authorty has been
deegated to the egsatve or executve branch of government
They have two aspects: (1) those matters that are to be exercsed
by the peope n ther prmary potca capacty and (2) matters
whch have been specfcay deegated to some other department
or partcuar offce of the government, wth dscretonary power to
act.
- (Barceon v. Baker) Under our form of government, one
department has no authorty to nqure nto the acts of another,
whch acts are performed wthn the dscreton of the other
department. Whenever a statute gves dscretonary power to any
person, to be exercsed by hm upon hs own opnon of certan
facts, the statute consttutes hm the soe |udge of the exstence of
those facts. The exercse of ths dscreton s concusve upon the
courts. Once a determnaton s made by the executve and
egsatve departments that the condtons |ustfyng the assaed
acts exst, t w presume that the condtons contnue unt the
same authorty decde that they no onger exst. The executve
branch, thru ts cv and mtary branches, are better stuated to
obtan nformaton about peace and order from every corner of the
naton, n contrast wth the |udca department, wth ts very
mted machnery
- (Ae|andrno v. Ouezon) Under the |ones Law, the power of the
Senate to punsh ts members for dsordery behavor does not
authorze t to suspend an appontve member from the exercse of
hs offce. The Supreme Court does not possess the power of
coercon to make the Phppne Senate take any partcuar acton.
The Phppne Legsature or any branch thereof cannot be drecty
controed n the exercse of ther egsatve powers by any |udca
process
- (Vera v. Aveno) Legsature has the nherent rght to determne
who sha be admtted to ts membershp
- (Mabanag v. Lopez Vto) A proposa to amend the Consttuton s a
hghy potca functon performed by Congress n ts soveregn
egsatve capacty
- (Arnaut v. Baagtas) The process by whch a contumacous
wtness s deat wth by the egsature s a necessary concomtant
of the egsatve process and the egsatures exercse of ts
dscretonary authorty s not sub|ect to |udca nterference
- (Osmena v. Pendatun) The Court dd not nterfere wth
Congresspower to dscpne ts members
- (Aveno v. Cuenco) The Court coud assume |ursdcton over the
controversy n ght of the subsequent events |ustfyng nterventon
among whch was the exstence of a quorum
- (Tanada v. Cuenco) The Senate s not cothed wth "fu
dscretonary authorty" n the choce of members of the Senate
Eectora Trbuna and the exercse of ts power thereon s sub|ect
to consttutona mtatons, whch are mandatory n nature.
- (Cunanan v Tan, |r.) The Commsson on Appontments s a
creature of the Consttuton and ts power does not come from
Congress but from the Consttuton
- (Gonzaes v. Comeec) The queston of whether or not Congress,
actng as a consttuent assemby n proposng amendments to the
Consttuton voates the Consttuton was hed to be |ustcabe and
not a potca ssue. The power to amend the Consttuton or to
propose amendments thereto s not ncuded n the genera grant of
egsatve powers to Congress. As a consttuent assemby, the
members of Congress derve ther authorty from the fundamenta
aw and they do not have the fna say on whether ther acts are
wthn or beyond consttutona mts
- (Toentno v. Comeec) Acts of a consttutona conventon caed
for the purpose of proposng amendments to the Consttuton are at
par wth acts of Congress actng as a consttuent assemby
- In sum, ths Court brushed asde the potca queston doctrne
and assumed |ursdcton whenever t found consttutonay-
mposed mts on the exercse of powers conferred upon the
Legsature
- The Court hewed to the same ne as regards the exercse of
Executve Power
- (Severno v. Governor-Genera) When the Legsature conferred
upon the Governor-Genera powers and dutes, t dd so for the
reason that he was n a better poston to know the needs of the
country than any other member of the executve department, and
wth fu confdence that he w perform such dutes as hs
|udgment dctates
- (Abueva v. Wood) Under the prncpe of separaton of powers, t
rued that t was not ntended by the Consttuton that one branch
of government coud encroach upon the fed of duty of the other.
Each department has an excusve fed wthn whch t can
perform ts part wthn certan dscretonary mts.
- (Forbes v. Taco) The Presdents nherent power to deport
undesrabe aens s unversay denomnated as potca, and ths
power contnues to exst for the preservaton of peace and
domestc tranquty of the naton
- (Manaang v. Outorano) The appontng power s the excusve
prerogatve of the Presdent upon whch no mtatons may be
mposed by Congress except those resutng from the need of
securng concurrence of the Commsson on Appontments and
from the exercse of the mted egsatve power to prescrbe
quafcatons to the gven appontve offce
- (Unta v. Chef of Staff, AFP) As Commander-n-Chef of the
Armed Forces, the Presdent has the power to determne whether
war, n the ega sense, st contnues or has termnated. It s
wthn the provnce of the potca department and not the
|udca department of government to determne when war s at
the end
- (Montenegro v. Castaneda) The authorty to decde whether the
exgency has arsen requrng the suspenson of the prvege
beongs to the Presdent and hs decson s fna and concusve
on the courts.
- (Lansang v. Garca) The suspenson of the wrt of habeas corpus
was not a potca queston. The power to suspend the prvege
of the wrt of habeas corpus s nether absoute nor unquafed
because the Consttuton sets mts on the exercse of executve
dscreton on the matter. These mts are: (1) that the prvege
must not be suspended except ony n cases of nvason,
nsurrecton or rebeon or mmnent danger thereof; and (2)
when the pubc safety requres t, n any of whch events the
same may be suspended wherever durng such perod the
necessty for the suspenson sha exst. The extent of the power,
whch may be nqured nto by courts s defned by these
mtatons. The functon of the Court s not to suppant but merey
to check the Executve; to ascertan whether the Presdent has
gone beyond the consttutona mts of hs |ursdcton, not to
exercse the power vested n hm or to determne the wsdom of
hs act.
- (|aveana v. Executve Secretary) Whe a ma|orty of the Court
hed that the ssue of whether or not the 1973 Consttuton was
|ustcabe, a ma|orty aso rued that the decsve ssue of
whether the 1973 Consttuton had come nto force and effect,
wth or wthout consttutona ratfcaton, was a potca queston
- (Aquno, |r. v. Enre) The Court uphed the Presdents
decaraton of marta aw. On whether the vadty of the
mposton of marta aw was a potca or |ustcabe queston,
the Court was amost eveny dvded.
- (Garca-Pada v. Enre) The ssuance of the Presdenta
Commtment Order by the Presdent was not sub|ect to |udca
nqury. In tmes of war or natona emergency, the Presdent
must be gven absoute contro for the very fe of the naton and
government s n per
- (Moraes, |r. v. Enre) By the power of |udca revew, the Court
must nqure nto every phase and aspect of a persons detenton
from the moment he was taken nto custody up to the moment
the court passes upon the merts of the petton
- The anguage of Art. VIII, Sec. 1 ceary gves the Court the power
to strke down acts amountng to grave abuse of dscreton of both
the egsatve and executve branches of government
- It s cear that the Presdent, as Commander-n-Chef of the armed
forces of the Phppnes, may ca out the armed forces sub|ect to
two condtons: (1) whenever t becomes necessary; and (2) to
prevent or suppress awess voence, nvason or rebeon.
Undenaby, these condtons ay down the sne qua requrement for
the exercse of the power and the ob|ectve sought to be attaned
by the exercse of the power. They defne the consttutona
parameters of the cang out power. Whether or not there s
compance wth these parameters s a |ustcabe ssue and s not a
potca queston.
- On the use of Bernas opnon: The Consttuton does not derve ts
force from the conventon whch framed t, but from the peope who
ratfed t, the ntent to be arrved at s that of the peope.
- When prvate |ustcabe rghts are nvoved n a sut, the Court
must not refuse to assume |ursdcton even though questons of
extreme potca mportance are necessary nvoved.
VI#%G
The act of the Presdent n smpy cang on the armed forces of the
Phppnes, an executve prerogatve, to assst the PNP n |ont
vsbty patros n the metropos, does not consttute grave abuse
of dscreton that woud now warrant an exercse by the Supreme
Court of ts extraordnary power as so envsoned by the
fundamenta aw.
"E!DO4& D0on0ur an+ +issentE
- The |udgment on the substantve consttutona ssues rased by
pettoner must awat an actua case nvovng rea partes wth
n|ures to show as a resut of the operaton of the chaenged
executve acton
- A ctzens sut chaengng the consttut0onaty of governmenta
acton requres that (1) the pettoner must have suffered an "n|ury
n fact" of an actua or mmnent nature; (2) there must be a causa
connecton between the n|ury and the conduct companed of; and
(3) the n|ury s key to be redressed by a favorabe acton by ths
Court
- Ony a party n|ured by the operaton of the governmenta acton
chaenged s n the best poston to ad the Court n determnng
the precse nature of the probem presented.
- Because of the absence of partes wth rea and substanta
nterest to protect, we do not have evdence on the effect of
mtary presence n mas and commerca centers
- Dsmss sut on the ground of ack of standng of pettoner and
the consequent ack of an actua case or controversy
(&!L&)&( V EBEC%#IVE (ECE#&2
TINGA; February 3, 2004
'&C#(
- |uy 27, 2003 - Some 300 |unor offcers and ensted men of AFP,
armed wth ammuntons and exposves, stormed nto Oakwood
apartments n Makat. They demanded the resgnaton of GMA,
Defense Secretary and the PNP Chef.
- Later that day, the Presdent ssued Procamaton No. 427 and
Genera Order No. 4 both decarng "a state of rebeon" and cang
out the AFP to suppress the rebeon.
- Oakwood occupaton ended n the evenng after negotatons.
- August 1, 2003 - Presdent fted the decaraton.
- PARTIES
> Sanakas and Partdo ng Manggagawa (PD)
o Sec 18, Art 7 does not requre decaraton of a state of
rebeon to ca out the armed forces
o There s no suffcent factua bass for an ndefnte perod
snce Oakwood occupaton had ceased.
> Soca |ustce Socety (S|S) as Fpno ctzens, taxpayers, aw
professors and bar revewers
o Decaraton s consttutona anomay that confuses
because overzeaous pubc offcers actng pursuant to the
procamaton are abe to voate the consttutona rghts of
ctzens
o Crcumventon of the report requrement n Sec 18,
Art 7, commandng the Presdent to submt a report to
Congress wthn 48 hours from procamaton of marta aw
o Presdenta ssuances cannot be construed as an
exercse of emergency powers as Congress has not deegated
any such power to the Presdent
> Rep. Supco et a as ctzens and members of House of
Representatves
o Ther rghts, powers, and functons were aegedy affected
o Decaraton s a superfuty and s actuay an exercse of
emergency powers and therefore s a usurpaton of the power
of the Congress n Art 6, Sec 23 par 2
> Sen. Pmente
o Issuances are unwarranted, ega, and abusve exercse of a
marta aw power that has no consttutona bass
> Soctor-Genera
o Case has become moot because of the ftng of the
decaraton
I((%E(
1. WON ssue s |ustcabe gven mootness of the ssue and ega
standng of the partes
b. WON pettoners have ega standng
2. WON ssuances of the Presdent are vad
3ELD
1. The Presdent, n decarng state of rebeon and n cang out
the armed forces, was merey exercsng a weddng of her Chef
Executve and Commander-n-Chef powers. These are purey
executve powers, vested on the Presdent by Sectons 1 and 18,
Artce 7 as opposed to the deegated egsatve powers
contempated by Secton 23 (2), Artce 6.
- |ustcabe even f moot
- Courts w decde a queston, otherwse moot, f t s capabe of
repetton yet evadng revew
- Lacson v. Perez - mootness precude the Court from addressng ts
Consttutonaty
- Ony Rep Supco et a and Sen Pmente have ega standng
because when an act of the Executve n|ures the nsttuton of the
Congress and causes a dervatve but substanta n|ury, then any
member can fe sut (Ph. Consttuton Assocaton v. Enrquez)
- Sanakas, PM, and S|S have no ega standng because they dd
not obtan any drect n|ury from the governmenta act that s beng
chaenged. Peopes organzaton status woud not vest them wth
the requste personaty to queston the vadty of the presdenta
ssuances (Kosbayan v. Morato)
- S|S as taxpayers and ctzens have no ega standng because
there was no ega dsbursement of pubc funds derved from
taxaton
2. Presdenta ssuances are vad
- Art 7, Sec 18 - Sequence of graduated powers: 1.cang out
power, 2.power to suspend wrt of habeas corpus, 3.power to
decare marta aw.
- 2 and 3 requre concurrence of actua nvason or rebeon AND
that pubc safety requres the exercse of such power. These are
not requred n cang-out power (IBP v. Zamora)
- It does not expressy prohbt the Presdent from decarng a state
of rebeon. The Consttuton vests the Presdent not ony wth
Commander-n-Chef powers but wth frst and foremost, Executve
powers
- US Consttutona hstory: commander-n-chef powers are broad
enough as t s and become more so when taken together wth the
provson on executve power and presdenta oath of offce
- Presdents authorty to decare state of rebeon sprngs n the
man from her powers as chef executve and at the same tme
draws strength from her commander-n-chef powers
- The decaraton of state of rebeon ony gves notce to the naton
that such a state exsts and the armed forces may be caed to
prevent or suppress t.
- Decaraton cannot dmnsh or voate consttutonaty protected
rghts (Lacson)
- Presdent has fu dscretonary power to ca out the armed forces
and to determne the necessty of the exercse of such power.
There s no proof that the Presdent acted wthout factua bass.
- Decaraton of state of rebeon does not amount to decaraton of
marta aw.
D&VID V "&C&P&G&L-&O2O
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; May 3, 2006
'&C#(
- On February 24, 2006, as the naton ceebrated the 20
th
Annversary of the E&sa Peo)le Po.er 7, Presdent Arroyo ssued PP
1017 decarng a state of natona emergency, thus:
!O75 #3EE'OE, I, Gora Macapaga-Arroyo, Presdent of
the Repubc of the Phppnes and Commander-n-Chef of the
Armed Forces of the Phppnes, by vrtue of the powers vested
upon me by Secton 18, Artce 7 of the Phppne Consttuton
whch states that: "The Presdent. . . whenever t becomes
necessary, . . . may ca out (the) armed forces to prevent or
suppress. . .rebeon. . .," and n my capacty as ther
Commander-n-Chef, +o *ere61 0omman+ t*e &rme+
'or0es o/ t*e P*ilippines5 to maintain law an+ or+er
t*roug*out t*e P*ilippines5 prevent or suppress all
/orms o/ lawless violen0e as well as an1 a0t o/
insurre0tion or re6ellion an+ to en/or0e o6e+ien0e to all
t*e laws an+ to all +e0rees5 or+ers an+ regulations
promulgate+ 61 me personall1 or upon m1 +ire0tion;
and as provi+e+ in (e0tion 1H5 &rti0le 1I o/ t*e
Constitution +o *ere61 +e0lare a (tate o/ !ational
Emergen01.
- The decaraton s premsed mtary and poce ntegence
contanng concerted efforts of Left and Rght wng factons to
brng down the Arroyo Government.
- On the same day, the Presdent ssued G. O. No. 5 mpementng
PP 1017 (hence, the same premse as PP1017), thus:
!O75 #3EE'OE5 I GLOI& "&C&P&G&L-&O2O5 by
vrtue of the powers vested n me under the Consttuton as
Presdent of the Repubc of the Phppnes, and Commander-
n-Chef of the Repubc of the Phppnes, and pursuant to
Procamaton No. 1017 dated February 24, 2006, do hereby
ca upon the Armed Forces of the Phppnes (AFP) and the
Phppne Natona Poce (PNP), to prevent and suppress acts
of terrorsm and awess voence n the country;
I hereby drect the Chef of Staff of the AFP and the Chef of the
PNP, as we as the offcers and men of the AFP and PNP, to
imme+iatel1 0arr1 out t*e ne0essar1 an+ appropriate
a0tions an+ measures to suppress an+ prevent a0ts o/
terrorism an+ lawless violen0e.
- On March 3, 2006, exacty one week after the decaraton of a
state of natona emergency and after a these pettons had been
fed, the Presdent fted PP 1017.
&G%"E!#( O' #3E GOVE!"E!#
In ther presentaton of the factua bases of PP 1017 and
G.O. No. 5, respondents stated that the proxmate cause behnd the
executve ssuances was the conspracy among some mtary
offcers, eftst nsurgents of the New Peopes Army (NPA), and
some members of the potca opposton n a pot to unseat or
assassnate Presdent Arroyo.
|4|
They consdered the am to oust or
assassnate the Presdent and take-over the regns of government
as a cear and present danger.
Durng the ora arguments hed on March 7, 2006, the
Soctor Genera specfed the facts eadng to the ssuance of PP
1017 and G.O. No. 5. (IG!I'IC&!#L25 #3EE 7&( !O
E'%#&#IO! 'O" PE#I#IO!E(A CO%!(EL(.
On |anuary 17, 2006, Captan Nathane Rabonza and Frst
Leutenants Sonny Sarmento, Lawrence San |uan and Patrco
Bumdang, members of the Magdao Group ndcted n the Oakwood
mutny, escaped ther detenton ce n Fort Bonfaco, Tagug Cty.
In a pubc statement, they vowed to reman defant and to eude
arrest at a costs. They caed upon the peope to "sho. an&
)ro%la#m o$r &#s)leas$re at the sham reg#me. 5et $s &emonstrate
o$r &#sg$st, not onl+ /+ go#ng to the streets #n )rotest, /$t also /+
.ear#ng re& /an&s on o$r left arms."
|5|
On February 17, 2006, the authortes got hod of a
document entted "2)lan 8a%=le 7 " whch detaed pans for
bombngs and attacks durng the Phppne Mtary Academy
Aumn Homecomng n Baguo Cty. The pot was to assassnate
seected targets ncudng some cabnet members and Presdent
Arroyo hersef.
|6|
Upon the advce of her securty, Presdent Arroyo
decded not to attend the Aumn Homecomng. The next day, at
the heght of the ceebraton, a bomb was found and detonated at
the PMA parade ground.
On February 21, 2006, Lt. San |uan was recaptured n a
communst safehouse n Batangas provnce. Found n hs
possesson were two (2) fash dsks contanng mnutes of the
meetngs between members of the Magdao Group and the Natona
Peopes Army (NPA), a tape recorder, audo cassette cartrdges,
dskettes, and copes of subversve documents.
|7|
Pror to hs
arrest, Lt. San |uan announced through DZRH that the "Mag&aloGs
:-:a+ .o$l& /e on ;e/r$ar+ 24, 2006, the 20
th
0nn#*ersar+ of E&sa
7.J
On February 23, 2006, PNP Chef Arturo Lombao
ntercepted nformaton that members of the PNP- Speca Acton
Force were pannng to defect. Thus, he mmedatey ordered SAF
Commandng Genera Marceno Franco, |r. to H&#sa*o.J any
defecton. The atter prompty obeyed and ssued a pubc
statement: "0ll S0; $n#ts are $n&er the effe%t#*e %ontrol of
res)ons#/le an& tr$st.orth+ off#%ers .#th )ro*en #ntegr#t+ an&
$n4$est#ona/le lo+alt+."
On the same day, at the house of former Congressman
Pepng Co|uangco, Presdent Cory Aqunos brother, busnessmen
and md-eve government offcas potted moves to brng down the
Arroyo admnstraton. Ney Sndayen of TIME Magazne reported
that Pastor Saycon, ongtme Arroyo crtc, caed a U.S.
government offca about hs groups pans f Presdent Arroyo s
ousted. Saycon aso phoned a man code-named Deta. Saycon
dentfed hm as B/Gen. Dano Lm, Commander of the Armys ete
Scout Ranger. Lm sad "#t .as all s+stems go for the )lanne&
mo*ement aga#nst 0rro+o."
|8|
B/Gen. Dano Lm and Brgade Commander Co. Are
Ouerubn confded to Gen. Generoso Senga, Chef of Staff of the
Armed Forces of the Phppnes (AFP), that a huge number of
soders woud |on the raes to provde a crtca mass and armed
component to the Ant-Arroyo protests to be hed on February 24,
2005. Accordng to these two (2) offcers, there was no way they
coud possby stop the soders because they too, were breakng
the chan of command to |on the forces fost to unseat the
Presdent. However, Gen. Senga has remaned fathfu to hs
Commander-n-Chef and to the chan of command. He
mmedatey took custody of B/Gen. Lm and drected Co. Ouerubn
to return to the Phppne Marnes Headquarters n Fort Bonfaco.
Earer, the CPP-NPA caed for ntensfcaton of potca and
revoutonary work wthn the mtary and the poce
estabshments n order to forge aances wth ts members and key
offcas. NPA spokesman Gregoro "Ka Roger" Rosa decared:
""he Comm$n#st Part+ an& re*ol$t#onar+ mo*ement an& the ent#re
)eo)le loo= for.ar& to the )oss#/#l#t+ #n the %om#ng +ear of
a%%om)l#sh#ng #ts #mme&#ate tas= of /r#ng#ng &o.n the 0rro+o
reg#meK of ren&er#ng #t to .ea=en an& $na/le to r$le that #t .#ll not
ta=e m$%h longer to en& #t."
|9|
On the other hand, Cesar Renero, spokesman for the
Natona Democratc Front (NDF) at North Centra Mndanao,
pubcy announced: "0nt#-0rro+o gro$)s .#th#n the m#l#tar+ an&
)ol#%e are gro.#ng ra)#&l+, hastene& /+ the e%onom#% &#ff#%$lt#es
s$ffere& /+ the fam#l#es of 0;P off#%ers an& enl#ste& )ersonnel .ho
$n&erta=e %o$nter-#ns$rgen%+ o)erat#ons #n the f#el&." He camed
that wth the forces of the natona democratc movement, the ant-
Arroyo conservatve potca partes, coatons, pus the groups
that have been renforcng snce |une 2005, t s probabe that the
Presdents ouster s nearng ts concudng stage n the frst haf of
2006.
Respondents further camed that the bombng of
teecommuncaton towers and ce stes n Buacan and Bataan was
aso consdered as addtona factua bass for the ssuance of PP
1017 and G.O. No. 5. So s the rad of an army outpost n Benguet
resutng n the death of three (3) soders. And aso the drectve
of the Communst Party of the Phppnes orderng ts front
organzatons to |on 5,000 Metro Mana radcas and 25,000 more
from the provnces n mass protests.
|10|
By mdnght of February 23, 2006, the Presdent convened
her securty advsers and severa cabnet members to assess the
gravty of the fermentng peace and order stuaton. She drected
both the AFP and the PNP to account for a ther men and ensure
that the chan of command remans sod and undvded. To
protect the young students from any possbe troube that mght
break oose on the streets, the Presdent suspended casses n a
eves n the entre Natona Capta Regon.
PE#I#IO!EA( &G%"E!#(
In G.. !o. 1H1MF8, pettoners Randof S. Davd, et al.
assaed PP 1017 on the grounds that (1) t encroaches on the
emergency powers of Congress; (I) t s a subterfuge to avod the
consttutona requrements for the mposton of marta aw; and
(M) t voates the consttutona guarantees of freedom of the
press, of speech and of assemby.
In G.. !o. 1H1GJF, pettoners Nnez Cacho-Ovares and
"r#/$ne Pubshng Co., Inc. chaenged the CIDGs act of radng the
:a#l+ "r#/$ne offces as a cear case of "censorshp" or "pror
restrant." They aso camed that the term "emergency" refers
ony to tsunam, typhoon, hurrcane and smar occurrences,
hence, there s "a/sol$tel+ no emergen%+" that warrants the
ssuance of PP 1017.
In G.. !o. 1H1G;5, pettoners heren are Representatve
Francs |oseph G. Escudero, and twenty one (21) other members of
the House of Representatves, ncudng Representatves Satur
Ocampo, Rafae Marano, Teodoro Caso, Lza Maza, and |ose
Vrador. They asserted that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 consttute
"$s$r)at#on of leg#slat#*e )o.ers"; "*#olat#on of free&om of
e,)ress#on" and "a &e%larat#on of mart#al la.." They aeged that
Presdent Arroyo "gra*el+ a/$se& her &#s%ret#on #n %all#ng o$t the
arme& for%es .#tho$t %lear an& *er#f#a/le fa%t$al /as#s of the
)oss#/#l#t+ of la.less *#olen%e an& a sho.#ng that there #s ne%ess#t+
to &o so."
In G.. !o. 1H1G;M, pettoners KMU, NAFLU-KMU, and
ther members averred that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are
unconsttutona because (1) they arrogate unto Presdent Arroyo
the power to enact aws and decrees; (I) ther ssuance was
wthout factua bass; and (M) they voate freedom of expresson
and the rght of the peope to peaceaby assembe to redress ther
grevances.
In G.. !o. 1H1GJJ, pettoner Aternatve Law Groups, Inc.
(ALGI) aeged that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconsttutona
because they voate (a) Secton 4
|15|
of Artce II, (6) Sectons 1,
|16|
2,
|17|
and 4
|18|
of Artce III,

(0) Secton 23
|19|
of Artce VI, and (+)
Secton 17
|20|
of Artce XII of the Consttuton.
In G.. !o. 1H1G;F, pettoners |ose Ansemo I. Cadz et
al., aeged that PP 1017 s an "ar/#trar+ an& $nla.f$l e,er%#se /+
the Pres#&ent of her Mart#al 5a. )o.ers." And assumng that PP
1017 s not reay a decaraton of Marta Law, pettoners argued
that "#t amo$nts to an e,er%#se /+ the Pres#&ent of emergen%+
)o.ers .#tho$t %ongress#onal a))ro*al." In addton, pettoners
asserted that PP 1017 "goes /e+on& the nat$re an& f$n%t#on of a
)ro%lamat#on as &ef#ne& $n&er the >e*#se& 0&m#n#strat#*e Co&e.J
And asty, n G.. !o. 1H1GIG, pettoner Loren B. Legarda
mantaned that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are "$n%onst#t$t#onal for
/e#ng *#olat#*e of the free&om of e,)ress#on, #n%l$&#ng #ts %ognate
r#ghts s$%h as free&om of the )ress an& the r#ght to a%%ess to
#nformat#on on matters of )$/l#% %on%ern, all g$arantee& $n&er
0rt#%le 777, Se%t#on 4 of the 19'7 Const#t$t#on." In ths regard, she
stated that these ssuances prevented her from fuy prosecutng
her eecton protest pendng before the Presdenta Eectora
Trbuna.
- In respondents Consodated Comment, the Soctor Genera
countered that: f#rst, the pettons shoud be dsmssed for beng
moot; se%on&, pettoners n G.R. Nos. 171400 (ALGI), 171424
(Legarda), 171483 (KMU et al.), 171485 (Escudero et al.) and
171489 (Cadz et al.) have no ega standng; th#r&, t s not
necessary for pettoners to mpead Presdent Arroyo as
respondent; fo$rth, PP 1017 has consttutona and ega bass;
and f#fth, PP 1017 does not voate the peopes rght to free
expresson and redress of grevances.
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON the moot and academc prncpe precudes the
Court from takng cognzance of the cases
2. WON pettoners n 1H1G;5 (Escudero et al.), G.. !os.
1H1GJJ (ALGI), 1H1G;M (KMU et al.), 1H1G;F (Cadz et al.),
and 1H1GIG (Legarda) have ega standng
S$/stant#*e
3. WON Supreme Court can revew the factua bass of PP
1017
4. WON PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconsttutona
a. Faca Chaenge
6. Consttutona Bass
0. As Apped Chaenge
3ELD
Pro%e&$ral
1. !O. Courts w decde cases, otherwse moot and academc, f:
f#rst, there s a grave voaton of the Consttuton;
|31|
se%on&, the
exceptona character of the stuaton and the paramount pubc
nterest s nvoved;
|32|
th#r&, when consttutona ssue rased
requres formuaton of controng prncpes to gude the bench,
the bar, and the pubc;
|33|
and fo$rth, the case s capabe of
repetton yet evadng revew.
|34|

easonin;
- Courts w decde cases, otherwse moot and academc, f: f#rst,
there s a grave voaton of the Consttuton;
|31|
se%on&, the
exceptona character of the stuaton and the paramount pubc
nterest s nvoved;
|32|
th#r&, when consttutona ssue rased
requres formuaton of controng prncpes to gude the bench,
the bar, and the pubc;
|33|
and fo$rth, the case s capabe of
repetton yet evadng revew.
|34|

- A the foregong exceptons are present here and |ustfy ths
Courts assumpton of |ursdcton over the nstant pettons.
Pettoners aeged that the ssuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5
voates the Consttuton. There s no queston that the ssues
beng rased affect the pubcs nterest, nvovng as they do the
peopes basc rghts to freedom of expresson, of assemby and of
the press. Moreover, the Court has the duty to formuate gudng
and controng consttutona precepts, doctrnes or rues. It has
the symboc functon of educatng the bench and the bar, and n
the present pettons, the mtary and the poce, on the extent of
the protecton gven by consttutona guarantees.
|35|
And asty,
respondents contested actons are capabe of repetton. Certany,
the pettons are sub|ect to |udca revew. In ther attempt to
prove the aeged mootness of ths case, respondents cted Chef
|ustce Artemo V. Panganbans Separate Opnon n Sanla=as *.
E,e%$t#*e Se%retar+.
|36|
However, they faed to take nto account
the Chef |ustces very statement that an otherwse "moot" case
may st be decded ")ro*#&e& the )art+ ra#s#ng #t #n a )ro)er %ase
has /een an&Cor %ont#n$es to /e )re3$&#%e& or &amage& as a &#re%t
res$lt of #ts #ss$an%e." The present case fas rght wthn ths
excepton to the mootness rue ponted out by the Chef |ustce.
I. 2E(. The requrement of Locus stand whch s the rght of
appearance n a court of |ustce on a gven queston sha be set
asde by the Court whenever t s shown that the case s of
transcendenta mportance.
easonin;
- 5o%$s stan&# s defned as "a rght of appearance n a court of
|ustce on a gven queston."
|37|
In prvate suts, standng s
governed by the "rea-partes-n nterest" rue as contaned n
Secton 2, Rue 3 of the 1997 Rues of Cv Procedure, as amended.
It provdes that "ever1 a0tion must 6e prose0ute+ or
+e/en+e+ in t*e name o/ t*e real part1 in interest."
Accordngy, the "rea-party-n nterest" s "t*e part1 w*o stan+s
to 6e 6ene/ite+ or in<ure+ 61 t*e <u+gment in t*e suit or t*e
part1 entitle+ to t*e avails o/ t*e suit."
|38|
Succncty put, the
pantffs standng s based on hs own rght to the reef sought.
- By way of summary, the foowng rues may be cued from the
cases decded by ths Court. Taxpayers, voters, concerned
ctzens, and egsators may be accorded standng to sue, provded
that the foowng requrements are met:
1. the cases nvove consttutona ssues;
I. for ta:pa1ers, there must be a cam of ega dsbursement
of pubc funds or that the tax measure s unconsttutona;
M. for voters, there must be a showng of obvous nterest n the
vadty of the eecton aw n queston;
G. or 0on0erne+ 0iti,ens, there must be a showng that the
ssues rased are of transcendenta mportance whch must be
setted eary; and
5. or legislators, there must be a cam that the offca acton
companed of nfrnges upon ther prerogatves as egsators.
- Now, the appcaton of the above prncpes to the present
pettons.
- The lo%$s stan&# of pettoners n G.. !o. 1H1MF8, partcuary
Davd and Lamas, s beyond doubt. The same hods true wth
pettoners n G.. !o. 1H1GJF, Cacho-Ovares and "r#/$ne
Pubshng Co. Inc. They aeged "drect n|ury" resutng from
"ega arrest" and "unawfu search" commtted by poce
operatves pursuant to PP 1017. Rghty so, the Soctor Genera
does not queston ther ega standng.
- In G.. !o. 1H1G;5, the opposton Congressmen aeged there
was usurpaton of egsatve powers. They aso rased the ssue of
whether or not the concurrence of Congress s necessary whenever
the aarmng powers ncdent to Marta Law are used. Moreover, t
s n the nterest of |ustce that those affected by PP 1017 can be
represented by ther Congressmen n brngng to the attenton of
the Court the aeged voatons of ther basc rghts.
- In G.. !o. 1H1GJJ, (ALGI), ths Court apped the beraty rue
n Ph#l%onsa *. Enr#4$e6,
|60|
?a)at#ran Ng Mga Nagl#l#ng=o& sa
Pamahalaan ng P#l#)#nas, 7n%. *. "an,
|61|
0sso%#at#on of Small
5an&o.ners #n the Ph#l#))#nes, 7n%. *. Se%retar+ of 0grar#an >eform,
|62|
-as%o *. Ph#l#))#ne 0m$sement an& 9am#ng Cor)orat#on,
|63|
and
"aMa&a *. "$*era,
|64|
that when the ssue concerns a pubc rght, t
s suffcent that the pettoner s a ctzen and has an nterest n the
executon of the aws.
- In G.. !o. 1H1G;M, KMUs asserton that PP 1017 and G.O. No.
5 voated ts rght to peacefu assemby may be deemed suffcent
to gve t ega standng. Organi,ations ma1 6e grante+
stan+ing to assert t*e rig*ts o/ t*eir mem6ers.
|65|
We take
|udca notce of the announcement by the Offce of the Presdent
bannng a raes and canceng a permts for pubc assembes
foowng the ssuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.
- In G.. !o. 1H1G;F, pettoners, Ca&#6 et al., who are natona
offcers of the Integrated Bar of the Phppnes (IBP) have no ega
standng, havng faed to aege any drect or potenta n|ury whch
the IBP as an nsttuton or ts members may suffer as a
consequence of the ssuance of PP No. 1017 and G.O. No. 5. In
7ntegrate& -ar of the Ph#l#))#nes *. Vamora,
|66|
the Court hed that
the mere nvocaton by the IBP of ts duty to preserve the rue of
aw and nothng more, whe undoubtedy true, s not suffcent to
cothe t wth standng n ths case. Ths s too genera an nterest
whch s shared by other groups and the whoe ctzenry. However,
n vew of the transcendenta mportance of the ssue, ths Court
decares that pettoner have lo%$s stan&#.
- In G.. !o. 1H1GIG, Loren Legarda has no personaty as a
taxpayer to fe the nstant petton as there are no aegatons of
ega dsbursement of pubc funds. The fact that she s a former
Senator s of no consequence. She can no onger sue as a
egsator on the aegaton that her prerogatves as a awmaker
have been mpared by PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. Her cam that
she s a meda personaty w not kewse ad her because there
was no showng that the enforcement of these ssuances prevented
her from pursung her occupaton. Her submsson that she has
pendng eectora protest before the Presdenta Eectora Trbuna
s kewse of no reevance. She has not suffcenty shown that PP
1017 w affect the proceedngs or resut of her case. But
consderng once more the transcendenta mportance of the ssue
nvoved, ths Court may reax the standng rues.
- It must aways be borne n mnd that the queston of lo%$s stan&#
s but coroary to the bgger queston of proper exercse of |udca
power. Ths s the underyng ega tenet of the "beraty doctrne"
on ega standng. It cannot be doubted that the vadty of PP No.
1017 and G.O. No. 5 s a |udca queston whch s of paramount
mportance to the Fpno peope. To paraphrase |ustce Laure,
the whoe of Phppne socety now wats wth bated breath the
rung of ths Court on ths very crtca matter. The pettons thus
ca for the appcaton of the "trans0en+ental importan0e"
doctrne, a reaxaton of the standng requrements for the
pettoners n the "PP 1017 cases."
- Ths Court hods that a the pettoners heren have lo%$s stan&#.
- Incdentay, IT IS NOT PROPER TO IMPLEAD PRESIDENT ARROYO
AS RESPONDENT. SETTLED IS THE DOCTRINE THAT THE
PRESIDENT, DURING HIS TENURE OF OFFICE OR ACTUAL
INCUMBENCY,
|67|
MAY NOT BE SUED IN 0NL CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
CASE, AND THERE IS NO NEED TO PROVIDE FOR IT IN THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAW. It w degrade the dgnty of the hgh
offce of the Presdent, the Head of State, f he can be dragged nto
court tgatons whe servng as such. Furthermore, t s mportant
that he be freed from any form of harassment, hndrance or
dstracton to enabe hm to fuy attend to the performance of hs
offca dutes and functons. Unke the egsatve and |udca
branch, ony one consttutes the executve branch and anythng
whch mpars hs usefuness n the dscharge of the many great
and mportant dutes mposed upon hm by the Consttuton
necessary mpars the operaton of the Government. However,
ths does not mean that the Presdent s not accountabe to anyone.
Lke any other offca, he remans accountabe to the peope
|68|
but
he may be removed from offce ony n the mode provded by aw
and that s by mpeachment.
|69|

S$/stant#*e
M. The Presdents "cang-out" power s a dscretonary power
soey vested n hs wsdom. However, "t*is +oes not prevent an
e:amination o/ w*et*er su0* power was e:er0ise+ wit*in
permissi6le 0onstitutional limits or w*et*er it was
e:er0ise+ in a manner 0onstituting grave a6use o/
+is0retion." Ths rung s based on Secton 1, Artce VIII of 1987
Consttuton whch fortfes the authorty of the courts to determne
n an approprate acton the vadty of the acts of the potca
departments. Under the new defnton of |udca power, the
courts are authorzed not ony "to sette actua controverses
nvovng rghts whch are egay demandabe and enforceabe,"
but aso "to +etermine w*et*er or not t*ere *as 6een a
grave a6use o/ +is0retion amounting to la09 or e:0ess o/
<uris+i0tion on t*e part o/ an1 6ran0* or instrumentalit1 o/
t*e government." The atter part of the authorty represents a
broadenng of |udca power to enabe the courts of |ustce to
revew what was before a forbdden terrtory, to wt, the
dscreton of the potca departments of the government.
|81|
It
speaks of |udca prerogatve not ony n terms of power but aso
of +ut1.
|82|

- However, "|udca nqury can go no f$rther than to satsfy the
Court not that the Presdents decson s %orre%t," but that "the
Presdent dd not act ar/#trar#l+." Thus, the standard ad down s
not correctness, but arbtrarness.
|83|
It is in0um6ent upon t*e
petitioner to s*ow t*at t*e Presi+entAs +e0ision is totall1
6ere/t o/ /a0tual 6asis" and that f he fas, by way of proof, to
support hs asserton, then "t*is Court 0annot un+erta9e an
in+epen+ent investigation 6e1on+ t*e plea+ings.
- Pettoners faed to show that Presdent Arroyos exercse of the
cang-out power, by ssung PP 1017, s totay bereft of factua
bass. A readng of the Soctor Generas Consodated Comment
and Memorandum shows a detaed narraton of the events eadng
to the ssuance of PP 1017, wth supportng reports formng part of
the records. Pettoners presented nothng to refute such events.
Thus, absent any contrary aegatons, the Court s convnced that
the Presdent was |ustfed n ssung PP 1017 cang for mtary
ad.
G. 2E(. Notwthstandng the dscretonary nature of the
consttutona exercse of the Presdent of hs/her cang out of
power, the Courts sha have authorty to nqure nto the factua
bass of such exercse to determne whether t was wthn the
consttutonay permssbe mts or whether grave abuse of
dscreton attended ts exercse. (Ths nterpretaton was based on
Artce VIII, secton 1
a. 'a0ial C*allenge. Faca nvadaton of aws (overbreadth
doctrne) sha not be resorted to n the absence of cear showng
that (1) the aw nvoves the exercse of free speech; (2) that there
can be no nstance that the assaed aw may be vad; and that (3)
the Court has no other aternatve remedes avaabe.
- Under the vod-for-vagueness doctrne, a aw sha be facay
nvad ony f men of common ntegence must necessary guess
at ts meanng and dffer as to ts appcaton.
easonin;
Pettoners contend that PP 1017 s vod on ts face because of ts
"overbreadth." They cam that ts enforcement encroached on
both unprotected and protected rghts under Secton 4, Artce III of
the Consttuton and sent a "chng effect" to the ctzens.
- A faca revew of PP 1017, usng the overbreadth doctrne, s
uncaed for. ;#rst an& foremost, the overbreadth doctrne s an
anaytca too deveoped for testng "on ther faces" statutes n
/ree spee0* 0ases. A pan readng of PP 1017 shows that t s not
prmary drected to speech or even speech-reated conduct. It s
actuay a ca upon the AFP to prevent or suppress a forms of
lawless violen0e. In En#te& States *. Salerno,
|104|
the US Supreme
Court hed that "we *ave not re0ogni,e+ an Wover6rea+t*A
+o0trine outsi+e t*e limite+ 0onte:t o/ t*e 'irst
&men+ment? (/ree+om o/ spee0*). Moreover, the overbreadth
doctrne s not ntended for testng the vadty of a aw that
"refects egtmate state nterest n mantanng comprehensve
contro over harmfu, consttutonay unprotected conduct."
Undoubtedy, awess voence, nsurrecton and rebeon are
consdered "harmfu" and "consttutonay unprotected conduct."
- Se%on&, faca nvadaton of aws s consdered as "mani/estl1
strong me+i0ine," to be used "sparingl1 an+ onl1 as a last
resort," and s "generall1 +is/avore+;"
|107|
The reason for ths s
obvous. Embedded n the tradtona rues governng consttutona
ad|udcaton s the prncpe that a person to whom a aw may be
apped w not be heard to chaenge a aw on the ground that t
may concevaby be apped unconsttutonay to others, .e., in
ot*er situations not 6e/ore t*e Court.
|108|

- And th#r&, a faca chaenge on the ground of overbreadth s the
most dffcut chaenge to mount successfuy, snce the chaenger
must estabsh that t*ere 0an 6e no instan0e w*en t*e
assaile+ law ma1 6e vali+. Here, pettoners dd not even
attempt to show whether ths stuaton exsts.
- Reated to the "overbreadth" doctrne s the "vod for vagueness
doctrne" whch hods that "a law is /a0iall1 invali+ i/ men o/
0ommon intelligen0e must ne0essaril1 guess at its meaning
an+ +i//er as to its appli0ation."
|110|
It s sub|ect to the same
prncpes governng overbreadth doctrne. For one, t s aso an
anaytca too for testng "on ther faces" statutes in /ree spee0*
0ases. And ke overbreadth, t s sad that a tgant may chaenge
a statute on ts face ony f t s vague in all its possi6le
appli0ations. &gain5 petitioners +i+ not even attempt to
s*ow t*at PP 1J1H is vague in all its appli0ation. They aso
faed to estabsh that men of common ntegence cannot
understand the meanng and appcaton of PP 1017.
b. Constitutional .asis. The authorty of the Presdent to
exercse hs cang out power to suppress awess voence sha not
be deemed to ncude the power to authorze: (a) arrests and
sezures wthout |udca warrants; (b) ban on pubc assembes; (c)
take-over of news meda and agences and press censorshp; and
(d) ssuance of Presdenta Decrees, as these powers can be
exercsed by the Presdent as Commander-n-Chef onl1 where
there s a vad decaraton of Marta Law or suspenson of the wrt
of ha/eas %or)$s.
- The take care power of the Presdent, whch ncudes the power to
enforce obedence of aws sha not be deemed to ncude cang
the mtary to enforce or mpement certan aws, such as customs
aws, aws governng famy and property reatons, aws on
obgatons and contracts and the ke.
- The ordnance power of the Presdent sha not ncude the power
to make "decrees" wth the same force and effect as those ssued
by Presdent Marcos.
- In the absence of deegated authorty from Congress, the
authorty of the Presdent to decare a state of emergency sha not
be deemed to ncude the power to temporary take over or drect
the operaton of any prvatey owned pubc utty or busness
affected wth pubc nterest.
- Acts of terrorsm no matter how repusve sha not be deemed to
be punshabe n the absence of egsaton ceary defnng sad
acts and provdng specfc punshments therefor.
easonin;
Callin;<out +o:er
- The Consttuton grants the Presdent, as Commander-n-Chef, a
"sequence" of graduated powers. These are: the cang-out power,
the power to suspend the prvege of the wrt of ha/eas %or)$s,
and the power to decare Marta Law. The ony crteron for the
exercse of the cang-out power s that "w*enever it 6e0omes
ne0essar1," the Presdent may ca the armed forces "to prevent
or suppress lawless violen0e5 invasion or re6ellion."
Consderng the crcumstances then prevang, Presdent Arroyo
found t necessary to ssue PP 1017. Owng to her Offces vast
ntegence network, she s n the best poston to determne the
actua condton of the country.
- Under the cang-out power, the Presdent may summon the
armed forces to ad hm n suppressng lawless violen0e5
invasion an+ re6ellion. Ths nvoves ordnary poce acton. But
every act that goes beyond the Presdents cang-out power s
consdered ega or $ltra *#res. For ths reason, a Presdent must
be carefu n the exercse of hs powers. He cannot nvoke a
greater power when he wshes to act under a esser power. There
es the wsdom of our Consttuton, the greater the power, the
greater are the mtatons.
- It s pertnent to state, however, that there s a dstncton
between the Presdents authorty to decare a "state of rebeon"
(n Sanla=as) and the authorty to procam a state of natona
emergency. Whe Presdent Arroyos authorty to decare a "state
of rebeon" emanates from her powers as Chef Executve, the
statutory authorty cted n Sanla=as was Secton 4, Chapter 2,
Book II of the Revsed Admnstratve Code of 1987, whch provdes:
SEC. 4. - Procamatons. - Acts of the Presdent fxng a date or
decarng a status or condton of pubc moment or nterest,
upon the exstence of whch the operaton of a specfc aw or
reguaton s made to depend, sha be promugated n
procamatons whch sha have the force of an executve
order.
- Presdent Arroyos decaraton of a "state of rebeon" was merey
an act decarng a status or condton of pubc moment or nterest,
a decaraton aowed under Secton 4 cted above. Such
decaraton, n the words of Sanla=as, s harmess, wthout ega
sgnfcance, and deemed not wrtten. In these cases, PP 1017 s
more than that. In decarng a state of natona emergency,
Presdent Arroyo dd not ony rey on Secton 18, Artce VII of the
Consttuton, a provson cang on the AFP to prevent or suppress
awess voence, nvason or rebeon. She aso reed on Secton
17, Artce XII, a provson on the States extraordnary power to
take over prvatey-owned pubc utty and busness affected wth
pubc nterest. Indeed, PP 1017 cas for the exercse of an
awesome power. Obvousy, such Procamaton cannot be
deemed harmess, wthout ega sgnfcance, or not wrtten, as n
the case of Sanla=as.
- Some of the pettoners vehementy mantan that PP 1017 s
actuay a decaraton of Marta Law. It s no so. What defnes the
character of PP 1017 are ts wordngs. It s pan theren that what
the Presdent nvoked was her cang-out power.
- In hs "Statement /efore the Senate Comm#ttee on 1$st#%e" on
March 13, 2006, Mr. |ustce Vcente V. Mendoza sad that of the
three powers of the Presdent as Commander-n-Chef, the power to
decare Marta Law poses the most severe threat to cv bertes.
It s a strong medcne whch shoud not be resorted to ghty. It
cannot be used to stfe or persecute crtcs of the government. It s
paced n the keepng of the Presdent for the purpose of enabng
hm to secure the peope from harm and to restore order so that
they can en|oy ther ndvdua freedoms.
- |ustce Mendoza aso stated that PP 1017 s not a decaraton of
Marta Law. It s no more than a ca by the Presdent to the
armed forces to prevent or suppress awess voence. As such, t
cannot be used to |ustfy acts that ony under a vad decaraton of
Marta Law can be done. Its use for any other purpose s a
perverson of ts nature and scope, and any act done contrary to ts
command s $ltra *#res. Specfcay, (a) arrests and sezures
wthout |udca warrants; (b) ban on pubc assembes; (c) take-
over of news meda and agences and press censorshp; and (d)
ssuance of Presdenta Decrees, are powers whch can be
exercsed by the Presdent as Commander-n-Chef onl1 where
there s a vad decaraton of Marta Law or suspenson of the wrt
of ha/eas %or)$s.
- Based on the above dsquston, t s cear that PP 1017 s not a
decaraton of Marta Law. It is merel1 an e:er0ise o/
Presi+ent &rro1oAs 0alling-out power for the armed forces to
assst her n preventng or suppressng awess voence.

F/a@e CareG +o:er
- The second provson of PP 1017 pertans to the power of the
Presdent to ensure that the aws be fathfuy executed. Ths s
based on Secton 17, Artce VII whch reads:
(EC. 1H. The Presdent sha have contro of a the executve
departments, bureaus, and offces. 3e s*all ensure t*at t*e
laws 6e /ait*/ull1 e:e0ute+.
- As the Executve n whom the executve power s vested,
|115|
the
prmary functon of the Presdent s to enforce the aws as we as to
formuate poces to be emboded n exstng aws. He sees to t
that a aws are enforced by the offcas and empoyees of hs
department. Before assumng offce, he s requred to take an oath
or affrmaton to the effect that as Presdent of the Phppnes, he
w, among others, "execute ts aws."
|116|
In the exercse of such
functon, the Presdent, f needed, may empoy the powers
attached to hs offce as the Commander-n-Chef of a the armed
forces of the country,
|117|
ncudng the Phppne Natona Poce
|118|
under the Department of Interor and Loca Government.
|119|

7s #t .#th#n the &oma#n of Pres#&ent 0rro+o to )rom$lgate
HdecreesJU
- PP 1017 states n part: "to enforce obedence to a the aws
and +e0rees x x x promulgate+ 61 me personall1 or upon m1
+ire0tion."
- The Presdent s granted an Ordnance Power under Chapter 2,
Book III of Executve Order No. 292 (Admnstratve Code of 1987),
whch aows her to ssue executve orders, admnstratve orders,
procamatons, memorandum orders/crcuars, genera or speca
orders. Presdent Arroyos ordnance power s mted to the
foregong ssuances. She cannot ssue +e0rees smar to those
ssued by Former Presdent Marcos under PP 1081. Presdenta
Decrees are aws whch are of the same category and bndng force
as statutes because they were ssued by the Presdent n the
exercse of hs egsatve power durng the perod of Marta Law
under the 1973 Consttuton.
|121|

- #*e assaile+ PP 1J1H is un0onstitutional inso/ar as it
grants Presi+ent &rro1o t*e aut*orit1 to promulgate
>+e0rees.? Legsatve power s pecuary wthn the provnce of
the Legsature. Secton 1, Artce VI categorcay states that
"DtE*e legislative power s*all 6e veste+ in t*e Congress o/
t*e P*ilippines w*i0* s*all 0onsist o/ a (enate an+ a 3ouse
o/ epresentatives." To be sure, nether Marta Law nor a state
of rebeon nor a state of emergency can |ustfy Presdent Arroyos
exercse of egsatve power by ssung decrees.

Can Pres#&ent 0rro+o enfor%e o/e&#en%e to all &e%rees an& la.s
thro$gh the m#l#tar+?
- As ths Court stated earer, Presdent Arroyo has no authorty to
enact decrees. It foows that these decrees are vod and, therefore,
cannot be enforced. Wth respect to "aws," she cannot ca the
mtary to enforce or mpement certan aws, such as customs
aws, aws governng famy and property reatons, aws on
obgatons and contracts and the ke. She can ony order the
mtary, under PP 1017, to enforce aws pertnent to ts duty to
suppress lawless violen0e.
+o:er to /a@e !ver
The pertnent provson of PP 1017 states:
x x x and to enforce obedence to a the aws and to
a decrees, orders, and reguatons promugated by
me personay or upon my drecton; an+ as
provi+e+ in (e0tion 1H5 &rti0le BII o/ t*e
Constitution +o *ere61 +e0lare a state o/
national emergen01.
- The mport of ths provson s that Presdent Arroyo, durng the
state of natona emergency under PP 1017, can ca the mtary
not ony to enforce obedence "to a the aws and to a decrees x x
x" but aso to act pursuant to the provson of Secton 17, Artce XII
whch reads:
(e0. 1H. In tmes of natona emergency, when the
pubc nterest so requres, the State may, durng the
emergency and under reasonabe terms prescrbed
by t, temporary take over or drect the operaton of
any prvatey-owned pubc utty or busness
affected wth pubc nterest.
Ahat %o$l& /e the reason of Pres#&ent 0rro+o #n #n*o=#ng the a/o*e
)ro*#s#on .hen she #ss$e& PP 1017U
- Durng the exstence of the state of natona emergency, PP 1017
purports to grant the Presdent, wthout any authorty or deegaton
from Congress, to take over or drect the operaton of any prvatey-
owned pubc utty or busness affected wth pubc nterest.
- Ths provson was frst ntroduced n the 1973 Consttuton. In
effect at the tme of ts approva was Presdent Marcos Letter of
Instructon No. 2 dated September 22, 1972 nstructng the
Secretary of Natona Defense to take over "the management,
%ontrol an& o)erat#on of the Man#la Ele%tr#% Com)an+, the
Ph#l#))#ne 5ong :#stan%e "ele)hone Com)an+, the Nat#onal
Aater.or=s an& Se.erage 0$thor#t+, the Ph#l#))#ne Nat#onal
>a#l.a+s, the Ph#l#))#ne 0#r 5#nes, 0#r Man#la (an&! ;#l#)#nas 2r#ent
0#r.a+s . . . for the s$%%essf$l )rose%$t#on /+ the 9o*ernment of #ts
effort to %onta#n, sol*e an& en& the )resent nat#onal emergen%+."
- Pettoners, partcuary the members of the House of
Representatves, cam that Presdent Arroyos ncuson of Secton
17, Artce XII n PP 1017 s an encroachment on the egsatures
emergency powers.
- A dstncton must be drawn between the Presdents authorty to
+e0lare "a state of natona emergency" and to e:er0ise
emergency powers. To the frst, Secton 18, Artce VII grants the
Presdent such power, hence, no egtmate consttutona ob|ecton
can be rased. But to the second, manfod consttutona ssues
arse.
- Secton 23, Artce VI of the Consttuton reads:
(EC. IM. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thrds of both
Houses n |ont sesson assembed, votng separatey, sha
have the sole power to +e0lare t*e e:isten0e o/ a state
o/ war.
(I) In tmes of war or ot*er national emergen01, the
Congress may, by aw, authorze the Presdent, for a mted
perod and sub|ect to such restrctons as t may prescrbe, to
exercse powers necessary and proper to carry out a decared
natona pocy. Uness sooner wthdrawn by resouton of the
Congress, such powers sha cease upon the next ad|ournment
thereof.
- It may be ponted out that the second paragraph of the above
provson refers not ony to war but aso to "ot*er national
emergen01." If the ntenton of the Framers of our Consttuton
was to wthhod from the Presdent the authorty to decare a "state
of natona emergency" pursuant to Secton 18, Artce VII (cang-
out power) and grant t to Congress (ke the decaraton of the
exstence of a state of war), then the Framers coud have provded
so. Ceary, they dd not ntend that Congress shoud frst authorze
the Presdent before he can decare a "state of natona
emergency." Therefore, Presdent Arroyo coud vady decare the
exstence of a state of natona emergency even n the absence of a
Congressona enactment.
- But the e:er0ise of emergency powers, such as the takng over
of prvatey owned pubc utty or busness affected wth pubc
nterest, s a dfferent matter. Ths requres a deegaton from
Congress.
- Consttutona provsons n )ar# mater#a are to be construed
together. Otherwse stated, dfferent causes, sectons, and
provsons of a consttuton whch reate to the same sub|ect matter
w be construed together and consdered n the ght of each
other.
|123|
Consderng that Secton 17 of Artce XII and Secton 23
of Artce VI reate to natona emergences, they must be read
together to determne the mtaton of the exercse of emergency
powers.
- Generall15 Congress is t*e repositor1 o/ emergen01
powers. Ths s evdent n the tenor of Secton 23 (2), Artce VI
authorzng t to deegate such powers to the Presdent. Certainl15
a 6o+1 0annot +elegate a power not repose+ upon it.
However, knowng that durng grave emergences, t may not be
possbe or practcabe for Congress to meet and exercse ts
powers, the Framers of our Consttuton deemed t wse to aow
Congress to grant emergency powers to the Presdent, sub|ect to
certan condtons, thus:
(1) There must be a war or ot*er emergen01.
(I) The deegaton must be for a limite+ perio+ onl1.
(M) The deegaton must be su6<e0t to su0* restri0tions as
t*e Congress ma1 pres0ri6e.
(G) The emergency powers must be exercsed to 0arr1 out a
national poli01 decared by Congress.
|124|

- Secton 17, Artce XII must be understood as an aspect of the
emergency powers cause. The takng over of prvate busness
affected wth pubc nterest s |ust another facet of the emergency
powers generay reposed upon Congress. Thus, when Secton 17
states that the "t*e (tate ma15 +uring t*e emergen01 an+
un+er reasona6le terms pres0ri6e+ 61 it5 temporaril1 ta9e
over or +ire0t t*e operation o/ an1 privatel1 owne+ pu6li0
utilit1 or 6usiness a//e0te+ wit* pu6li0 interest," t refers to
Congress, not the Presdent. Now, whether or not the Presdent
may exercse such power s dependent on whether Congress may
deegate t to hm pursuant to a aw prescrbng the reasonabe
terms thereof.
- Emergency, as a generc term, connotes the exstence of
condtons suddeny ntensfyng the degree of exstng danger to
fe or we-beng beyond that whch s accepted as norma.
Impct n ths defntons are the eements of ntensty, varety, and
percepton. Emergences, as perceved by egsature or executve
n the Unted Sates snce 1933, have been occasoned by a wde
range of stuatons, cassfabe under three (3) prncpa heads: a)
e0onomi0, 6) natural +isaster,
|129|
and 0) national se0urit1.
- "Emergency," as contempated n our Consttuton, s of the same
breadth. It may ncude rebeon, economc crss, pestence or
epdemc, typhoon, food, or other smar catastrophe of natonwde
proportons or effect.
|131|
Ths s evdent n the Records of the
Consttutona Commsson.
- Foowng our nterpretaton of Secton 17, Artce XII, nvoked by
Presdent Arroyo n ssung PP 1017, ths Court rues that such
Procamaton does not authorze her durng the emergency to
temporary take over or drect the operaton of any prvatey
owned pubc utty or busness affected wth pubc nterest
wthout authorty from Congress.
- Let t be emphaszed that whe the Presdent aone can decare a
state of natona emergency, however, wthout egsaton, he has
no power to take over prvatey-owned pubc utty or busness
affected wth pubc nterest. The Presdent cannot decde whether
exceptona crcumstances exst warrantng the take over of
prvatey-owned pubc utty or busness affected wth pubc
nterest. Nor can he determne when such exceptona
crcumstances have ceased. Lkewse, wit*out legislation, the
Presdent has no power to pont out the types of busnesses
affected wth pubc nterest that shoud be taken over. In short,
the Presdent has no absoute authorty to exercse a the powers
of the State under Secton 17, Artce VII n the absence of an
emergency powers act passed by Congress.
0. &pplie+ C*allenge. The Court sha not decare aws as nvad
soey on the bass of ther msappcaton or abuse or susceptbty
to abuse by the peope tasked to mpement them.
- The arrest of Randy Davd and other acts done by the authortes
pursuant to the parts of the aws heren consdered unconsttutona
are aso deemed unconsttutona wthout pre|udce to the fng of
necessary admnstratve, crmna or cv actons aganst specfc
abuses commtted by authortes.
easonin;
Can th#s Co$rt a&3$&ge as $n%onst#t$t#onal PP 1017 an& 9.2. No
on the /as#s of these #llegal a%tsU In genera, &oes the #llegal
#m)lementat#on of a la. ren&er #t $n%onst#t$t#onalU
- Setted s the rue that courts are not at berty to decare statutes
nvad alt*oug* t*e1 ma1 6e a6use+ an+ misa6use+
|135|
and
ma1 a//or+ an opportunit1 /or a6use in t*e manner o/
appli0ation.
|136|
The vadty of a statute or ordnance s to be
determned from ts genera purpose and ts effcency to
accompsh the end desred, not /rom its e//e0ts in a parti0ular
0ase.
|137|
PP 1017 s merey an nvocaton of the Presdents cang-
out power. Its genera purpose s to command the AFP to suppress
a forms of awess voence, nvason or rebeon. It had
accompshed the end desred whch prompted Presdent Arroyo to
ssue PP 1021. But there s nothng n PP 1017 aowng the poce,
expressy or mpedy, to conduct ega arrest, search or voate
the ctzens consttutona rghts.
- Now, may ths Court ad|udge a aw or ordnance unconsttutona
on the ground that ts mpementor commtted ega acts? The
answer s no. The crteron by whch the vadty of the statute or
ordnance s to be measured s the essenta bass for the exercse
of power, an+ not a mere in0i+ental result arising /rom its
e:ertion.
|138|
Ths s ogca.
- Presdent Arroyo ssued G.O. No. 5 to carry nto effect the
provsons of PP 1017. Genera orders are "acts and commands of
the Presdent n hs capacty as Commander-n-Chef of the Armed
Forces of the Phppnes." They are nterna rues ssued by the
executve offcer to hs subordnates precsey for the proper and
e//i0ient a+ministration o/ law. Such rues and reguatons
create no reaton except between the offca who ssues them and
the offca who receves them.
|139|
They are based on and are the
product of, a reatonshp n whch power s ther source, and
obedence, ther ob|ect.
|140|
For these reasons, one requrement for
these rues to be vad s that they must be reasona6le5 not
ar6itrar1 or 0apri0ious.
- G.O. No. 5 mandates the AFP and the PNP to mmedatey carry
out the "ne0essar1 an+ appropriate a0tions an+ measures to
suppress an+ prevent a0ts o/ terrorism an+ lawless
voence."
- Unke the term "awess voence," the phrase "acts of terrorsm"
s st an amorphous and vague concept. Congress has yet to
enact a aw defnng and punshng acts of terrorsm.
- The absence of a aw defnng "acts of terrorsm" may resut n
abuse and oppresson on the part of the poce or mtary.
- So far, the word "terrorsm" appears ony once n our crmna
aws, .e., n P.D. No. 1835 dated |anuary 16, 1981 enacted by
Presdent Marcos durng the Marta Law regme.
- P.D. No. 1835 was repeaed by E.O. No. 167 (whch outaws the
Communst Party of the Phppnes) enacted by Presdent Corazon
Aquno on May 5, 1985. These two (2) aws, however, do not defne
"acts of terrorsm." Snce there s no aw defnng "acts of
terrorsm," t s Presdent Arroyo aone, under G.O. No. 5, who has
the dscreton to determne what acts consttute terrorsm. Her
|udgment on ths aspect s absoute, wthout restrctons.
Consequenty, there can be ndscrmnate arrest wthout warrants,
breakng nto offces and resdences, takng over the meda
enterprses, prohbton and dspersa of a assembes and
gatherngs unfrendy to the admnstraton. A these can be
effected n the name of G.O. No. 5. These acts go far beyond the
cang-out power of the Presdent. Certany, they voate the due
process cause of the Consttuton. Thus, ths Court decares that
the "acts of terrorsm" porton of G.O. No. 5 s unconsttutona.
V&LIDI#2 O' (PECI'IC &C#( CO!D%C#ED .2 &%#3OI#IE(
P%(%&!# #O PP 1J1H &!D G.O. !O. 5
- In the Bref Account
|144|
submtted by pettoner Davd, certan
facts are estabshed: f#rst, he was arrested wthout warrant;
se%on&, the PNP operatves arrested hm on the bass of PP 1017;
th#r&, he was brought at Camp Karnga, Ouezon Cty where he was
fngerprnted, photographed and booked ke a crmna suspect;
fo$rth, he was treated brusquey by pocemen who "hed hs head
and tred to push hm" nsde an unmarked car; f#fth, he was
charged wth Voaton of .atas Pam6ansa !o. ;;J
|145|
and
In0iting to (e+ition; s#,th, he was detaned for seven (7) hours;
and se*enth, he was eventuay reeased for nsuffcency of
evdence.
- The Consttuton enuncates the genera rue that no person sha
be arrested wthout warrant. The recognzed exceptons are n
Secton 5, Rue 113 of the Revsed Rues on Crmna Procedure
provdes:

Sec. 5. #rrest :it&out :arrantH :&en la:9ul. - A peace
offcer or a prvate person may, wthout a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, n hs presence, the person to be arrested has
commtted, s actuay commttng, or s attemptng to commt
an offense.
(6) When an offense has |ust been commtted and he has
probabe cause to beeve based on persona knowedge of
facts or crcumstances that the person to be arrested has
commtted t; and
- Nether of the two (2) exceptons mentoned above |ustfes
pettoner Davds warrantess arrest. Durng the nquest for the
charges of n0iting to se+ition and violation o/ .P ;;J, a
that the arrestng offcers coud nvoke was ther observaton
that some raysts were wearng t-shrts wth the nvectve
H2$st 9lor#a No.J and ther erroneous assumpton that
pettoner Davd was the eader of the ray.
|146|
Consequenty, the
Inquest Prosecutor ordered hs mmedate reease on the ground
of nsuffcency of evdence. He noted that pettoner Davd was
not wearng the sub|ect t-shrt and even f he was wearng t, such
fact s nsuffcent to charge hm wth n0iting to se+ition.
Further, he aso stated that there s nsuffcent evdence for the
charge of violation o/ .P ;;J as t was not even known whether
pettoner Davd was the eader of the ray.
|147|

- But what made t douby worse for pettoners Davd et al. s that
not ony was ther rght aganst warrantess arrest voated, but aso
ther rght to peaceaby assembe.
- "Assemby" under Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Consttuton means a rght
on the part of the ctzens to meet peaceaby for consutaton n
respect to pubc affars. It s a necessary consequence of our
repubcan nsttuton and compements the rght of speech. Ths
rght s not to be mted, much ess dened, except on a showng of
a 0lear an+ present +anger of a substantve ev that Congress
has a rght to prevent. In other words, the rght to assembe s not
sub|ect to prevous restrant or censorshp. It may not be
condtoned upon the pror ssuance of a permt or authorzaton
from the government authortes except, of course, f the assemby
s ntended to be hed n a pubc pace, a permt for the use of such
pace, and not for the assemby tsef, may be vady requred.
- The rngng truth here s that pettoner Davd, et al. were arrested
whe they were exercsng ther rght to peacefu assemby. They
were not commttng any crme, nether was there a showng of a
cear and present danger that warranted the mtaton of that rght.
As can be geaned from crcumstances, the charges of in0iting to
se+ition and violation o/ .P ;;J were mere afterthought. Even
the Soctor Genera, durng the ora argument, faed to |ustfy the
arrestng offcers conduct.
- On the bass of the above prncpes, the Court kewse consders
the dspersa and arrest of the members of KMU et al. (G.R. No.
171483) unwarranted. Ther dspersa was done merey on the
bass of Maacaangs drectve canceng a permts prevousy
ssued by oca government unts. Ths s arbtrary. The whoesae
canceaton of a permts to ray s a batant dsregard of the
prncpe that "/ree+om o/ assem6l1 is not to 6e limite+5
mu0* less +enie+5 e:0ept on a s*owing o/ a clear and
present dan;er o/ a su6stantive evil t*at t*e (tate *as a
rig*t to prevent."
|149|
Toerance s the rue and mtaton s the
excepton. Ony upon a showng that an assemby presents a
cear and present danger that the State may deny the ctzens
rght to exercse t.Wth the banket revocaton of permts, the
dstncton between protected and unprotected assembes was
emnated.
- Moreover, under BP 880, the authorty to reguate assembes and
raes s odged wth the oca government unts. They have the
power to ssue permts and to revoke such permts a/ter +ue
noti0e an+ *earing on the determnaton of the presence of cear
and present danger. Here, pettoners were not even notfed and
heard on the revocaton of ther permts. The frst tme they
earned of t was at the tme of the dspersa. Such absence of
notce s a fata defect. When a persons rght s restrcted by
government acton, t behooves a democratc government to see to
t that the restrcton s far, reasonabe, and accordng to
procedure.
- G.. !o. 1H1GJF5 (Cacho-Ovares, et al.) presents another facet
of freedom of speech .e., the freedom of the press. Pettoners
narraton of facts, whch the Soctor Genera faed to refute,
estabshed the foowng: f#rst, the :a#l+ "r#/$neGs offces were
searched wthout warrant; se%on&, the poce operatves sezed
severa materas for pubcaton; th#r&, the search was conducted
at about 1:00 o cock n the mornng of February 25, 2006; fo$rth,
the search was conducted n the absence of any offca of the :a#l+
"r#/$ne except the securty guard of the budng; and f#fth,
pocemen statoned themseves at the vcnty of the :a#l+ "r#/$ne
offces.
- Thereafter, a wave of warnng came from government offcas.
Presdenta Chef of Staff Mchae Defensor was quoted as sayng
that such rad was >meant to s*ow a Wstrong presen0e5A to tell
me+ia outlets not to 0onnive or +o an1t*ing t*at woul+ *elp
t*e re6els in 6ringing +own t*is government.? Drector
Genera Lombao further stated that >i/ t*e1 +o not /ollow t*e
stan+ar+s Xan+ t*e stan+ar+s are i/ t*e1 woul+ 0ontri6ute
to insta6ilit1 in t*e government5 or i/ t*e1 +o not su6s0ri6e
to w*at is in General Or+er !o. 5 an+ Pro0. !o. 1J1H X we
will re0ommen+ a ta9eover." Natona Teecommuncatons
Commssoner Ronad Sos urged teevson and rado networks to
HcooperateJ wth the government for the duraton of the state of
natona emergency. 3e warne+ t*at *is agen01 will not
*esitate to re0ommen+ t*e 0losure o/ an1 6roa+0ast out/it
t*at violates rules set out /or me+ia 0overage +uring times
w*en t*e national se0urit1 is t*reatene+.
- The search s ega. Rue 126, (e0tion G of The Revsed Rues
on Crmna Procedure requres that a sear0* warrant be ssued
upon probabe cause n connecton wth one specfc offence to be
determned personay by the |udge after examnaton under oath
or affrmaton of the companant and the wtnesses he may
produce. (e0tion ; mandates that the search of a house, room,
or any other premse be made in t*e presen0e o/ t*e law/ul
o00upant thereof or any member of hs famy or n the absence of
the atter, n the presence of two (2) wtnesses of suffcent age and
dscreton resdng n the same ocaty. And (e0tion F states
that the warrant must drect that t be served n the +a1time,
uness the property s on the person or n the pace ordered to be
searched, n whch case a drecton may be nserted that t be
served at any tme of the day or nght. A these rues were
voated by the CIDG operatves.
- Not ony that, the search voated pettoners freedom of the
press. The best gauge of a free and democratc socety rests n
the degree of freedom en|oyed by ts meda. In the -$rgos *. Ch#ef
of Staff
|152|
ths Court hed that --
As heretofore stated, the premses searched were the
busness and prntng offces of the "Metro)ol#tan Ma#l" and the
"Ae ;or$m" newspapers. As a consequence of the search and
sezure, t*ese premises were pa+lo09e+ an+ seale+5 wit*
t*e /urt*er result t*at t*e printing an+ pu6li0ation o/
sai+ newspapers were +is0ontinue+.
(u0* 0losure is in t*e nature o/ previous restraint or
0ensors*ip a6*orrent to t*e /ree+om o/ t*e press
guarantee+ un+er t*e /un+amental law5 an+ 0onstitutes
a virtual +enial o/ petitionersN /ree+om to e:press
t*emselves in print. #*is state o/ 6eing is patentl1
anat*emati0 to a +emo0rati0 /ramewor9 w*ere a /ree5
alert an+ even militant press is essential /or t*e
politi0al enlig*tenment an+ growt* o/ t*e 0iti,enr1.
- Whe admttedy, the :a#l+ "r#/$ne was not padocked and
seaed ke the "Metro)ol#tan Ma#l" and "Ae ;or$m" newspapers n
the above case, yet t cannot be dened that the CIDG operatves
exceeded ther enforcement dutes. The search and sezure of
materas for pubcaton, the statonng of pocemen n the
vcnty of the "he :a#l+ "r#/$ne offces, and the arrogant warnng
of government offcas to meda, are pan censorshp. It s that
offcous functonary of the repressve government who tes the
ctzen that he may speak ony f aowed to do so, and no more
and no ess than what he s permtted to say on pan of
punshment shoud he be so rash as to dsobey.
|153|
Undoubtedy,
the "he :a#l+ "r#/$ne was sub|ected to these arbtrary ntrusons
because of ts ant-government sentments. Ths Court cannot
toerate the batant dsregard of a consttutona rght even f t
nvoves the most defant of our ctzens. Freedom to comment
on pubc affars s essenta to the vtaty of a representatve
democracy. It s the duty of the courts to be watchfu for the
consttutona rghts of the ctzen, and aganst any steathy
encroachments thereon. The motto shoud aways be o/sta
)r#n%#)##s.
|154|

- Incdentay, durng the ora arguments, the Soctor Genera
admtted that the search of the "r#/$neGs offces and the sezure of
ts materas for pubcaton and other papers are ega; and that
the same are nadmssbe "for any purpose,"
- The Court has passed upon the consttutonaty of these
ssuances. Suffce t to reterate that PP 1017 s mted to the
cang out by the Presdent of the mtary to prevent or suppress
awess voence, nvason or rebeon. When n mpementng ts
provsons, pursuant to G.O. No. 5, the mtary and the poce
commtted acts whch voate the ctzens rghts under the
Consttuton, ths Court has to decare such acts unconsttutona
and ega.
- In ths connecton, Chef |ustce Artemo V. Panganbans
concurrng opnon, attached hereto, s consdered an ntegra part
of ths )onen%#a.
0ecision
- 73EE'OE, the Pettons are party granted. The Court rues
that PP 1017 s CO!(#I#%#IO!&L nsofar as t consttutes a ca
by Presdent Gora Macapaga-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or
suppress lawless violen0e. However, the provsons of PP 1017
commandng the AFP to enforce aws not reated to awess
voence, as we as decrees promugated by the Presdent, are
decared %!CO!(#I#%#IO!&L. In addton, the provson n PP
1017 decarng natona emergency under Secton 17, Artce VII of
the Consttuton s CO!(#I#%#IO!&L5 but such decaraton does
not authorze the Presdent to take over prvatey-owned pubc
utty or busness affected wth pubc nterest wthout pror
egsaton.
- G.O. No. 5 s CO!(#I#%#IO!&L snce t provdes a standard by
whch the AFP and the PNP shoud mpement PP 1017, .e.
whatever s "ne0essar1 an+ appropriate a0tions an+
measures to suppress an+ prevent a0ts o/ lawless
violen0e." Consderng that "acts of terrorsm" have not yet been
defned and made punshabe by the Legsature, such porton of
G.O. No. 5 s decared %!CO!(#I#%#IO!&L.
- The warrantess arrest of Randof S. Davd and Ronad Lamas; the
dspersa and warrantess arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU
members durng ther raes, n the absence of proof that these
pettoners were commttng acts consttutng awess voence,
nvason or rebeon and voatng BP 880; the mposton of
standards on meda or any form of pror restrant on the press, as
we as the warrantess search of the "r#/$ne offces and whmsca
sezure of ts artces for pubcaton and other materas, are
decared %!CO!(#I#%#IO!&L.
.&%#I(#& V (&LO!G&
PADILLA; Apr 13, 1989
'&C#(
- Petton for certorar to revew decson of Commsson on
Appontments
- Pres desgnated pettoner Mary Concepcon Bautsta as Actng
Char of CHR, who took oath of offce before C| Fernan. She
dscharged functons/dutes of Char of CHR.
- Bautsta rcvd etter fr Sec of Commsson on Appontments
requestng her to submt nfo and docs n connecton w/ her
confrmaton as Char of CHR.
- Secretary agan wrote to Bautsta to request her presence at a
meetng to deberate on her appontment.
- Bautsta wrote to Char of Commsson on Appontments, sayng
why she consdered Comm on Appontments as havng no
|ursdcton to revew her appontment.
- As conveyed n a etter to the Exec Secretary, Commsson on
Appontments dsapproved Bautstas "ad nterm" appontment as
Char.
- Bautstas moton for reconsderaton was dened.
- A Mana Standard news tem reported that Pres desgnated
Man as Actng Char of CHR pendng resouton of Bautstas
case.
- Bautsta fed ths petton w/ prayer for ssuance of restranng
order to en|on Commsson of Appontments not to proceed w/
deberaton on her appontment.
- Bautsta fed amended petton for restranng order mpeadng
Man as respondent. She aso fed ex-parte moton to stop
Man fr exercsng fcns of Char and fr demandng courtesy
resgnatons fr offcers.
- Court ssued TRO regardng Man but not regardng
Commsson on Appontments, beng nstrumentaty of coequa
branch.
- Bautsta was extended by Pres to permanent appontment as
Char on Dec 17, 1988. Ths appontment was for Pres soey to
make.
I((%E(
1. WON appontment by Pres of Char of Commsson on Human
Rghts s to be w/ or w/o confrmaton of Commsson on
Appontments
2. WON Pres coud extend another appontment to pettoner on
|an 14, 1989 an ad ntern appontment or any other knd of
appontment to same offce of Char of CHR that caed for
confrmaton by Commsson on Appontments.
3. WON n appontments soey for Pres to make, the Pres can
vountary submt such appontment to Commsson on
Appontment for confrmaton.
4. WON the petton has become moot and academc.
3ELD
1. NO
- CHR Char poston s not among postons mentoned n Sec 16
Art 12 of Const. Therefore, appontment must be w/o revew of
Commsson on Appontments.
- Unke Char/Members of CSC, COMELEC and CoA, the poston of
CHR Char does not have express provson that appontment
shoud be wth consent of Commsson on Appontments.
- Sec 2(c) of EO 163 says CHR Char s among those w/c Pres s
authorzed by aw to appont.
2. NO
- Bautstas appontment on Dec 17, 1988 as Char was a
competed act on the part of the Pres.
- No new appontment coud be made to poston aready fed by a
prevousy competed appontment, accepted by appontee through
quafcaton and assumpton of dutes.
- Even f Pres coud submt to Commsson on Appontments an
appontment that beongs soey to her, st, there was no vacancy
on |an 14 1989.
- Nor can respondents contend that the new appontment on |an
14 was an ad nterm appontment bec t does not appy to
appontments soey for Pres to make. It extends ony to those
where revew of Comm on Appontments s needed. That s why
those types of appontments reman vad unt dsapprova by
Commsson on Appontments or unt next ad|ournment of
Congress.
3. NO
- To say otherwse s to say that Pres w/ Congress can from tme to
tme move power boundares n Const.
- Nether Exec nor Legsatve can create power where Const
confers none. If Const made appontment excusve for Pres, Pres
cant grant power of partcpaton n Commsson on Appontments.
Nor can Commsson on Appontments create power to confrm
appontments that Const has reserved to Pres aone.
4. NO
- Respondent contends that w/ or w/o confrmaton, Bautsta can
be removed fr offce anytme at peasure of Pres. And w/
dsapprova of appontment/nomnaton by Commsson on
Appontments, there was greater reason for her remova. Thus,
ssue s moot and academc. SC dsagrees and says pettoner
came n tmey manner and ddnt show ntenton of abandonng
her petton.
- EO 163 speaks of term of offce (7 yrs wthout reappontment)
whe EO 163-A speaks of tenure n offce (at peasure of Pres). The
dff bet term and tenure s mpt. Consstent w/ CHRs needed
ndependence, tenure n offce cant be ater made dependent on
peasure of Pres.
!biter
- Sarmento III V. Mson
- Issue: Whch appontments under 1987 Const are to be w/ and
w/o revew of Commsson on Appontments?
- Rato: Ony appontments mentoned n 1
st
sentence of Sec 16
Art VII are to be revewed by Commsson. Other appontments
by Presdent are to be made w/o partcpaton of Commsson.
- Hed: Appontment of Mson as Bureau of Customs head s
vad.
- Marbury V. Madson
- Rato: Once appontment s made, Pres power over the offce
s termnated n a cases, where by aw the offcer s not
removabe by hm.
0ecision Petton s granted; TRO s made permanent aganst
Man; Pettoner Bautsta s awfu Char of CHR, she may be
removed ony for cause.
9$t#erre6 1r., :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
Cr$6, :#ssent#ng
9r#Mo-04$#no, :#ssent#ng
(&"IE!#O V "I(O!
PADILLA; December 17, 1987
'&C#(
- Pettoners Sarmento and Arca who are taxpayers, awyers,
members of the Integrated Bar of the Phppnes, and
Consttutona Law professors seeks to en|on Savador Mson from
performng the functons as Commssoner of the Bureau of
Customs. In addton, they woud want to en|on Budget Secretary
Guermo Carague from dsbursng Msons saary and emouments.
The grounds for the petton was that Msons stay n Offce s
unconsttutona as there was no confrmaton comng from the
Commsson on Appontments that s "requred" by the
Consttuton. The Commsson on Appontments was aowed to
ntervene n the court proceedng.
- The case was consdered |ustcabe gven that there s great
pubc nterest such as the need for stabty n pubc servce. Ths
dsposed the queston of whether ths s the proper remedy to
queston respondents rght to the Offce of the Commssoner of the
Bureau of Customs and aso that of the ega standng of the
pettoners.
- The Consttutona Provson under carefu examnaton s Artce
VII Secton 16, whch states that:
"The Presdent sha nomnate and, wth the consent of the
Commsson on Appontments, appont the heads of the executve
departments, ambassadors, other pubc mnsters and consus,
offcers of the armed forces from the rank of coone or nava
captan, and other offcers whose appontments are vested n hm
n ths Consttuton. He sha aso appont a other offcers of the
Government whose appontments are not otherwse provded for
by aw and those whom he may be authorzed by aw to appont.
The Congress may, by aw, vest the appontment of other offcers
ower n rank n the Presdent aone, n the courts, or n the heads
of the departments, agences, commssons, or boards."
I((%E
WON Msons stay n Offce was Consttutona
3ELD
- Yes t s consttutona.
- Readng Artce VII Secton 16 there are 4 groups of offcers who
the Presdent s abe to appont. The frst group woud be the heads
of the executve departments, ambassadors, other pubc mnsters
and consus, or offcers of the armed forces from the rank of coone
or nava captan, and other offcers whose appontments are vested
n hm n ths Consttuton. The second group s composed of those
offcers of the Government whose appontments are not otherwse
provded for by aw. The thrd group are those whom the Presdent
may be authorzed by aw to appont. Lasty, the fourth group, are
those offcers ower n rank whose appontments the Congress may
by aw vest n the Presdent aone.
- To nterpret the aw the |ustces went back n hstory to ook at the
prevous consttutons, the 1935 and 1973 Consttutons. In the
1935 Consttuton a appontments s sub|ect to the approva of the
Commsson on Appontments whe ths was removed n the 1973
Consttuton wheren the Presdent s abe to appont wthout the
need for the approva of the Commsson on Appontments. Both
were probematc as the 1935 provson became a venue of "horse-
tradng" (used for potca everage) whe the 1973 provson gave
too much power to the Presdent. The court hed that the 1987
provson on appontment was the mdde ground that was sought
by the 1986 Consttutona Commsson.
- Lookng through the records of the 1986 Consttutona
Commsson they sad that the cear and postve ntent of the
framers were to make those offcers n the frst sentence the
ndvduas that are sub|ect to the approva and confrmaton of the
Commsson on Appontments whe those on the second and thrd
sentence need not seek such confrmaton. Gven that the poston
as the Commssoner of the Bureau of Customs s not under those
specfed n the frst sentence but the second, therefore pettoner
Mson s not n need of the approva of the Commsson on
Appontments and thus shoud be abe to exercse fu authorty and
functons and be entted to hs saary and emouments.
0ecision Petton DISMISSED.
La), ;ernan, Nar*asa, Paras, ;el#%#ano, 9an%a+%o, -#&#n, Cortes,
"eehan=ee, Melen%#o-8errera, Sarm#ento- %on%$rr#ng (11!
9$t#erre6, Cr$6- &#ssent#ng (2!
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C%4 D+issentE
There s a need to ook at the provson n ts entrety. The focus of
the records was merey on the frst sentence of the provson and
the not on the foowng sentences. Those are cruca gven that the
poston n queston fas under the atter. Aso, the records of the
Consttutona Commsson are merey extrnsc ads and are at best
persuasve ony and not necessary concusve. In addton, strcty
nterpretng the thrd sentence may create an absurdty for t gves
Congress the dscreton of not creatng a aw that woud gve the
Presdent the power to appont those who are ower n rank. An
rony arses when those n a ower poston requre the approva of
the Commsson on Appontments whe those who are hgher n
poston woud not.
PI"E!#EL V E"I#&
CARPIO; October 13, 2005
'&C#(
- 7/26/2004: Congress commenced ther reguar sesson
- 8/25/2004: The Commsson on Appontments (composed of
members of Congress) was consttuted
+ meanwhe, GMA ssued appontments to respondents as actng
secretares of ther respectve departments:
Arthur Yap (DOA), Aberto Romuo (DFA), Rau Gonzaes (DO|),
Forenco Abad (DOE) Aveno Cruz (DND),
Rene Va (DAR), |oseph Durano (DOT), Mke Defensor (DENR)
+ the aforementoned respondents took ther oaths of offce and
assumed ther dutes as actng secretares
- 9/8/2004: a group of senators, headed by Sen. Pmente, fed ths
present petton for certorar and prohbton, prayng for a wrt of
premnary n|uncton to decare these appontments by GMA
unconsttutona
- 9/23/2004: GMA ssued a& #nter#m (temporary) appontments,
repacng respondents actng capacty
- Sol 9en arg$es
+ petton s moot because GMA had ssued the a& #nter#m
appontments after the recess of Congress; prohbton may not
en|on acts aready done.
+ the power to appont s executve n nature-the Commsson of
Appontments, though t be composed of members of Congress, s
a body ndependent of Congress, and ts executve power
emanates from the Const.
+ ony Senators Enre, Lacson, Angara, E|ercto-Estrada and
Osmena, as members of the Commsson, possess standng n the
present petton.
- Pet#t#onersG 0rg$ment
+ pettoners assert that GMA cannot ssue such appontments
because no aw grants such a power
(1J C*I .G5 EO IFI: ".n case of a vacancy n the Offce of a
Secretary, t s ony an Undersecretary who can be desgnated as
Actng Secretary."
+ whe Congress s n sesson, no appontments can be made w/o
the consent of the Commsson
espondentsE #r;ument:
-respondents assert that GMA can ssue such appontments for the
reason that no aw prohbts t
(18 C*5 #1 .M5 EO IFI- "The Pres. sha exercse the power to
appont such offcas as provded by.the aw"
(1H C*5 #1 .M5 EO IFI- the Pres. may appont an offcer aready
n servce or any other competent person
I((%E
WON GMAs appontment of respondents as actng secretares w/o
the consent of the Commsson of Appontments whe Congress s
n sesson s unconsttutona
3ELD
- the court hed that the Presdent may make such appontments,
as the aw expressy provdes t
(1H C*5 #itle 1 .oo9 M5 EO IFI: ". the Presdent may
temporary desgnate an offcer aready n the government
servce or an+ other %om)etent )erson to perform the functon of
an offce n the executve branch."
- EO 292 appes to appontments vested n the Presdent /+ la.-
Congress s not the ony source of aw
(1H(M) of the prevous provson states: "In no case sha a
temporary desgnaton exceed one (1) year." Pettoners fa to
consder that ths provson acts as a safeguard aganst the abuse
of such appontments
- a department secretary s consdered an alter ego of the
Presdent, that s, t hods a poston of great trust and confdence.
Hence, Congress cannot mpose that the undersecretary
automatcay be apponted-the Pres. must appont an alter ego of
her choce.
$. .ernas5 ($.: "a%t#ng a))o#ntments may be extended any tme
there s a vacancy; a& #nter#m appontments are extended ony
durng a recess of Congress and requre submsson to the
Commsson of Appontments for approva or re|ecton."
- notwthstandng Bernas textbook defnton, the court fnds no
abuse of appontments n the present case as such were ssued
#mme&#atel+ upon the recess of Congress, way before the apse of
one year.
0ecision Petton DISMISSED
"&#I.&G V .E!IP&2O
CARPIO; Apr 2, 2002
'&C#(
- The Case: Petton for Prohbton w/ prayer for a wrt of prem
n|uncton and TRO. Pettoner questons the appontment and the
rght of respondents to reman n offce as Charman and
Commssoners of the COMELEC
- On Feb.2, 1999, Pettoner Ma. Angena Matbag was apponted by
the COMELEC en /an% as "Actng Drector IV" of the Educaton and
Informaton Dept. (EID), her appontment was renewed on Feb 15,
2000 n a "Temporary" capacty and renewed yet agan on Feb 15,
2001 n the same "Temporary" capacty.
- On March 22, 2001 PGMA apponted a& #nter#m, respondents
Afredo Benpayo as COMELEC Charman and Resurreccon Borra,
and Forentno Tuason as COMELEC commssoners respectvey, for
a term of 7 years, exprng on Feb. 2, 2008. They took ther oaths
and assumed ther postons wth the Presdent submttng ther a&
#nter#m appontments to the Commsson on Appontments on May
22, 2001 for confrmaton. The Commsson on Appontments,
however, dd not act on ther appontments.
- On |une 1, 2001, PGMA renewed ther a& #nter#m appontments
wth the term and the expraton remanng the same (for 7 years
and exprng on Feb 2, 2008). The new appontees took oath a 2
nd
tme and the same was transmtted to the Commsson on
Appontments for confrmaton on |une 5, 2001. The Congress
ad|ourned before the Commsson coud act on the appontments
resutng n the renewa of ther a& #nter#m appontments by the
Presdent for the 3
rd
tme on |une 8, 2001.
- Benpayo, actng as COMELEC charman, assgned a Vema Cnco
as offcer-n-charge of EID and reassgned pettoner to the Law
Dept, a move whch she requested reconsderaton for, ctng Cv
Servce Commsson Memorandum Crcuar no. 7 (transfer of
empoyees prohbted durng eecton perod: |an.2-|une 13, 2001).
Benpayo dened the request and ctng COMELEC Resouton no.
3300. Pettoner appeaed to the COMELEC, fed an admnstratve
and crmna compant wth the Law Dept aganst Benpayo and
whe the compant was pendng, she aso fed ths acton. She
cams that a& #nter#m appontments voate the consttutona
provsons on the ndependence of the COMELEC, and on temporary
appontments and reappontments of ts Charman and members.
Pettoner aso assas her reassgnment to the Law Dept, the
appontment of Cnco as we as the dsbursements made by the
COMELEC Fnance Servces Dept offcer by way of saares and
emouments n favor of respondents.
- PGMA, on Sept. 6, 2001 renewed once agan the a& #nter#m
appontments of Benpayo, Borra and Tuason for a term of 7 years
exprng on Feb. 2, 2008.

I((%E
1. WON Benpayos a& #nter#m appontment and assumpton of
offce as COMELEC charman s consttutona
2. WON ssue s |ustcabe
3. If Benpayo, Borra and Tuason were ndeed apponted awfuy,
WON the renewa of ther appontments and subsequent
assumpton of offce was consttutona
4. WON pettoners remova and reassgnment s ega (done w/o
approva of the COMELEC as a coega body)
5. WON the Offcer-n-charge of COMELEC Fnance Servces Dept, n
makng dsbursements n favor of the new appontees, acted n
excess of |ursdcton.
3ELD
1. An a& #nter#m appontment s a permanent appontment made by
the Pres. #n the meant#me that Congress #s #n re%ess. It s not an
appontment n a temporary or actng capacty. It takes effect
mmedatey and can no onger be wthdrawn by the Pres. once the
appontee has quafed nto offce. The fact that t s sub|ect to
confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments does not ater ts
permanent character.
easonin;
- Athough the ast sentence of Art IX-C Sec 1(2) of the Consttuton
says, "In no case sha any Member be apponted or desgnated n a
temporary or actng capacty," an a& #nter#m appontment s not a
temporary appontment. A dstncton was made between the two
n Pamantasan ng 5$ngso& ng Ma+n#la * 70C, where t was hed that
an a& #nter#m appontment as defned n Backs Law Dctonary s
one that s apponted to f a vacancy, or to dscharge the dutes of
the offce durng the absence or temporary ncapacty of ts reguar
ncumbent. But such s not the meanng nor the use ntended n the
context of Ph. aw. 0& #nter#m s used to denote the manner n
whch sad appontments were made, that s, done by the
Presdent, n the meantme, whe the body, whch s orgnay
vested wth the power or appontment, s unabe to act.
- Athough the 1935 Const dd not have the provson prohbtng
temporary or actng appontments, ths Court then decded such an
appontment n Na%#onal#sta Part+ * -a$t#sta as unconsttutona
decarng that, "It woud be more n keepng wth the ntent,
purpose and am of the framers of the Consttuton to appont a
)ermanent Commssoner than to desgnate one to act temporary.
Lkewse, In -r#llantes * Lora%, decded under the present
Consttuton, ths Court struck down as unconsttutona the
desgnaton by then Pres. Aquno of Haydee Yorac as Actng
Charperson of the COMELEC.
- Art. IX-A 1 shoud be harmonzed wth Art. VII 16. for to hod that
the ndependence of the COMELEC requres the Commsson on
Appontments to frst confrm a& #nter#m appontments before the
appontees can assume offce w negate the Presdents power to
make a& #nter#m appontments.
- The orgna draft of Art. VII 16 dd not provde for a& #nter#m
appontments, however, t was renstated to avod nterruptons n
vta govt servces that woud resut from proonged vacances n
govt offces. The a& #nter#m appontment has snce been practced
by Presdents Aquno, Ramos and Estrada.
2. |ustcabty of the case: The Court determned the |ustcabty
of the case by tackng the requstes of |udca revew rased by
the respondents whch they camed to be ackng (actua
case/controversy was not rased)
> persona and substanta nterest of the party
Pettoner has a persona and matera stake n the resouton of
the case. If Benpayos appontment s unawfu, pettoners
reassgnment s wthout ega bass; f t s awfu, then she has
no cause to compan provded that t was done n accordance
wth the Cv Servce Law. -e%a$se of her )ersonal an& mater#al
sta=e #n the resol$t#on of the %onst#t$t#onal#t+ of res)on&entGs
ass$m)t#on of off#%e, she has lo%$s stan&# to ra#se #t as a
%onst#t$t#onal #ss$e
> exercse of |udca revew must be peaded at the earest
opportunty
It s not the date of fng of the petton that determnes
whether the consttutona ssue was rased at the earest
opportunty. The earest opportunty to rase a consttutona
ssue s to rase t n the peadngs before a competent court
that can resove the same, such that, "f t s not rased n the
peadngs, t cannot be consdered at the tra, and f not
consdered at the tra, t cannot be consdered on appea."
Pet#t#oner 4$est#one& the %onst#t$t#onal#t+ of the a& #nter#m
a))o#ntments .hen she f#le& her )et#t#on /efore th#s Co$rt,
.h#%h #s the earl#est o))ort$n#t+ for )lea&#ng the %onst#t$t#onal
#ss$e /efore a %om)etent /o&+.
> the consttutona ssue must be the l#s mota of the case
The Respondents cam that the egaty of pettoners
reassgnment from the EID to the Law Dept. s the ssue. The
Court, however, hed that uness the consttutonaty of
Benpayos appontment s determned, the egaty of
pettoners assgnment cannot be determned, therefore the l#s
mota of ths case s ceary the consttutona ssue rased by
pettoner.
3. The phrase "wthout reappontment" n Art. IX-C 1(2) appes
ony to appontments by the Presdent and confrmed by the
Commsson on Appontments, regardess of WoN such person
apponted competes the term of offce.
easonin; The phrase "wthout reappontment" does not appy to
the renewa of appontments to Benpayo, Tuason and Borra
because there were no prevous appontments that were confrmed
by the Commsson on Appontments.
- The renewa of ther appontments was by-passed by the
Commsson on Appontments. It was not acted upon on the merts
at the cose of the sesson of Congress. There was no fna decson
by the Commsson on Appontments to gve or wthhod ts consent
to the appontment as requred by the Consttuton. It s therefore
nether fxed nor an unexpred term. Absent such decson, the
Presdent s free to renew the a& #nter#m appontment of a by-
passed appontee as recognzed n Sec.17 of the Rues of the
Commsson on Appontments. Moreover, ther appontments were
a for a fxed term exprng on Feb. 2, 2008, ceary not n breach of
the 7 year term mt.
4. The COMELEC Charman s the offca expressy authorzed by
aw to transfer or reassgn COMELEC personne and the person
hodng that offce, n a &e 3$re capacty, s Benpayo. He has fu
authorty to exercse a the powers of that offce for so ong as hs
a& #nter#m appontment remans effectve. Moreover, n COMELEC
Resouton no. 3300, the COMELEC en /an%, approved the transfer
or reassgnment of COMELEC personne durng the eecton perod.
5. Because Benpayo s hed to be the awfu COMELEC charman,
the Offcer-n-Charge dd not act n excess of hs |ursdcton, n the
dsbursement of ther saares.
0ecision Petton s dsmssed for ack of mert.
Con%$rre& .#th /+ 11s@ :a*#&e, -ellos#llo, Melo, ?a)$nan, Men&o6a,
Pangan#/an, <$#s$m/#ng, Lnares-Sant#ago, :e 5eon, an& San&o*al-
9$t#erre6.
P$no an& V#t$g, 11s, .ere on off#%#al lea*e.
Consti +rovisions cited:
&rt. IB-& Y1 The Const Commssons. COMELEC. sha be
ndependent
&rt. IB-C Y1(I) Nature and term of appontment of Comeec
charman and commssoner: (7 years w/o reappontment). In no
case sha there be appontment n a temporary or actng capacty.
&rt. VII Y18 power of Pres. to make appontments durng recess of
Congress. effectve ony unt dsapprova by the Commsson on
Appontments or unt the next ad|ournment of Congress.
CO!(#&!#I!O V C%I(&
TINGA; October 13, 2005
'&C#(
- Ths Pet#t#on for Cert#orar#, Proh#/#t#on an& Man&am$s assas sad
contracts whch were entered nto pursuant to the Phppne
Comprehensve Fnancng Program for 1992. It seeks to en|on
respondents from executng addtona debt-reef contracts
pursuant thereto.
- The Fnancng Program was devsed under Presdent Corazon
Aquno to manage the countrys externa debt probem through a
negotaton-orented debt strategy by means of two debt-reef
optons: 1) cash buyback of portons of the Phppne foregn debt
at a dscount, or 2) aowed credtors to convert exstng Phppne
debt nstruments nto bonds/securtes.
- Pettoners chaenge the Program as foows:
1. That t s beyond the powers granted to the Presdent under
Secton 20, Artce VII of the Consttuton:
The Presdent may contract or guarantee foregn oans n
behaf of the Repubc of the Phppnes.
That buyback and securtzaton/bond converson schemes are
nether "oans" nor "guarantees," and hence, beyond the
power of the Presdent.
2. That assumng the above as consttutonay permssbe, t s
ony the Presdent who may exercse the power to enter nto
these contract and such power may not be deegated.
3. That the Program was made avaabe for debts frauduenty
contracted or vod. Pettoners rey on 1992 Commsson on Audt
report dentfyng severa "behest" oans contracted or
guaranteed frauduenty durng the Marcos regme. That snce
these were egbe for buyback or converson, they woud be vod
for beng wavers of the Repubcs rght to repudate the vod or
frauduenty contracted oans.
- For ther part, respondents dspute the ponts rased by
pettoners. They aso queston the standng of pettoners and the
|ustcabty of the ssues presented.
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON the pettoners have lo%$s stan&#.
2. WON the case s rpe for ad|udcaton
S$/stant#*e
3. WON the scope of secton 20, Artce VII ncudes bond-
converson and buyback
4. WON the power to ncur foregn debts s expressy reserved by
the Consttuton n the person of the Presdent and may not be
deegated
5. WON there has been grave abuse of dscreton and voaton of
consttutona poces
3ELD
1. The Courts cognzance of ths petton w not ony determne
the vadty or nvadty of the sub|ect pre-termnaton (buyback)
and bond-converson of foregn debts but aso create a precedent
for other debts or debt-reated contract executed or to be executed
n behaf of the Presdent by the Secretary of Fnance. Seen n ths
ght, the transcendenta mportance of the ssues heren cannot be
doubted.
- Where consttutona ssues are propery rased n the context of
aeged facts, procedura questons acqure a reatvey mnor
sgnfcance. By the very nature of the power weded by the
Presdent, the effect of usng ths power on the economy, and the
we-beng n genera of the Fpno naton, the Court must set asde
the procedura barrer of standng and rue on the |ustcabe ssues
presented by the partes.
2. The Court hods that some ssues are not rpe for ad|udcaton.
One such ssue rased by pettoners s the aegaton that
respondents waved the Phppnes rght to repudate vod and
frauduenty contracted oans s not |ustcabe.
- Records do not show whether the so-caed behest oans were
sub|ect of the debt-reef contracts.
- Moreover, assertng a rght to repudate vod or frauduenty
contracted oans begs the queston of whether ndeed partcuar
oans are vod or frauduenty contracted. Pettoners theory
depends on a pror annument or decaraton of nuty of the pre-
exstng oans, whch thus far have not been submtted to ths
Court.
- As a fna pont, pettoners have no rea bass to fret over a
possbe waver of the rght to repudate vod contracts.
Respondents unequvocay assert that the Repubc dd not wave
any such rght, t havng ncorporated a "no-waver" cause n the
agreements.
- !biter Many advocates that the Repubc shoud renege on
obgatons that are consdered as "egtmate." However, such
course of acton woud have adverse repercussons. Among the
consequences s that the standard cross-defaut provsons n
Phppne foregn oans may come nto effect, n whch case,
defaut even n one oan woud be ground for other credtors to
decare defaut on other oans.
- In any event, the dscreton on the matter es not wth the Courts
but wth the executve.
(. 2n -on&-Con*ers#on
- An nvestor who purchases a bond s endng money to the ssuer,
and the bond represents the ssuers 0ontra0tual promse to pay
nterest and repay prncpa accordng to specfc terms. The
anguage of the Consttuton s smpe and cear as t s broad. It
aows the Presdent to contract and guarantee foregn oans. It
makes no prohbton on the ssuance of certan knds of oans or
dstnctons as to whch knds of debt nstruments are more onerous
than others.
- The ony restrcton that the Consttuton provdes asde from the
pror concurrence of the Monetary Board, s that the oans must be
sub|ect to mtatons provded by aw. In ths regard, t s noted RA
245 as amended by PD 142 entted 0n 0%t 0$thor#6#ng the
Se%retar+ of ;#nan%e to -orro. to Meet P$/l#% E,)en&#t$res
0$thor#6e& /+ 5a., an& for 2ther P$r)oses, aows foregn oans to
be contracted n the form of bonds thus:
. the Secretary of Fnance, wth the approva of the Presdent.
after consutaton wth the Monetary board, s authorzed to
borrow. and to ssue therefore evdences of ndebtedness. may
be of the foowng types: Treasury bonds.
- Aso under the foregong provson, soveregn bonds may aso be
provded for the purchase, redempton, or refundng of nay
obgaton, ether drect or guaranteed, of the Phppne
Government.
2n the -$+/a%= S%heme
- It s true that n the separaton of powers, t s Congress that
manages the countrys coffers by vrtue of ts taxng and spendng
powers. However, the aw-makng authorty has promugated a aw
ordanng an automatc appropratons provson for debt servcng.
The Court n 9$#ngona *. Carag$e, hed:
Debt servce s not ncuded n the Genera Appropraton Act,
snce authorzaton therefore aready exsts under RA 4860 and
245, as amended, and PD 1967. In the ght of ths subsstng
authorzaton, Congress does not concern tsef wth detas for
mpementaton by the Executve. Upon such approva, Congress
has spoken and cannot be sad to have deegated ts wsdom to
the Executve.
- Specfc ega authorty for the buyback even wthout further
acton from Congress s estabshed under Secton 2 of RA 240 thus:
. the Secretary of Fnance sha cause to be pad out of any
moneys n the Natona Treasury not otherwse approprated.
any nterest fang due, or accrung on any porton of the pubc
debt authorzed by aw. He sha aso cause to be pad out. the
prncpa amount of any obgatons whch have matured. or, i/
re+eeme+ prior to maturit1, such porton of the face vaue as
s prescrbed by the terms and condtons under whch such
obgatons were orgnay ssued.
- Buyback s a necessary power whch sprngs from the grant of the
foregn borrowng power. Every statute s understood, by
mpcaton, to contan a such provsons as may be necessary to
effectuate ts ob|ect and purpose.
- Aso, the Consttuton, as a rue, does not enumerate - et aone
enumerate a - the acts whch the Presdent (or any other pubc
offcer) may not do, and the fact that the Consttuton does not
expcty bar the Presdent from exercsng a power does not mean
that he or she does not have that power.
4. The evdent exgency of havng the Secretary of Fnance
mpement the decson of the Presdent to execute the debt-reef
contracts s made manfest by the fact that the process of
estabshng and executng strategy for managng the
governments debt s deep wthn the ream of the expertse of the
Department of Fnance. If the Presdent were to personay
exercse every aspect of the foregn borrowng power, ths woud
negate the very exstence of cabnet postons and the respectve
expertse whch the hoders thereof are accorded, and woud
unduy hamper the Presdents effectvty n runnng the
government.
- Necessty thus gave brth to the doctrne of quafed potca
agency. Though the Presdent is the Executve of the Government
and no other, the heads of the executve department occupy
potca postons and hod offce n an advsory capacty and shoud
be of the Presdents bosom confdence and ater ego n the
matters of that department where the Presdent s requred by aw
to exercse authorty sub|ect to the drecton of the Presdent. And
t s upon the Secretary of Fnance as the ater ego of the Presdent
to dea wth matters regardng the sound and effcent
management of the fnanca resources of Government.
- And athough there are powers vested n the Presdent that may
not be deegated are ony those that ca for the supersedence of
executve prerogatves over those exercsed by co-equa branches
of government, e.g. power to suspend the wrte of habeas corpus
and procam marta aw (Par. 3 Sec 11, Art VII) and the bengn
prerogatve of mercy (Par. 6 Sec 11, Art VII), the power to contract
or guarantee foregn debts does not fa wthn the same
exceptona cass.
- Another mportant quafcaton s that the Secretary of Fnance or
any desgnated ater ego of the Presdent s bound to secure the
atters pror consent to or subsequent ratfcaton of hs acts. A
ack of showng that Presdent Aquno countermanded the acts of
respondents eads us to concude that the sad acts carred
presdenta approva.
5. Pettoners cte an artce by |ude Esguerra that under the
Program a best case scenaro woud gve a yed sgnfcanty ower
than estmated by the Program and a worst case scenaro where
what can be ganed n the best case s esser than what can be ost
n ths worst case. In addton, pettoners postuate a more smpe
reschedung agreement n pace of the debt-reef package.
Pettoners aege therefore that the Program voates consttutona
state poces to promote a soca order that w "ensure the
prosperty and ndependence of the naton" and free "the peope
from poverty, foster soca |ustce n a phases of natona
deveopment," and deveop a sef-reant and ndependent natona
economy effectvey controed by Fpnos."
- The Court hed that the poces set by the Consttuton as
tanzed are not a panacea that can annu every governmenta act
sought to be struck down. Insofar as the case at bar, the court can
make no concuson other than that respondents efforts were
geared towards debt-reef wth marked postve resuts and
towards achevng the aforementoned consttutona poces.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P&!G&!I.&!
- Indubtaby, former Presdent Aqunos decson to honor
outstandng debts of the Repubc was purey an executve ca;
hence, beyond |udca scrutny. For ths reason, nether can
respondents be fauted for mpementng the Program executed
pursuant to that consttutona executve pocy.
- Aso, that pettoners queston the egaty of severa foregn oans
necesstates a revew of the assaed contracts. Because the
pettoners faed to substantate the charges, the argument cannot
be addressed. A determnaton of the vadty of such aegatons
requres a revew of factua matters. The Supreme Court s not a
trer or facts. The proper acton for pettoners s to fe ther
petton n the ower courts, whch had concurrent |ursdcton over
the sub|ect matter and whch are better equpped to conduct a
frsthand examnaton of factua evdence n support of ther
aegatons. Ths notwthstandng, there s nothng n ths decson
to precude the Department of |ustce or the Offce of the
Ombudsman from ntatng an nvestgaton of the aeged
frauduent oans. Suppetory, probabe cause must be shown n
order that prosecuton may be brought to bear.
'EE #ELEP3O!E 7O)E( V "I!I(#E
FERNANDO; October 30, 1981
- Free Teephone Workers Unon, heren pettoner, attacks the
consttutonaty of Batas Pambansa Bg. 130
54
(BP 130) n so far as
t amends Art. 264 of the Labor Code deegatng to the Mnster of
Labor and Empoyment the power and dscreton to assume
|ursdcton and/or certfy strkes for compusory arbtraton to the
Natona Labor Reatons Commsson, and n effect make or
unmake the aw on free coectve barganng. Pettoner contends
that |a| BP 30 s an undue deegaton of egsatve powers |b| such
conferment of authorty may aso run contrary to the assurance of
54
"In abor dsputes causng or key to cause strkes or ockouts adversey affectng the natona nterest, such
as may occur n but not mted to pubc uttes, companes engaged n the generaton or dstrbuton of energy,
banks, hosptas, and those wthn export processng zones, the M#n#ster of 5a/or an& Em)lo+ment ma+ ass$me
3$r#s&#%t#on o*er the &#s)$te and decde t or certfy the same to the Commsson for compusory arbtraton. Such
assumpton or certfcaton sha have the effect of automatcay en|onng the ntended or mpendng strke or
ockout. If one has aready taken pace at the tme of assumpton or certfcaton, a strkng or ocked out
empoyees sha mmedatey return to work and the empoyers sha mmedatey resume operatons and
readmt a workers under the same terms and condtons prevang before the strke or ockout. The Mnster
may seek the assstance of aw enforcement agences to ensure compance wth ths provson as we as wth
such orders as he may ssue to enforce the same."
the State to the workers' rght to sef-organzaton and coectve
barganng.
- +rocedure
Z Sept. 14, 1981 notce of strke wth the Mnstry of Labor for
unfar abor practces statng the foowng grounds: 1) Unatera
and arbtrary mpementaton of a Code of Conduct; 2) Iega
termnatons and suspensons of offcers and members as a resut
of the mpementaton of sad Code of Conduct; and 3) Automatc
treatment as of sck eaves as AWOL wth suspensons, n voaton
of Coectve Barganng Agreement
Z Sept. 15, 1981, notfcaton to the Mnstry of compance wth the
2/3 strke vote and other forma requrements of the aw and
Impementng Rues. Concaton meetngs caed by the Mnster
foowed.
Z Sept. 25, 1981, respondent certfed the abor dspute to the
Natona Labor Reatons Commsson (NLRC) for compusory
arbtraton and en|oned any strke at the prvate respondent's
estabshment.
Z Hearng at NLRC was set on Sept. 28. Pettoner fed petton to
SC the next day. Court ssued resouton for respondents to fe
answer. After partes were duy heard y SC on Oct. 8, case was rpe
for decson.
I((%E(
1. WON BP 130 nsofar as t empowers the Mnster of Labor to
assume |ursdcton over abor dsputes causng or key to cause
strkes or ockouts adversey affectng the natona nterest and
thereafter decde t or certfy the same to the NLRC s
unconsttutona for beng voatve of the doctrne of non-
deegaton of egsatve power
2. WON there s unconsttutona appcaton of BP 130
3ELD
1. The deegaton to the Mnster of Labor of the power to assume
|ursdcton n a abor dspute key to affect the natona nterest or
to certfy the same to the NLRC for arbtraton does not consttute
undue deegaton of egsatve powers.
easonin;:
;#rst. It ays down the premse. The power whch woud be dened
the Mnster of Labor by vrtue of such prncpe s wthn the
competence of the Presdent, who n ts opnon can best determne
natona nterests, but ony when a strke s n progress. Such
admsson s quafed by the assumpton that the Presdent "can
make aw." But what possesses sgnfcance for the purpose of ths
tgaton s that t s the Presdent who "sha have contro of the
mnstres." It ponts that the adopton of certan aspects of a
paramentary system n the amended Consttuton does not ater
ts essentay presdenta character.
55
Then t ctes the expanse of
the powers of the Presdent by the provsons n the Consttutons
both of 1935 and 1973. (Note: My readng here s that the power by
the Mnster of Labor to assume |ursdcton n a abor dspute s an
executve functon)
Se%on&. The ponenca cted precedence to deveop ts argument.
V#llena *. Se%retar+ of 7nter#or says that "a executve and
admnstratve organzatons are ad|uncts of the Executve
Department, the heads of the varous executve departments are
assstants and agents of the Chef Executve." In other words,
wthout mnmzng the mportance of the heads of the varous
departments, ther personaty s n reaty but the pro|ecton of that
of the Presdent. (Note: It used ths doctrne n a ater case Ph#l.
0mer#%an Management Co. *. Ph#l. 0mer#%an Management
Em)lo+ees 0sso%#at#on)
"h#r&. Even on the assumpton that the authorty conferred to the
Mnster of Labor partakes of a egsatve character, st no case of
an unawfu deegaton of such power may be dscerned. It ctes
E&$ *. Er#%ta: To determne whether or not there s an undue
deegaton of egsatve power, the nqury must be drected to the
scope and defnteness of the measure enacted. The egsature
does not abdcate ts functons when t descrbes what |ob must be
done, who s to do t, and what s the scope of hs authorty. |a|
55
Artce VII on the presdency starts wth ths provson: "The Presdent sha be the head of state and chef
executve of the Repubc of the Phppnes." Its ast secton s an even more emphatc affrmaton that t s a
presdenta system that obtans n our government. Thus: "A powers vested n the Presdent of the Phppnes
under the 1935 Consttuton and the aws of the and whch are not heren provded for or conferred upon any
offca sha be deemed and are hereby vested n the Presdent uness the Batasang Pambansa provdes
otherwse."
Dstncton between deegaton of power to make the aws whch
necessary nvoves a dscreton as to what t sha be, whch
consttutonay may not be done, and deegaton of authorty or
dscreton as to ts executon to be exercsed under and n
pursuance of the aw, to whch no vad ob|ecton can be made; |b|
To avod unawfu deegaton, there must be a standard, whch
mpes at the very east that the egsature tsef determnes
matters of' prncpe and ays down fundamenta pocy; |c|
Thereafter, the executve or admnstratve offce desgnated may
n pursuance of the above gudenes promugate suppementa
rues and reguatons. In Peo)le * E,%on&e: reguaton shoud be
germane to the ob|ects and purposes of the aw; that the reguaton
be not n contradcton wth t; but conform to the standards that
the aw prescrbes. BP 130 dd not voate these gudenes.
;o$rth. The ponenca stressed the rung n Peo)le *. Vera, sayng
that though schoary and erudte, t aroused apprehenson for
beng to rgd. The bera approach n the rung n E&$ *. Er#%ta as
renforced n 0gr#%$lt$ral Cre&#t an& Coo)erat#*e ;#nan%#ng
0&m#n#strat#on *. Confe&erat#on of En#ons #n 9o*ernment
Cor)orat#ons an& 2ff#%es recognzed that: "It woud be sef-
defeatng n the extreme f the egsaton ntended to cope wth the
grave soca and economc probems of the present and foreseeabe
future woud founder on the rock of an unduy restrctve and
decdedy unreastc meanng to be affxed to the doctrne of non-
deegaton."
- Aso quotng Professor |affe: "The occasons for deegatng power
to admnstratve offces |coud be| compassed by a snge
generazaton. Thus: Power shoud be deegated where there s
agreement that a task must be performed and t cannot be
effectvey performed by the egsature wthout the assstance of a
deegate or wthout an expendture of tme so great as to ead to
the negect of equay mportant busness. Deegaton s most
commony ndcated where the reatons to be reguated are hghy
technca or where ther reguaton requres a course of contnuous
decson."
2. In the absence of factua determnatons (by the Mnstry of
Labor and the NLRC), ths Court s not n a poston to rue on
whether or not there s unconsttutona appcaton.
0ecision
|1| No. BP 130 nsofar as t empowers the Mnster of Labor to
assume |ursdcton over abor dsputes causng or key to cause
strkes or ockouts adversey affectng the natona nterest and
thereafter decde t or certfy the same to the NLRC s NOT on ts
face unconsttutona snce there was no undue deegaton of
egsatve power.
|2| There s no rung on the queston of whether or not BP 130 has
been unconsttutonay apped n ths case, for beng repugnant to
the regme of sef-organzaton and free coectve barganng, as on
the facts aeged, dsputed by prvate respondent, the matter s not
rpe for |udca determnaton
0ispositive Petton Dsmssed.
2otin; 11 concur, no dssent.
&2#O!& V C&(#ILLO
BENGZON; |anuary 19, 1962
'&C#(
- December 29, 1961 - Pres. Caros P. Garca apponted Aytona as
ad nterm Governor of the Centra Bank. Aytona took hs oath of
offce on that day.
- December 30, 1961 - Presdent-eect Dosdado Macapaga took
hs oath of offce
- December 31, 1961 - Macapaga ssued Admnstratve Order # 2
recang, wthdrawng and canceng a ad nterm appontments
made by Garca after December 13, 1961 (the date Macapaga was
procamed as the eected presdent by Congress)
- |anuary 1, 1962 - Macapaga apponted Andres Casto as ad
nterm governor of the Centra Bank
- |anuary 2, 1962 - Both Aytona and Casto exercsed the powers
of ther offce but Casto nformed Aytona of hs appontment. The
next day, Aytona was prevented from hodng offce
- Aytona nsttuted a quo warranto whch chaenged Casto's rght
to exercse the powers of Governor of Centra bank. Aytona cams
he was:
1. vady apponted
2. quafed for the post
3. and that the subsequent appontment and quafcaton
of Casto was vod because the occupaton was occuped by
hm
- Casto argued that the appontment of Aytona had been revoked
by AO 2.
I((%E
WON the new Presdent (Macapaga) had the power to ssue the
order of the canceaton of the ad nterm appontments made by
the past Presdent (Garca) even after the appontees had aready
quafed.
3ELD
Casto s the rghtfu governor of the Centra Bank.
- December 29, 1961 - Garca sent to the Commsson on
Appontments (not yet n sesson) a communcaton submttng for
confrmaton ad nterm appontments of severa offcas ncudng
the Centra Bank Governor n the person of Aytona. There were
three other communcatons regardng the same matter submtted
on the same day.
- A n a there were 350 mdnght appontments by Garca.
- In revokng the appontments, Macapaga acted based on the
foowng reasons:
1) outgong Presdent shoud have refraned from fng
vacances to gve the new Presdent the opportunty to
consder names n the ght of new pces
2) Scandaousy hurred appontments n mass do not
fa wthn the ntent and sprt of the consttutona provson
authorzng the ssuance of ad nterm appontments
3) Appontments were rreguar, mmora and un|ust
because they were ssued ony upon the condton that the
appontee woud mmedatey quafy obvousy to prevent a
reca by the ncomng Presdent whch woud resut to those
deservng the appontment of the new Presdent to be
decned and by-passed
4) Abnorma condtons surroundng the appontment
and quafcatons evnced a desre on the part of the outgong
Presdent to merey subvert the poces of the ncomng
admnstraton
- Many of the persons mentoned n the December 29
communcaton dd not quafy.
- It s Maacanang's practce to submt ad nterm appontments
ony when the Commttee on Appontments s n sesson so that
ony those who have accepted the appontment and quafed are
submtted for confrmaton.
- It s common sense to beeve that after the procamaton of the
eecton of Macapaga, Garca's admnstraton was no more than a
caretaker admnstraton. He was supposed to prepare for the
ordery transfer of authorty to the ncomng Presdent and he
shoud not do acts whch he ought to know, woud embarrass or
obstruct the poces of hs successor.
- The appontment of 350 peope n one nght coud be regarded as
abuse of Presdenta prerogatves.
- When the Presdent makes appontments wth the consent of the
Commsson of Appontments, he has the beneft of ther advce.
When he makes ad nterm appontments, he exercses a speca
prerogatve and s bound to be prudent to nsure approva of hs
seecton ether by prevous consutaton wth the members of the
Commsson or by thereafter expanng to them the reason for such
seecton.
- But n ths case Garca shoud have been douby carefu because:
- the Commsson that woud consder the appontments s
dfferent from the one exstng durng the tme the
appontments were made
- the names are to be submtted by hs successor who
may not fuy approve of the appontments
- The Court chose not to dsregard Admnstratve Order 2 and
canceed the mdnght appontments. There are precedents that
once an appontment has been ssued, t cannot be reconsdered.
But none of the precedents have nvoved mass ad nterm
appontments.
@%I"(I!G V #&$&!GL&!GI#
BARRERA; February 29, 1964
'&C#(
- May 20, 1960- Oumsng desgnated Actng Chef of Poce of Ioo
Cty
- Dec. 20, 1961- Pres. Garca extended an a&-#nter#m appontment
to Oumsng to the same poston
- Dec. 28, 1961- Oumsng took hs oath of offce, contnued
dschargng functons of Chef of Poce
- May 16, 1962- Oumsngs, as we as other peopes appontments
were confrmed
- May 17, 1962- at the sesson of the Commsson on Appontments,
a moton for reconsderaton of a the confrmed appontments was
approved, and the Commsson was ad|ourned wth no future date
fxed for ts next meetng
- |une 11, 1962- Presdent Macapaga desgnated Eduardo
Ta|angangt as Actng Chef of Poce of Ioo.
- Hence ths -Petton for prohbton to restran Eduardo
Ta|angangt from occupyng the poston of Chef of Poce to whch
pettoner Oumsng had prevousy been apponted and duy
quafed and the functons of whch he was actuay dschargng.
I((%E
WON Oumsngs appontment was not awfuy confrmed, because
of the moton for reconsderaton of hs confrmaton, whch has, to
the present, remaned unacted upon
3ELD
The appontment of Ta|angangt to the poston of Chef of Poce of
Ioo Cty was nu and vod, because sad poston was not vacant.
- The revsed rues of the Commsson on Appontments provde:
"SEC. 21: .Any moton to reconsder the vote on any appontment
may be ad on the tabe, and ths sha be a fna dspost on such a
moton
"SEC. 22: Notce of confrmaton or dsapprova of an appontment
sha not be sent to the Presdent of the Phppnes /efore the
e,)#rat#on of the )er#o& for #ts re%ons#&erat#on, or .h#le a mot#on
for re%ons#&erat#on #s )en&#ng."
- The Commsson had not dsapproved of Oumsngs appontment,
t was merey under reconsderaton. It has been estabshed that
on |uy 19, 1962, Oumsngs appontment was devered to
Maacanang. Ths, as we as the provsons above, supports the
concuson that the ayng of a moton for reconsderaton on the
tabe does not have the effect of wthhodng the effectvty of the
confrmaton, nor s t synonymous wth dsapprova of the
appontment. In fact, t s recognton that the appontment was
confrmed.
PEOPLE V VE&
LAUREL; November 16, 1937
'&C#(
- 15 October 1931: nformaton for crmna case "Peope v. Marano
Cu Un|eng, et a." fed n CFI Mana. In the sad case, HSBC, beng
the offended party, ntervened as prvate prosecutor.
- 8 |anuary 1934: after a protracted tra, CFI rendered a |udgment
of convcton sentencng MCU to mprsonment.
- 26 March 1935: SC uphods sentence of convcton w/ a sght
modfcaton of the duraton of mprsonment.
- 17 December 1935: MFR and 4 motons for new tra by MCU
dened by Ph SC.
- 18 December 1935: fna |udgment was entered by Ph SC. MCU
seeks to eevate the case to US SC.
- November 1936: US SC denes petton for certorar.
- 24 November 1936: Ph Sc denes MCUs petton for eave to fe
a 2
nd
aternatve MFR or new tra; & remands the case to CFI Mana
for executon of the |udgment.
- 27 November 1936: MCU fes appcaton for probaton under the
provsons of Act No. 4221 of the Ph Legsature. CFI Mana, |udge
Pedro Tuason presdng, refers the appcaton to the Insuar
Probaton Offce (IPO)
- 18 |une 1937: IPO recommends dena of MCUs appcaton for
probaton
- 5 Apr 1937: hearng of the petton before CFI Mana, 7th branch
wth |udge |ose O. Vera presdng. HSBC & the Fsca of the Cty of
Mana fe separate oppostons to the grantng of probaton. HSBC
attacks consttutonaty of Act No. 4221 on the foowng grounds:
eLual prote0tion o/ t*e laws (ts appcabty s not unform
throughout the Isands); un+ue +elegation o/ legislative power
(secton 11 of the sad Act endows prov boards w/ power to make
sad aw effectve or otherwse n ther respectve provnces).
- 28 |une 1937: |udge |ose O. Vera of CFI Mna promugates
resouton wth a fndng that MCU s nnocent of the crme of whch
he stands convcted but denyng the atter's petton for probaton.
- 3 |uy 1937: counse for MCU fes excepton to the resouton
denyng probaton & notce of ntenton to fe MFR. Ths was
foowed by a seres of aternatve motons for new reconsderaton
or new tra. A moton for eave to ntervene n the case as am#%#
%$r#ae sgned by 33 (34) attorneys was aso fed. (Attorney Euao
Chaves, 1 of the 34, subsequenty fed a petton for eave to
wthdraw hs appearance as am#%$s %$r#ae on the ground that the
moton was crcuated at a banquet gven by counse for MCU &
that he sgned the same "wthout mature deberaton & purey as a
matter of courtesy.") HSBC fes opposton to moton for
nterventon.
- 6 August 1937: the Fsca of the Cty of Mna fes moton w/ TC for
ssuance of an order to execute |udgment of Ph SC n sad case &
to commt MCU to |a n obedence to sad |udgment.
- 19 August 1937 s the date set for hearng on the varous motons
for CFIs consderaton. On ths same date, ths nstant case was
fed before Ph SC to put an end to what they aeged was an
ntermnabe proceedng n CFI Mna.
- Note Probaton mpes gut by fna |udgment. Whe a probaton
case may ook nto the crcumstances attendng the commsson of
the offense, ths does not authorze t to reverse the fndngs and
concusve of ths court, ether drecty or ndrecty, especay
wherefrom ts own admsson reance was merey had on the
prnted brefs, averments, and peadngs of the partes. If each and
every Court of Frst Instance coud en|oy the prvege of overrung
decsons of the Supreme Court, there woud be no end to tgaton,
and |udca chaos woud resut. Semp*asis on t*e *ierar0*1 in
t*e P*ilippine <u+i0ial s1stemT
I((%E(
1. WON the consttutonaty of Act No. 4221 has been propery
rased n these proceedngs
2. f YES, WON sad Act s consttutona
a. WON Act No. 4221 encroaches upon the pardonng power of
the Executve
b. WON secton 11 of Act No. 4221 consttute an undue
deegaton of egsatve power
c. WON the Probaton Act voates B of Rghts provsons on
equa protecton of the aws
3. WON the entre Act shoud be avoded
3ELD
1. The consttutonaty of an act of the egsature w not be
determned by the courts uness that queston s propery rased
and presented n approprate cases and s necessary to a
determnaton of the case. Slis motaT The queston of the
consttutonaty of an act of the egsature s frequenty rased n
ordnary actons BUT resort may be made to extraordnary ega
remedes, partcuary where the remedes n the ordnary course of
aw even f avaabe, are not pan, speedy and adequate. <e.g. n
man&am$s proceedngs, n an acton of 4$o .arranto, n ha/eas
%or)$s proceedngs, on an appcaton for n|uncton to restran
acton under the chaenged statute, & even on an appcaton for
premnary n|uncton where the determnaton of the consttutona
queston s necessary to a decson of the case, or through pettons
for )roh#/#t#on and %ert#orar#.
- Code of Cv Procedure of the Phppne Isands, secton 516:
Phppne SC s granted concurrent |ursdcton n prohbton wth
courts of frst nstance over nferor trbunas or persons, and
orgna |ursdcton over courts of frst nstance, when such courts
are exercsng functons wthout or n excess of ther |ursdcton.
- General rule- the queston of the vadty of the crmna statute
must be rased by a defendant n the tra court and be carred
reguary n revew to the Supreme Court. .%# n cases where a
new act serousy affected numerous persons and extensve
property rghts, and was key to cause a mutpcty of actons, the
Supreme Court exercsed ts dscreton to brng the ssue of the
act's vadty prompty before t and decde n the nterest of the
ordery admnstraton of |ustce.
- The wrt of prohbton s an extraordnary |udca wrt ssung out
of a court of superor |ursdcton and drected to an nferor court,
for the purpose of preventng the nferor trbuna from usurpng a
|ursdcton wth whch t s not egay vested. General rule- the
mert of prohbton w not e where the nferor court has
|ursdcton ndependent of the statute the consttutonaty of whch
s questoned. .%# where the nferor court or trbuna derves ts
|ursdcton excusvey from an unconsttutona statute, t may be
prevented by the wrt of prohbton from enforcng that statute. A
CFI sttng n probaton proceedngs s a court of mted |ursdcton.
Its |ursdcton n such proceedngs s conferred excusvey by Act
No. 4221 of the Phppne Legsature. It s unquestonabe that the
consttutona ssue has been squarey presented not ony before
ths court by the pettoners but aso before the tra court by the
prvate prosecuton.
- The power to enforce begets nherenty a dscreton to
permanenty refuse to do so. The authorty to defne and fx the
punshment for crme s egsatve and ncudes the rght n
advance to brng wthn |udca dscreton, for the purpose of
executng the statute, eements of consderaton whch woud be
otherwse beyond the scope of |udca authorty, and that the rght
to reeve from the punshment, fxed by aw and ascertaned
accordng to the methods by t provded beongs to the executve
department.
- Cooey on Consttutona Lmtatons: A court w not consder any
attack made on the consttutonaty of a statute by one who has no
nterest n defeatng t because hs rghts are not affected by ts
operaton. The power to decare a egsatve enactment vod s one
whch the |udge, conscous of the fabty of the human |udgment,
w shrnk from exercsng n any case where he can
conscentousy and wth due regard to duty and offca oath
decne the responsbty.
- General rule- ony those who are partes to a sut may queston
the consttutonaty of a statute nvoved n a |udca decson, t
has been hed that snce the decree pronounced by a court wthout
|ursdcton s vod, where the |ursdcton of the court depends on
the vadty of the statute n queston, the ssue of the
consttutonaty w be consdered on ts beng brought to the
attenton of the court by persons nterested n the effect to be
gven the statute.
- General rule- the queston of consttutonaty must be rased at
the earest opportunty, so that f not rased by the peadngs,
ordnary t may not be rased at the tra, and f not rased n the
tra court, t w not consdered on appea. .%# courts, n the
exercse of sounds dscreton, may determne the tme when a
queston affectng the consttutonaty of a statute shoud be
presented. In crmna cases, the queston may be rased for the
frst tme at any stage of the proceedngs, ether n the tra court or
on appea. Same s true n cv cases f t appears that a
determnaton of the queston s necessary to a decson of the
case. Aso, a consttutona queston w be consdered by an
appeate court at any tme, where t nvoves the |ursdcton of the
court beow
- General rule- the person who mpugns the vadty of a statute
must have a persona and substanta nterest n the case such that
he has sustaned, or w sustaned, drect n|ury as a resut of ts
enforcement. The Peope of the Phppnes, n whose name the
present acton s brought, has a substanta nterest n havng Act
No. 4221 set asde. Of greater mport than the damage caused by
the ega expendture of pubc funds s the morta wound nfcted
upon the fundamenta aw by the enforcement of an nvad statute.
Hence, the we-setted rue that the state can chaenge the vadty
of ts own aws. The consttuton s the supreme aw, and to ts
behests the courts, the egsature, and the peope must bow. The
state s aways nterested where the ntegrty of ts Consttuton or
statutes s nvoved.
- A |udge shoud not |udcay decare a statute unconsttutona
unt the queston of consttutonaty s tendered for decson, and
uness t must be decded n order to determne the rght of a party
tgant. An offcer on whom a statute mposes the duty of enforcng
ts provsons cannot avod the duty upon the ground that he
consders the statute unconsttutona, and hence n enforcng the
statute he s mmune from responsbty f the statute be
unconsttutona. Executve offcers (e.g., the state audtor and
state treasurer) shoud not decne to perform mnstera dutes
mposed upon them by a statute, on the ground that they beeve
the statute s unconsttutona.
- The mere fact that the Probaton Act has been repeatedy reed
upon the past and a that tme has not been attacked as
unconsttutona by the Fsca of Mana but, on the contrary, has
been mpedy regarded by hm as consttutona, s no reason for
consderng the Peope of the Phppnes estopped from nor
assang ts vadty. For courts w pass upon a consttutona
questons ony when presented before t n /ona f#&e cases for
determnaton, and the fact that the queston has not been rased
before s not a vad reason for refusng to aow t to be rased
ater. The fsca and a others are |ustfed n reyng upon the
statute and treatng t as vad unt t s hed vod by the courts n
proper cases.
- Is the determnaton of the consttutonaty of Act No. 4221 s
necessary to resove the nstant case? Whe the court w meet the
queston wth frmness, where ts decson s ndspensabe, t s the
part of wsdom, and |ust respect for the egsature, renders t
proper, to wave t, f the case n whch t arses, can be decded on
other ponts.
- General rule- the determnaton of a consttutona queston s
necessary whenever t s essenta to the decson of the case, as
where the rght of a party s founded soey on a statute the vadty
of whch s attacked. There s no doubt that Cu Un|eng draws hs
prvege to probaton soey from Act No. 4221 now beng assaed.
- Moreover, the Probaton Act s a new addton to our statute books
and ts vadty has never before been passed upon by the courts;
many persons accused and convcted of crme n the Cty of Mana
have apped for probaton; some of them are aready on probaton;
more peope w key take advantage of the Probaton Act n the
future; and the respondent Marano Cu Un|eng has been at arge
for a perod of about four years snce hs frst convcton. A wat
the decson of ths court on the consttutona queston.
Consderng, therefore, the mportance whch the nstant case has
assumed and to prevent mutpcty of suts, strong reasons of
pubc pocy demand that the consttutonaty of Act No. 4221 be
now resoved.
- Aso, n Ph SCs rung n an anaogous stuaton n Yu Cong Eng
vs. Trndad, the Court sad: "Inasmuch as the property and
persona rghts of neary tweve thousand merchants are affected
by these proceedngs, and nasmuch as Act No. 2972 s a new aw
not yet nterpreted by the courts, n the nterest of the pubc
wefare and for the advancement of pubc pocy, we have
determned to overrue the defense of want of |ursdcton n order
that we may decde the man ssue. We have here an extraordnary
stuaton whch cas for a reaxaton of the genera rue." Ph SCs
rung on ths pont was sustaned by the US SC. "A more bndng
authorty n support of the vew we have taken can not be found."
2. <the essence of |udca duty> It s the offce and duty of the
|udcary to enforce the Consttuton. Ths court, by cear mpcaton
from the provsons of secton 2, subsecton 1, and secton 10, of
Artce VIII of the Consttuton, may decare an act of the natona
egsature nvad because n confct wth the fundamenta ay. It
w not shrk from ts sworn duty to enforce the Consttuton. And,
n cear cases, t w not hestate to gve effect to the supreme aw
by settng asde a statute n confct therewth.
- 'un+amental 0riteria- a reasonabe doubts shoud be resoved
n favor of the consttutonaty of a statute. An act of the egsature
approved by the executve, s presumed to be wthn consttutona
mtatons. The members of the Legsature and the Chef Executve
have taken an oath to support the Consttuton and t must be
presumed that they have been true to ths oath and that n
enactng and sanctonng a partcuar aw they dd not ntend to
voate the Consttuton. The courts cannot but cautousy exercse
ts power to overturn the soemn decaratons of two of the three
grand departments of the governments. The |udcary ought to
refect the wsdom of the peope as expressed through an eectve
Legsature and an eectve Chef Executve.
- The Presdent of the Phppnes had aready expressed hs opnon
aganst the consttutonaty of the Probaton Act. In a message
dated September 1, 1937, he recommended to the NA ts
mmedate repea, resutng n the approva of B No. 2417 of the
NA repeang the probaton Act, sub|ect to certan condtons
theren mentoned; but that sad b was vetoed by the Presdent
on September 13, 1937, much aganst hs wsh. In vetong the b
referred to, the Presdent exercsed hs consttutona prerogatve.
He may express the reasons whch he may deem proper for takng
such a step, but hs reasons are not bndng upon us n the
determnaton of actua controverses submtted for our
determnaton. Whatever opnon s expressed by hm under these
crcumstances, however, cannot sway our |udgment on way or
another and prevent us from takng what n our opnon s the
proper course of acton to take n a gven case. We are ndependent
of the Executve no ess than of the Legsatve department of our
government - ndependent n the performance of our functons,
undeterred by any consderaton, free from potcs, ndfferent to
popuarty, and unafrad of crtcsm n the accompshment of our
sworn duty as we see t and as we understand t.
- The consttutonaty of Act No. 4221 s chaenged on three
prncpa grounds: (1) That sad Act encroaches upon the pardonng
power of the Executve; (2) that ts consttutes an undue deegaton
of egsatve power and (3) that t denes the equa protecton of
the aws.
a. |ones Law, n force at the tme of the approva of Act No. 4221
vests n the Governor-Genera of the Phppnes "the excusve
power to grant pardons and repreves and remt fnes and
forfetures". Ths power s now vested n the Presdent of the
Phppnes (A7, s11(6)). Our Consttuton aso makes specfc
menton of "commutaton" and of the power of the executve to
mpose, n the pardons he may grant, such condtons, restrctons
and mtatons as he may deem proper; and to grant amnesty wth
the concurrence of the NA. But the pardonng power has remaned
essentay the same.
- |ones Law vests the pardonng power excusvey n the Chef
Executve. The exercse of the power may not, therefore, be vested
n anyone ese. Where the pardonng power s conferred on the
executve wthout express or mped mtatons, the grant s
excusve, and the egsature can nether exercse such power tsef
nor deegate t esewhere, nor nterfere wth or contro the proper
exercse thereof.
- Ktts decson nvovng an embezzement case: US SC rued n
1916 that an order ndefntey suspendng sentenced was vod.
Under the common aw the power of the court was mted to
temporary suspenson and the rght to suspend sentence
absoutey and permanenty was vested n the executve branch of
the government and not n the |udcary. But, the rght of Congress
to estabsh probaton by statute was conceded.
- US v Murray: when a person sentenced to mprsonment by a
dstrct court has begun to serve hs sentence, that court has no
power under the Probaton Act of March 4, 1925 to grant hm
probaton even though the term at whch sentence was mposed
had not yet expred. In ths case of Murray, the consttutonaty of
the probaton Act was not consdered but was assumed. US SC
dened the rght of the dstrct courts to suspend sentence. The
court ponted out the necessty for acton by Congress f the courts
were to exercse probaton powers n the future.
- Rggs v US: the Crcut Court of Appeas of the Fourth Crcut hed
that the consttutonaty of Probaton Act of March 4, 1925 have
been sustaned by the Crcut Court of Appeas of the Nnth Crcut
(7 F. |2d|, 590), and the same was hed n no manner to encroach
upon the pardonng power of the Presdent.
- 1916: US SC, n pan and unequvoca anguage, ponted to
Congress as possessng the requste power to enact probaton
aws. A federa probaton aw was actuay enacted n 1925. The
consttutonaty of the Act has been assumed by the US SC n 1928
and consstenty sustaned by the nferor federa courts n a
number of earer cases. The Phppne Legsature, ke the US
Congress, may egay enact a probaton aw under ts broad power
to fx the punshment of any and a pena offenses. Indeed, the
Phppne Legsature has defned a crmes and fxed the penates
for ther voaton. Invaraby, the egsature has demonstrated the
desre to vest n the courts -- partcuary the tra courts -- arge
dscreton n mposng the penates whch the aw prescrbes n
partcuar cases. It s beeved that |ustce can best be served by
vestng ths power n the courts, they beng n a poston to best
determne the penates whch an ndvdua convct, pecuary
crcumstanced, shoud suffer. <Revsed Pena Code, Indetermnate
Sentence Law, Paroe Act, |uvene Denquency Law, (Adut)
Probaton Law, etc show the ntenton of the egsature to
"humanze" the pena aws.>
- Some US cases hod t unawfu for the egsature to vest n the
courts the power to suspend the operaton of a sentenced, by
probaton or otherwse, as to do so woud encroach upon the
pardonng power of the executve. Other cases, however, hod
%ontra. Ph SC eects to foow the ong catena of authortes
hodng that the courts may be egay authorzed by the egsature
to suspend sentence by the estabshment of a system of probaton
however characterzed.
- Probaton and pardon are not cotermnous; nor are they the same.
They are actuay dstrct and dfferent from each other, both n
orgn and n nature. Pro6ation, the power to suspend sentence,
was aways a part of the |udca power. It smpy postpones the
|udgment of the court temporary or ndefntey, but the convcton
and abty foowng t, and the cv dsabtes, reman and
become operatve when |udgment s rendered. The power to
grant reprieves an+ par+ons, on the other hand, was aways a
part of the executve power. A pardon reaches both the punshment
prescrbed for the offense and the gut of the offender. It reeases
the punshment, and bots out of exstence the gut, so that n the
eye of the aw, the offender s as nnocent as f he had never
commtted the offense. It removes the penates and dsabtes,
and restores hm to a hs cv rghts. It makes hm, as t were, a
new man, and gves hm a new credt and capacty.
- Probaton shoud aso be dstngushed from repreve and from
commutaton of the sentence. Snodgrass vs. State: the power to
suspend the sentence does not confct wth the power of the
Governor to grant repreves. A repreve postpones the executon of
the sentence to a day certan, whereas a suspenson s for an
ndefnte tme. A commutaton s but to change the punshment
assessed to a ess punshment.
- State e, rel. Bottomny vs. Dstrct Court: A "pardon" s an act of
grace, proceedng from the power ntrusted wth the executon of
the aws whch exempts the ndvdua on whom t s bestowed from
the punshment the aw nfcts for a crme he has commtted. It s a
remsson of gut, a forgveness of the offense. "Commutaton" s a
remsson of a part of the punshment; a substtuton of a ess
penaty for the one orgnay mposed. "Repreve" or "respte" s
the wthhodng of the sentence for an nterva of tme, a
postponement of executon, a temporary suspenson of executon.
- The Probaton Act does not confct wth the pardonng power of
the Executve. The pardonng power, n respect to those servng
ther probatonary sentences, remans as fu and compete as f the
Probaton Law had never been enacted. The Presdent may yet
pardon the probatoner and thus pace t beyond the power of the
court to order hs rearrest and mprsonment.
b. Under the Const, govt powers are dstrbuted among 3
coordnate and substantay ndependent organs: egsatve,
executve and |udca. Each department derves ts authorty from
the Consttuton, the hghest expresson of popuar w. Each has
excusve cognzance of the matters wthn ts |ursdcton, supreme
wthn ts own sphere.
- The power to make aws (the egsatve power) s vested n a
bcamera Legsature by the |ones Law (sec. 12) and n a
uncamera Natona Assemby by the Consttuton (A6,s1). The
Phppne Legsature or the Natona Assemby may not escape ts
dutes and responsbtes by deegatng that power to any other
body or authorty. Any attempt to abdcate the power s
unconsttutona and vod, on the prncpe that )otestas &elegata
non &elegare )otest, an accepted coroary of the prncpe of
separaton of powers.
- The rue, however, whch forbds the deegaton of egsatve
power s not absoute and nfexbe. It admts of exceptons ke: (1)
deegaton of egsatve powers to oca authortes; (2) to such
agences n US terrtores as Congress may seect; (3) to the peope
at arge; and (4) to those whom the Consttuton tsef deegates
such egsatve powers (e.g., the Presdent). The case before us
does not fa under any of these exceptons.
- #est o/ %n+ue Delegation- to nqure whether the statute was
compete n a ts terms and provsons when t eft the hands of
the egsature so that nothng was eft to the |udgment of any
other appontee or deegate of the egsature. BUT to a certan
extent matters of deta may be eft to be fed n by rues and
reguatons to be adopted or promugated by executve offcers and
admnstratve boards. As a rue, an act of the egsature s
ncompete and hence nvad f t does not ay down any rue or
defnte standard by whch the admnstratve offcer or board may
be guded n the exercse of the dscretonary powers deegated to
t.
- In the case at bar, the provnca boards of the varous provnces
are to determne for themseves, whether the Probaton Law sha
appy to ther provnces or not at a. The appcabty and
appcaton of the Probaton Act are entrey paced n the hands of
the provnca boards. If the provnca board does not wsh to have
the Act apped n ts provnce, a that t has to do s to decne to
approprate the needed amount for the saary of a probaton offcer.
The pan anguage of the Act s not susceptbe of any other
nterpretaton.
- The true dstncton s between the deegaton of power to make
the aw, whch necessary nvoves a dscreton as to what t sha
be, and conferrng an authorty or dscreton as to ts executon, to
be exercsed under and n pursuance of the aw. The frst cannot be
done; to the atter no vad ob|ecton can be made.
- It s true that aws may be made effectve on certan
contngences, as by procamaton of the executve or the adopton
by the peope of a partcuar communty. The egsature may
deegate a power not egsatve whch t may tsef rghtfuy
exercse. The power to ascertan facts s such a power whch may
be deegated. There s nothng essentay egsatve n ascertanng
the exstence of facts or condtons as the bass of the takng nto
effect of a aw. That s a menta process common to a branches of
the government.
- The effcency of an Act as a decaraton of egsatve w must, of
course, come from Congress, but the ascertanment of the
contngency upon whch the Act sha take effect may be eft to
such agences as t may desgnate. The egsature, then may
provde that a contngences eavng to some other person or body
the power to determne when the specfed contngences has
arsen. In the case at bar, the varous provnca boards are, n
practca effect, endowed wth the power of suspendng the
operaton of the Probaton Law n ther respectve provnces.
- Whe the egsature may suspend a aw, or the executon or
operaton of a aw, a aw may not be suspended as to certan
ndvduas ony, eavng the aw to be en|oyed by others. The
suspenson must be genera, and cannot be made for ndvdua
cases or for partcuar ocates. Here the soveregn and absoute
power resdes n the peope; and the egsature can ony exercse
what s deegated to them accordng to the consttuton. It s
manfesty contrary to the frst prncpes of cv berty and natura
|ustce, and to the sprt of our consttuton and aws, that any one
ctzen shoud en|oy prveges and advantages whch are dened to
a others under ke crcumstances; or that ant one shoud be
sub|ect to osses, damages, suts, or actons from whch a others
under ke crcumstances are exempted.
- True, the egsature may enact aws for a partcuar ocaty
dfferent from those appcabe to other ocates. But opton aws
thus sustaned treat of sub|ects purey oca n character whch
shoud receve dfferent treatment n dfferent ocates paced
under dfferent crcumstances. Whe we do not deny the rght of
oca sef-government and the proprety of eavng matters of purey
oca concern n the hands of oca authortes or for the peope of
sma communtes to pass upon, we beeve that n matters of
genera of genera egsaton ke that whch treats of crmnas n
genera, and as regards the genera sub|ect of probaton, dscreton
may not be vested n a manner so unquafed and absoute as
provded n Act No. 4221. The vadty of a aw s not tested by what
has been done but by what may be done under ts provsons.
- A great dea of attude shoud be granted to the egsature not
ony n the expresson of what may be termed egsatve pocy but
n the eaboraton and executon thereof. "Wthout ths power,
egsaton woud become oppressve and yet mbece." The mass
of powers of government s vested n the representatves of the
peope and that these representatves are no further restraned
under our system than by the express anguage of the nstrument
mposng the restrant, or by partcuar provsons whch by cear
ntendment, have that effect. (Angara case)
- We concude that secton 11 of Act No. 4221 consttutes an
mproper and unawfu deegaton of egsatve authorty to the
provnca boards and s, for ths reason, unconsttutona and vod.
c. Ths basc ndvdua rght shetered by the Consttuton s a
restrant on a the tree grand departments of our government and
on the subordnate nstrumentates and subdvson thereof, and
on many consttutona power, ke the poce power, taxaton and
emnent doman. BUT what may be regarded as a dena of the
equa protecton of the aws n a queston not aways easy
determned. No rue that w cover every case can be formuated.
- Cass egsaton dscrmnatng aganst some and favorng others
n prohbted. But cassfcaton on a reasonabe bass, and nor
made arbtrary or caprcousy, s permtted. The cassfcaton,
however, to be reasonabe must be based on substanta
dstnctons whch make rea dfferences; t must be germane to the
purposes of the aw; t must not be mted to exstng condtons
ony, and must appy equay to each member of the cass.
- In the case at bar, however, the resutant nequaty may be sad
to fow from the unwarranted deegaton of egsatve power,
athough perhaps ths s not necessary the resut n every case.
Whe nequaty may resut n the appcaton of the aw and n the
conferment of the benefts theren provded, nequaty s not n a
cases the necessary resut. But whatever may be the case, t s
cear that n secton 11 of the Probaton Act creates a stuaton n
whch dscrmnaton and nequaty are permtted or aowed.
- There s no dfference between a aw whch denes equa
protecton and a aw whch permts of such dena. A aw may
appear to be far on ts face and mparta n appearance, yet, f t
permts of un|ust and ega dscrmnaton, t s wthn the
consttutona prohbtons. Statutes may be ad|udged
unconsttutona because of ther effect n operaton. If the aw has
the effect of denyng the equa protecton of the aw t s
unconsttutona.
3. In seekng the egsatve ntent, the presumpton s aganst any
mutaton of a statute, and the courts w resort to emnaton ony
where an unconsttutona provson s nter|ected nto a statute
otherwse vad, and s so ndependent and separabe that ts
remova w eave the consttutona features and purposes of the
act substantay unaffected by the process.
- Where part of the a statute s vod, as repugnant to the Organc
Law, whe another part s vad, the vad porton, f separabe from
the vad, may stand and be enforced. The vod provsons must be
emnated wthout causng resuts affectng the man purpose of
the Act, n a manner contrary to the ntenton of the Legsature.
What remans must express the egsatve w, ndependenty of
the vod part, snce the court has no power to egsate.
- In the case at bar, secton 11 (whch makes the Probaton Act
appcabe ony n those provnces n whch the respectve
provnca boards provded for the saares of probaton offcers) s
so nseparaby nked wth the other portons of the Act that wth
the emnaton of the secton what woud be eft s the bare
deasm of the system, devod of any practca beneft to a arge
number of peope who may be deservng of the ntended benefca
resut of that system.
- Between s and ought there s a far cry. The wsdom and proprety
of egsaton s not for us to pass upon. We may thnk a aw better
otherwse than t s. But much as has been sad regardng
progressve nterpretaton and |udca egsaton we decne to
amend the aw. We are not permtted to read nto the aw matters
and provsons whch are not there. Not for any purpose - not even
to save a statute from the doom of nvadty. The cear ntenton
and pocy of the aw s not to make the Insuar Government defray
the saares of probaton offcers n the provnces but to make the
provnces defray them shoud they desre to have the Probaton Act
appy thereto.
- Probaton as a deveopment of a modern penoogy s a
commendabe system. Probaton aws have been enacted, here and
n other countres, to permt what modern crmnoogst ca the
"ndvduazaton of the punshment", the ad|ustment of the
penaty to the character of the crmna and the crcumstances of
hs partcuar case. It provdes a perod of grace n order to ad n
the rehabtaton of a pentent offender. It takes advantage of an
opportunty for reformaton and avods mprsonment so ong as the
convcts gves promse of reform.
0ecision WHEREFORE, Act No. 4221 s hereby decared
unconsttutona and vod and the wrt of prohbton s, accordngy,
granted. Wthout any pronouncement regardng costs. So ordered.
#OE( V GO!4&LE(
FELICIANO; |uy 23, 1987
'&C#(
- an orgna petton for habeas corpus fed on behaf of pettoner
Wfredo S. Torres, presenty confned at the Natona Pententary
n Muntnupa.
- Sometme before 1979, Torres was convcted by the CFI of Mana
of the crme of estafa (two counts) and was sentenced to an
aggregate prson term of from (11) yrs, (10) mos and (22) days to
(38) yrs, (9) mos. and (1) day, and to pay an ndemnty of
P127,728.75. These convctons were affrmed by the CA. The
maxmum sentence woud expre on 2 Nov 2000.
- On 18 Apr 1979, a condtona pardon was granted by the
Presdent on condton that pettoner woud "not agan voate any
of the pena aws of the Phppnes. Shoud ths condton be
voated, he w be proceeded aganst n the manner prescrbed by
aw." Pettoner accepted the condtona pardon and was
consequenty reeased from confnement.
- On 21 May 1986, the Board of Pardons and Paroe resoved to
recommend to the Presdent the canceaton of the condtona
pardon granted to the pettoner. In makng ts recommendaton,
the Board reed upon the decsons of ths Court n "esoro *s.
:#re%tor of Pr#sons and Es)$elas $s. Pro*#n%#al Aar&en of -ohol.
The pettoner had been charged wth 20 counts of estafa, whch
were then pendng tra before the RTC, and convcted by the RTC
of the crme of sedton, whch was then pendng appea before the
IAC. Many other charges have been brought aganst the pettoner,
athough some have been dentfed as dsmssed.
- On 4 |une 1986, the respondent Mnster of |ustce wrote to the
Presdent nformng her of the Resouton of the Board
recommendng canceaton of the condtona pardon prevousy
granted to pettoner.
- On 8 September 1986, the Presdent canceed the condtona
pardon of the pettoner.
- On 10 October 1986, the respondent Mnster of |ustce ssued "by
authorty of the Presdent" an Order of Arrest and Recommtment
aganst pettoner. The pettoner was accordngy arrested and
confned n Muntnupa to serve the unexpred porton of hs
sentence.
- Pettoner now mpugns the vadty of the Order of Arrest and
Recommtment. He cams that he dd not voate hs condtona
pardon snce he has not been convcted by fna |udgment.
Pettoner aso contends that he was not gven an opportunty to be
heard before he was arrested and recommtted to prson, and
accordngy cams he has been deprved of hs rghts under the due
process cause of the Consttuton.
I((%E
WON convcton of a crme by fna |udgment of a court s necessary
before the pettoner can be vady rearrested and recommtted for
voaton of the terms of hs condtona pardon and accordngy to
serve the baance of hs orgna sentence.
3ELD
- "esoro *s. :#re%tor of Pr#sons. - It was hed that the determnaton
f the paroe had been breached rested excusvey n the sound
|udgment of the GovGen and that such determnaton woud not be
revewed by the courts. As Tesoro had consented to pace hs
berty on paroe upon the |udgment of the power that had granted
t, the Court hed that "he |coud not| nvoke the ad of the courts,
however erroneous the fndngs may be upon whch hs
recommtment was ordered." Tesoro had n effect agreed that the
GovGen's determnaton (rather than that of the reguar courts of
aw) that he had breached one of the condtons of hs paroe by
commttng adutery whe he was condtonay at berty, was
bndng and concusve upon hm.
- Sales *s. :#re%tor of Pr#sons - The executve cemency s extended
upon the condtons named n t, and t s accepted upon those
condtons. The governor may wthdraw hs grace n a certan
contngency, and the governor sha hmsef determne when that
contngency has arsen. It s as f the convct, wth fu competency
to bnd hmsef n the premses, had expressy contracted and
agreed that, whenever the governor shoud concude that he had
voated the condtons of hs paroe, an executve order for hs
arrest and remandment to prson shoud at once ssue, and be
concusve upon hm.
- Es)$elas *s. Pro*#n%#al Aar&en of -ohol - The Court reaffrmed the
Tesoro and Saes rungs. "Due process s not necessary |udca
The appeee had had hs day n court and been afforded the
opportunty to defend hmsef durng hs tra for the crme of
nctng to sedton wth whch he was charged, that brought about
or resuted n hs convcton, sentence and confnement n the
pententary. When he was condtonay pardoned t was a
generous exercse by the Chef Executve of hs consttutona
prerogatve. The acceptance thereof by the convct or prsoner
carre|d| wth t the authorty or power of the Executve to
determne whether a condton or condtons of the pardon has or
have been voated To no other department of the Government
|has| such power been entrusted."
The status of our case aw on the matter under consderaton may
be summed up n the foowng propostons:
1. The grant of pardon and the determnaton of the terms and
condtons of a condtona pardon are purey executve acts
whch are not sub|ect to |udca scrutny.
2. The determnaton of the occurrence of a breach of a condton
of a pardon, and the proper consequences of such breach, may
be ether a purey executve act, not sub|ect to |udca scrutny
under Sec 64 of the Revsed Admnstratve Code; or t may be a
|udca act consstng of tra for and convcton of voaton of a
condtona pardon under Art 159 RPC. Where the Presdent opts
to proceed under Secton 64 () RAC, no |udca pronouncement
of gut of a subsequent crme s necessary, much ess convcton
therefore by fna |udgment of a court, n order that a convct may
be recommended for the voaton of hs condtona pardon.
3. Because due process s not semper et ubque |udca process,
and because the condtonay pardoned convct had aready been
accorded |udca due process n hs tra and convcton for the
offense for whch he was condtonay pardoned, Sec 64 () RAC s
not affcted wth a consttutona vce.
- A convct granted condtona pardon, ke the pettoner heren,
who s recommtted must of course be convcted by fna |udgment
of a court of the subsequent crme or crmes wth whch he was
charged before the crmna penaty for such subsequent offense(s)
ran be mposed upon hm. Snce Art 159 RPC defnes a dstnct,
substantve, feony, the paroee or convct who s regarded as
havng voated the provsons thereof must be charged, prosecuted
and convcted by fna |udgment before he can be made to suffer
the penaty prescrbed n Art 159.
- In proceedng aganst a convct who has been condtonay
pardoned and who s aeged to have breached the condtons of hs
pardon, the Executve Department has two optons: () to proceed
aganst hm under Sec 64 () RAC; or () to proceed aganst hm
under Art 159 RPC, upon a convct who "havng been granted
condtona pardon by the Chef Executve, sha voate any of the
condtons of such pardon."
Here, the Presdent has chosen to proceed aganst the pettoner
under Sec 64 () RAC.
0ecision Petton dsmssed
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C%4 D+issentE
- As many as such charges may be, none of them so far has
resuted n a fna convcton, wthout whch he cannot be
recommtted under the condton of hs pardon.
- Mere accusaton s not synonymous wth gut. (Peope v.
Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59). A prma face case ony |ustfes the fng of
the correspondng nformaton, but proof beyond reasonabe doubt
s st necessary for convcton.
- The executve can ony aege the commsson of crme and
thereafter try to prove t through ndubtabe evdence. If the
prosecuton succeeds, the court w then affrm the aegaton of
commsson n a |udgment of convcton.
The current doctrne hods that, by vrtue of Sec 64() RAC, the
Presdent may n hs |udgment determne whether the condton of
the pardon has been voated.
- I agree that the authorty s vady conferred as ong as the
condton does not nvove the commsson of a crme but, say,
merey requres good behavor from the pardonee.
.&IO@%I!#O V 'E!&!DE4
FERIA; |anuary 21, 1949
'&C#(
|menez and Barroqunto were charged wth murder. |menez was
sentenced to fe mprsonment, whe Barroquntos tra was
deayed because he was arrested ater than |menez. Both
submtted ther cases to the Guera Amnesty Commsson
pursuant to Procamaton No. 8
56
whch the sad commsson
remanded to the CFI of Zamboanga wthout decdng f they were
entted to amnesty or not on the ground that nether of them has
admtted to the commsson of the offense.
I((%E
56
Procamaton No. 8 (dspostve): I, Manue Roxas, Presdent of the Phppnes, n accordance wth the
provsons of Artce VII, secton 10, paragraph 6 of the Consttuton, do hereby decare and procam an amnesty
n favor of a persons who commtted any act penazed under the Revsed Pena Code n furtherance of the
resstance to the enemy or aganst persons adng n the war effort of the enemy, and commtted durng the
perod from December 8, 1941 to the date when each partcuar area of the Phppnes was actuay berated
from the enemy contro and occupaton. Ths amnesty sha not appy to crmes aganst chastty or to acts
commtted from purey persona motves.
WON confesson to the crme s necessary to be entted to the
benefts of Procamaton No. 8 (grant of amnesty)
3ELD
- In order to entte a person to the benefts of the Amnesty
Procamaton of September 7, 1946, t s not necessary that he
shoud admt havng commtted the crmna act or offense wth
whch he s charged, and aege the amnesty as a defense. For
whether or not he admts or confesses havng commtted the
offense wth whch he s charged, the Commssons shoud conduct
summary hearng of the wtnesses both for the companants and
the accused, on whether he has commtted the offense n
furtherance of the resstance to the enemy, or aganst persons
adng n the war efforts of the enemy, and decde whether he s
entted to the benefts of amnesty and to be "regarded as a patrot
or hero who have rendered nvauabe servces to the naton".
- Snce the Amnesty Procamaton s a )$/l#% a%t, the courts and
Amnesty Commssons shoud appy the benefts granted to cases
comng wthn ther provnce or |ursdcton, whether peaded or
camed by the person charged wth such offenses or not, f the
evdence presented shows that the accused s entted to sad
benefts.
- If the courts have to proceed to the tra or hearng of a case and
decde whether the offense commtted by the defendant comes
wthn the terms of the Amnesty Procamaton athough the
defendant has peaded not guty, there s no reason why the
Amnesty Commssons can not do so.
- (Ths case s under "Executve" of our outne, and the foowng,
athough reay obter, s most reevant to ths secton)
Di//eren0e o/ &mnest1 /rom Par+on
Par+on &mnest1
-granted by the Ch#ef E,e%$t#*e,
thus a prvate act whch must be
peaded and proved by the
person pardoned and whch the
courts may not take notce of.
-by procamaton of the
)res#&ent wth the concurrence
of the Congress, and s a pubc
act of whch the courts may take
|udca notce.
Granted to one after convcton Granted to casses of persons or
communtes who may be guty,
generay before or after
nsttuton of prosecuton and
sometmes after convcton
-ooks forward and reeves
offender of consequences of
crme; aboshes and forgves
punshment, but doesnt abosh
cv abty
-ooks backward and aboshes
and puts nto obvon the
offense tsef, as though he had
commtted no offense
Doesnt restore rghts to hod
pubc offce, suffrage, uness
expressy restored by pardon
Rghts not affected as the
offender s treated as f he
commtted no crme at a
0ecision respondents ordered to hear and decde the appcatons
for amnesty of pettoners uness courts have aready decded WoN
they are entted to benefts of amnesty.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
PE'EC#O D0on0urE
To entte a person to have hs case heard and decded by a
Guerra Amnesty Commsson ony the foowng eements are
essenta:
1. that he s charged or may be charged wth an offense
penazed under the RPC, except those aganst chastty or for
purey persona motves;
2. that he commtted the offense n furtherance of the
resstance to the enemy;
3. that t was commtted durng the perod from December 8,
1941, to the date when the area where the offense was
commtted was actuay berated from enemy contro and
occupaton.
If these three eements are present n a case brought before a
Guerra Amnesty Commsson, the atter cannot refuse to hear and
decde t under the procamaton. There s nothng n the
procamaton to even hnt that the appcant for amnesty must frst
admt havng executed the acts consttutng the offense wth whch
he s charged or may be charged.
#%&(O! D+issentE
- As to the determnaton of the pretended rght of the defendants,
to the benefts of amnesty, the two orders of the Commsson are
decsons on the merts, defnte and fna as far as the Commsson
s concerned. The fact that the defendants dened havng
commtted the crme mputed to them was cted by the
Commsson as ground for ts decson to turn down ther
appcaton. That crcumstance was not gven as ground for refusa
to act. The Commsson has thus ampy performed the dutes
requred of t by the Amnesty Procamaton n both the matters of
nvestgatng and decdng.
- The Amnesty Commssons are executve nstrumentates actng
for and n behaf of the Presdent. They are not courts; they are not
performng |udca functons, and ths Court has no appeate
|ursdcton over ther actuatons, orders or decsons.
- Mandamus s ordnary a remedy for offca nacton. (Guano vs.
Fernandez) - The Court can order the Commsson to act but t can
not te the Commsson how to act. How or for whom a case shoud
be decded s a matter of |udgment whch courts have no
|ursdcton to contro or revew. The wrt of mandamus w not
ssue to contro or revew the exercse of dscreton of a pubc
offcer where the aw mposes upon a pubc offcer the rght and
the duty to exercse |udgment. In reference to any matter n whch
he s requred to act, t s hs |udgment that s to be exercsed and
not that of the court. (Banco vs. Board of Medca Examners)
- Amnesty presupposes the commsson of a crme. When an
accused says that he has not commtted a crme he cannot have
any use for amnesty. It s aso sef-evdent that where the Amnesty
Procamaton mposes certan condtons, t s ncumbent upon the
accused to prove the exstence of those condtons. A petton for
amnesty s n the nature of a pea of confesson and avodance. The
peader has to confess the aegatons aganst hm before he s
aowed to set out such facts as, f true, woud defeat the acton. It
s a rank nconsstency for one to |ustfy an act, or seek forgveness
for an act of whch, accordng to hm, he s not responsbe.
"O!(&!#O V '&C#O&!
FERNAN; February 9, 1989
'&C#(
In a decson rendered on March 25, 1983, the Sandganbayan
convcted pettoner Savacon A. Monsanto (then assstant
treasurer of Cabayog Cty) and three other accused, of the
compex crme of estafa thru fasfcaton of pubc documents and
sentenced them to mprsonment and payment of fne. Pettoner
appeaed her convcton to the SC whch affrmed the same. She
fed a moton for reconsderaton, but whe the moton was
pendng, she was extended absoute pardon on December 17, 1984
by then Presdent Marcos, whch she accepted on December 21,
1984. By reason of sad pardon, pettoner wrote Cabayog Cty
Treasurer requestng that she be renstated to her former post. The
Fnance Mnstry rued that pettoner may be renstated to her
poston wthout the necessty of a new appontment not earer
than the date she was extended the absoute pardon, but she st
has to pay. Seekng reconsderaton, pettoner wrote the Mnstry
stressng that the fu pardon bestowed on her has wped out the
crme whch mpes that her servce n the government has never
been nterrupted, and therefore the date of her renstatement
shoud correspond to the date of her preventve suspenson whch
s August 1, 1982. Pettoner contended that:
she s entted to backpay for the entre perod of her
suspenson.
she shoud not be requred to pay the proportonate share of
the amount of P4,892.50.
I((%E(
1. WON a pubc offcer, who has been granted an absoute pardon
by the Chef Executve, s entted to renstatement to her former
poston wthout need of a new appontment.
2. WON pettoner s st abe to pay cv ndemntes
notwthstandng pardon.
3ELD
1. atio Pardon s defned as "an act of grace, proceedng from
the power entrusted wth the executon of the aws, whch exempts
the ndvdua, on whom t s bestowed, from the punshment the
aw nfcts for a crme he has commtted. It s the prvate, though
offca act of the executve magstrate xxx and not communcated
offcay to the Court. "Ths was governed by the 1973 Consttuton.
easonin;
- Peope v. Lsng
"xxx acqutta, not absoute pardon, of a former pubc offcer s
the ony ground for renstatement to hs former poston and
enttement to payment of hs saares, benefts and
emouments due to hm durng the perod of hs suspenson
)en&ent el#te.
"In fact, n such a stuaton, the former pubc offca must
secure a reappontment before he can reassume hs former
poston. xxx "
- The penaty of )r#s#on ma+or carres the accessory penates of
temporary absoute dsquafcaton and perpetua speca
dsquafcaton from the rght of suffrage, enforceabe durng the
term of the prncpa penaty. Temporary absoute dsquafcaton
bars the convct from pubc offce or empoyment, such
dsquafcaton to ast durng the term of the sentence.
- In the present case, t s not matera when the pardon was
bestowed, whether before or after the convcton, for the resut
woud st be the same. 3aving a00epte+ t*e par+on5
petitioner is +eeme+ to *ave a6an+one+ *er appeal an+ *er
unreverse+ 0onvi0tion 61 t*e (an+igan6a1an assume+ t*e
0*ara0ter o/ /inalit1. Par+on implies guilt. It does not erase
the fact of the commsson of the crme and the convcton thereof,
as opposed to the E, Parte 9arlan&, Pelo/ello, an& Cr#sto/al %ases.
It nvoves forgveness, and not forgetfuness.
- Whe the Court s prepared to concede that pardon may remt a
the pena consequences of a crmna ndctment f ony to gve a
meanng to the fat that a pardon, beng a presdenta prerogatve,
shoud not be crcumscrbed by egsatve acton, we do not
subscrbe to the fcttous beef that pardon bots out the gut of an
ndvdua and that once he s absoved, he shoud be treated as f
he were nnocent. Par+on 0annot mas9 t*e a0ts 0onstituting
t*e 0rime.
- Pu6li0 o//i0es are inten+e+ primaril1 /or t*e 0olle0tive
prote0tion5 sa/et1 an+ 6ene/it o/ t*e 0ommon goo+. #*e1
0annot 6e 0ompromise+ to /avor private interests. &
par+on5 al6eit /ull an+ plenar15 0annot pre0lu+e t*e
appointing power /rom re/using appointment to an1one
+eeme+ to 6e o/ 6a+ 0*ara0ter.
2. As for the exempton from the payment of the cv ndemnty,
the Court cannot obge her. Cv abty s governed by RPC, and
subssts notwthstandng servce of sentence, or for any reason the
sentence s not served by pardon, amnesty or commutaton of
sentence.
0ecision The assaed resouton of former Deputy Executve
Secretary Fugenco S. Factoran, |r. s affrmed.
1. Pettoner s not automatcay renstated, and must appy for
appontment to her former poston.
2. Pettoner s not entted to any backpay, and must pay the
proportonate share of the amount of P4,892.50.
"&C&G&-&! V PEOPLE
FELICIANO; |uy 39, 1987
'&C#(
- The 22 pettoners ncude muncpa treasurers of varous
muncpates of Lanao de Norte and Lanao de Sur, and the
Offcer-n-Charge of the Provnca Treasurer's Offce of Lanao de
Sur, as we as the Provnca Audtor and the Assstant Provnca
Audtor of Lanao de Sur. Pettoners were charged and convcted n
33 cases for estafa through fasfcaton of pubc and commerca
documents (Artce 315, n reaton to Artce 17 1, Revsed Pena
Code) n a decson of the Sandganbayan promugated on 15 |uy
1981. The tota amount of Government funds (treasury warrants)
nvoved was somewhat over P2.7 mon.
- The pettoners state that they apped for amnesty through the
3rd and 11th Amnesty Commsson (sc) of Lanao de Sur and
Maraw Cty and that on 2 February 1985, they were granted
condtona amnesty by the sad Commsson, sub|ect to the
approva or fna acton of the Presdent of the Phppnes pursuant
to P.D. No. 1082, dated 2 February 1977. The Amnesty
Commsson, the pettoners contnue, endorsed the amnesty
appcatons of the pettoners to the Presdent, recommendng
approva thereof or grant of executve cemency to the pettoners.
The pettoners' amnesty appcatons are sad to have been
submtted to the Offce of the Presdent by the then Presdenta
Assstant Vctor Ntuda. Former Governor Mohammed A Dmaporo,
the pettoners further state, made wrtten representatons dated
27 |anuary 1986 wth former Presdent Marcos concernng the
pettoners' appcatons durng a potca ray of the Kusang
Bagong Lpunan on 22 |anuary 1986. Mr. Marcos apparenty wrote
on the upper rghthand corner of former Governor Dmaporo's etter
the foowng: "Approved" and sgned the same wth a party
egbe date. The pettoners state, fnay, that the orgna copes
of the amnesty papers were n the possesson of then Presdenta
Advser |oaqun Venus and were ost or destroyed at Maacaang
"durng the February 1986 boodess mtary revouton" and coud
not now be ocated.
- The respondent court hed that the benefts of amnesty were
never avaabe to the pettoners under P.D. No. 1182 as amended
by PD 1429. They further contend that the appcabe aw to them s
PD 1082, whch granted amnesty to those resstng the duy
consttuted authortes n severa parts of Mndanao.
I((%E
WON Presdent Marcos grant of amnesty to the pettoners s n
accordance wth aw.
3ELD
!O. Acts of the Presdent n contraventon wth the aws, whch he
hmsef promugated n the exercse of hs concurrent egsatve
powers, are vod and of no effect.
easonin;
"he /enef#ts of amnest+ .ere ne*er a*a#la/le to the )et#t#oners
$n&er P: 11'2.
- Under sad aw, the crmes to be amnested must have been for
*#olat#ons of s$/*ers#on la.s or for %r#mes aga#nst )$/l#% or&er
$n&er the >PC. Among those dsquafed from amnesty under PD
1182 are those ".ho, .h#le hol&#ng )$/l#% off#%e or
em)lo+mentI &#*erte& )$/l#% f$n&s from the la.f$l )$r)ose for
.h#%h the+ ha& /een a))ro)r#ate&." In the nstant case,
pettoners were charged wth and convcted of Art. 315 *#6 Art
171, RPC. Art. 315 s under Cr#mes 0ga#nst Pro)ert+, whe Art.
171 s under Cr#mes 0ga#nst P$/l#% 7nterest. Ceary, pettoners
are among those expressy dsquafed under PD 1182.
Ne#ther .ere )et#t#oners a/le to a*a#l of amnest+ $n&er P: 1A'2.
- The offenses for whch amnesty may be granted under PD 1J82
are a%ts H)enal#6e& /+ e,#st#ng la.s #n the f$rtheran%e ofI
res#stan%e to the &$l+ %onst#t$te& a$thor#t#es of the >e)$/l#%I"
by members and supporters of MNLF, Bangsa Moro Army and
other "ant-government groups wth smar motvatons and
ams." The "resstance" referred to s typfed by the offenses of
rebeon, nsurrecton, sedton, or conspracy to commt rebeon
or sedton, a offenses wth a potca character and a of whch
are embraced n the RPC under Cr#mes 0ga#nst P$/l#% 2r&er. On
the other hand, the acts of whch pettoners were convcted were
or&#nar+ %r#mes .#tho$t an+ )ol#t#%al %om)le,#on and consstng
smpy of dverson of pubc funds to prvate proft.
- We do not dscount the possbty that the former Presdent dd
n fact act n contraventon of PDs 1082 and 1182 by grantng the
amnesty camed by pettoners, and that by such act, he may
ndeed have aroused expectatons (however un|ustfed under the
terms of exstng aw) n the mnds of the pettoners. If such be
the case, then the approprate recourse of pettoners s not to
ths Court, nor to any other court, but rather to the Executve
Department.
0ecision Pet#t#on &en#e&.
&&!E#& V DI!GL&(&!
TUASON; August 26, 1949
'&C#(
- The pettons chaenge the vadty of executve orders of the
Presdent avowedy ssued n vrtue of Commonweath Act No. 671.
Invoved n cases Nos. L-2044 and L-2756 s Executve Order No.
62, whch reguates rentas for houses and ots for resdenta
budngs. The pettoner, |. Antono Araneta, s under prosecuton n
the Court of Frst Instance of Mana for voaton of the provsons of
ths Executve Order, and prays for the ssuance of the wrt of
prohbton to the |udge and the cty fsca. Invoved n case L-3055
s Executve Order No. 192, whch ams to contro exports from the
Phppnes. In ths case, Leon Ma. Guerrero seeks a wrt of
mandamus to compe the Admnstrator of the Sugar Ouota Offce
and the Commssoner of Customs to permt the exportaton of
shoes by the pettoner. Both offcas refuse to ssue the requred
export cense on the ground that the exportaton of shoes from the
Phppnes s forbdden by ths Executve Order. Case No. L-3054
reates to Executve Order No. 225, whch approprates funds for
the operaton of the Government of the Repubc uf the Phppnes
durng the perod from |uy 1, 1949 to |une 30, 1950, and for other
purposes. The pettoner, Euogo Rodrguez, Sr., as a tax-payer, an
eector, and presdent of the Naconasta Party, appes for a wrt of
prohbton to restran the Treasurer of the Phppnes from
dsbursng money under ths Executve Order. Affected n case No.
L-3056 s Executve Order No. 226, whch approprates P6,000,000
to defray the expenses n connecton wth, and ncdenta to, the
hodng of the natona eectons to be hed n November, 1949. The
pettoner, Antono Barredo, as a ctzen, tax-payer and voter, asks
ths Court to prevent the respondents from dsbursng, spendng or
otherwse dsposng of that amount or any part of t.
- Pettoners rest ther case chefy on the proposton that the C.A.
No. 671 ( An Act Decarng a State of Tota Emergency as a Resut
of War nvovng the Phppnes and Authorzng the Presdent to
Promugate Rues and Reguatons to Meet such Emergency) has
ceased to have any force and effect, thereby renderng the assaed
Executve Orders nu and vod.
I((%E
WON the emergency powers deegated to the Presdent had ceased
when Congress hed ts reguar sesson
3ELD
YES. Commonweath Act No. 671 became noperatve when
Congress met n reguar sesson on May 25, 1946, and that
Executve Orders Nos. 62, 192, 225 and 226 were ssued wthout
authorty of aw.
- Commonweath Act No. 671 does not n term fx the duraton of ts
effectveness. The ntenton of the Act has to be sought for n ts
nature, the ob|ect to be pubshed, the purpose to be subserved,
and ts reaton to the Consttuton.
- Secton 26 of Artce VI of the Consttuton provdes:
D7n t#me of .ar or other nat#onal emergen%+, the Congress ma+
/+ la. a$thor#6e the Pres#&ent, for a l#m#te& )er#o& an& s$/3e%t
to s$%h restr#%t#ons as #t ma+ )res%r#/e, to )rom$lgate r$les an&
reg$lat#ons to %arr+ o$t a &e%lare& nat#onal )ol#%+.D
- The words "mted perod" as used n the Consttuton are beyond
queston ntended to mean restrctve n duraton. Emergency, n
order to |ustfy the deegaton of emergency powers, "must be
temporary or t can not be sad to be an emergency." It s to be
presumed that Commonweath Act No. 671 was approved wth ths
mtaton n vew. The opposte theory woud make the aw
repugnant to the Consttuton, and s contrary to the prncpe that
the egsature s deemed to have fu knowedge of the
consttutona scope of ts powers.
- The asserton that new egsaton s needed to repea the act
woud not be n harmony wth the Consttuton ether. If a new and
dfferent aw were necessary to termnate the deegaton, the
perod for the deegaton woud be unmted, ndefnte, negatve
and uncertan; that whch was ntended to meet a temporary
emergency may become permanent aw; for Congress mght not
enact the repea, and even f t woud, the repea mght not meet
wth the approva of the Presdent, and the Congress mght not be
abe to overrde the veto. Furthermore, ths woud create the
anomay that, whe Congress mght deegate ts powers by smpe
ma|orty, t mght not be abe to reca them except by a two-thrd
vote. In other words, t woud be easer for Congress to deegate ts
powers than to take them back. Ths s not rght and s not, and
ought not to be, the aw.
- Secton 4 of Act No. 671 stpuates that "the rues and reguatons
promugated thereunder sha be n fu force and effect unt the
Congress of the Phppnes sha otherwse provde." The sence of
the aw regardng the repea of the authorty tsef, n the face of
the express provson for the repea of the rues and reguatons
ssued n pursuance of t, a cear manfestaton of the beef hed by
the Natona Assemby that there was no necessty to provde for
the former. It woud be strange f havng no dea about the tme the
Emergency Powers Act was to be effectve the Natona Assemby
faed to make a provson for ts termnaton n the same way that
t dd for the termnaton of the effects, and ncdents of the
deegaton. There woud be no pont n repeang or annung the
rues and reguatons promugated under a aw f the aw tsef was
to reman n force, snce, n that case, the Presdent coud not ony
make new rues and reguatons but he coud restore the ones
aready annued by the egsature.
- More anomaous than the exercse of egsatve functons by the
Executve when Congress s n the unobstructed exercse of ts
authorty s the fact that there woud be two egsatve bodes
operatng over the same fed, egsatng concurrenty and
smutaneousy, mutuay nufyng each other's actons. Even f the
emergency powers of the Presdent, as suggested, be suspended
whe Congress was n sesson and be revved after each
ad|ournment, the anomay woud not be emnated. Congress by a
2/3 vote coud repea executve orders promugated by the
Presdent durng congressona recess, and the Presdent n turn
coud treat n the same manner, between sessons of Congress,
aws enacted by the atter. In entre good fath, and nspred ony by
the best nterests of the country as they saw them, a former
Presdent promugated an executve order reguatng house rentas
after he had vetoed a b on the sub|ect enacted by Congress, and
the present Chef Executve ssued an executve order on export
contro after Congress had refused to approve the measure.
- Oute apart from these anomaes, there s good bass n the
anguage of Act No. 671 for the nference that the Natona
Assemby restrcted the fe of the emergency powers of the
Presdent to the tme the Legsature was prevented from hodng
sessons due to enemy acton or other causes brought on by the
war. Secton 3 provdes:
"The Presdent of the Phppnes sha as soon as practcabe
upon the convenng of the Congress of the Phppnes report
thereto a the rues and reguatons promugated by hm under
the powers heren granted."
- The cear tenor of ths provson s that there was to be ony one
meetng of Congress at whch the Presdent was to gve an account
of hs trusteeshp. The secton dd not say each meetng, whch t
coud very we have sad f that had been the ntenton. If the
Natona Assemby dd not thnk that the report mentoned n
secton 3 was to be the frst and ast and dd not thnk that upon
the convenng of the frst Congress Act No. 671 woud apse, what
reason coud there be for ts faure to provde n approprate and
cear terms for the fng of subsequent reports? Such reports, f the
Presdent was expected to contnue makng aws n the form of
rues, reguatons and executve orders, were as mportant, or as
unmportant, as the nta one.
- As a contemporary constructon, Presdent Ouezon's statement
regardng the duraton of Act No. 671 s enghtenng and shoud
carry much weght, consderng hs part n the passage and n the
carryng out of the aw. Pres. Ouezon, who caed the Natona
Assemby to a speca sesson, who recommended the enactment of
the Emergency Powers Act, f ndeed he was not ts author, and
who was the very Presdent to be entrusted wth ts executon,
stated n hs autobography, "The Good Fght," that Act No. 671 was
ony "for a certan perod" and "woud become nvad uness
reenacted." These phrases connote automatc extncton of the aw
upon the concuson of a certan perod. Together they denote that
a new egsaton was necessary to keep ave (not to repea) the
aw after the expraton of that perod. They sgnfy that the same
aw, not a dfferent one, had to be repassed f the grant shoud be
proonged.
- Pres. Ouezon n the same paragraph of hs autobography
furnshed part of the answer. He sad he ssued the ca for a speca
sesson of the Natona Assemby "when t became evdent that we
were competey hepess aganst ar attack, and that t was most
unkey the Phppne Legsature woud hod ts next reguar
sesson whch was to open on |anuary 1, 1942." It can easy be
dscerned n ths statement that the conferrng of enormous powers
upon the Presdent was decded upon wth specfc vew to the
nabty of the Natona Assemby to meet. Indeed no other factor
than ths nabty coud have motvated the deegaton of powers so
vast as to amount to an abdcaton by the Natona Assemby of ts
authorty. The enactment and contnuaton of a aw so destructve
of the foundatons of democratc nsttutons coud not have been
conceved under any crcumstance short of a compete dsrupton
and dsocaton of the norma processes of government. The perod
that best comports wth the consttutona requrements and
mtatons, wth the genera context of the aw and wth what we
beeve to be the man f not the soe rason d'etre for ts
enactment, was a perod coextensve wth the nabty of Congress
to functon, a perod endng wth the convenng of that body.
- In settng the frst reguar sesson of Congress nstead of the frst
speca sesson whch preceded t as the pont of expraton of the
Act, the purpose and ntenton of the Natona Assemby s gven
effect. In a speca sesson, the Congress may "consder genera
egsaton or ony such sub|ects as the Presdent may desgnate."
(Secton 9, Artce VI of the Consttuton.) In a reguar sesson, the
power of Congress to egsate s not crcumscrbed except by the
mtatons mposed by the organc aw.
- After a the crtcsms that have been made aganst the effcency
of the system of the separaton of powers, the fact remans that the
Consttuton has set up ths form of government, wth a ts defects
and shortcomngs, n preference to the commngng of powers n
one man or group of men. The Fpno peope by adoptng
paramentary government have gven notce that they share the
fath of other democracy-ovng peopes n ths system, wth a ts
fauts, as the dea. The pont s, under ths framework of
government, egsaton s preserved for Congress a the tme, not
exceptng perods of crss no matter how serous. Never n the
hstory of the Unted States, the basc features of whose
Consttuton have been coped n ours, have the specfc functons
of the egsatve branch of enactng aws been surrendered to
another department, not even when that Repubc was fghtng a
tota war, or when t was engaged n a fe-and-death strugge to
preserve the Unon. The truth s that under our concept of
consttutona government, n tmes of extreme pers more than n
norma crcumstances the varous branches, executve, egsatve,
and |udca, gven the abty to act, are caed upon to perform the
dutes and dscharge the responsbtes commtted to them
respectvey.
0ecision Pettons GRANTED.
@%& C3EE G&! V DEPO#&#IO! .O&D
BARRERA; September 30, 1963
'&C#(
- Appea from a decson of the CFI of Mana denyng the petton
for wrt of habeas corpus and/or prohbton, certorar, and
mandamus fed by the pettoner-appeants
- The pettoners were charged before the Deportaton Board (DB)
wth havng purchased $130,000.00 US doars wthout the
necessary cense from the Centra Bank of the Phppnes and
havng remtted the same to HK; and three of the pettoner-
appeants wth havng attempted to brbe offcers of the Phppne
and US Governments n order to evade prosecuton for sad
unauthorzed purchase of US doars.
- After fng of deportation c&ar;es, presdng member of the DB
ssued a warrant of arrest for the sad aens but upon fng of a
surety bond and cash bond, the pettoner-appeants were
provsonay set free.
- The pettoner-appeants then fed a |ont motion to dismiss
the %harges on the grounds that (1) deportaton charges do not
consttute ega ground for deportaton of aens and (2) the DB has
no |ursdcton to entertan such charges, but was dened by the DB.
The pettoner-appeants then fed a petition 9or &abeas corpus
and/or pro&ibition whch was remanded to the CFI of Mana. The
CFI ssued a :rit o9 preliminar( in'unction, restranng DB from
hearng the deportaton charges aganst the pettoners, pendng
fna termnaton of the ha/eas %or)$s and/or prohbton
proceedngs. DB fed ts answer to the orgna petton,
mantanng that the DB, as an agent of the Prex, has |ursdcton
over the charges and the authorty to order ther arrest. CFI
dismissed t&e petition, *en0e t*is appeal.
I((%E(
1. WON the deportaton charges consttute ega ground form
deportaton of the pettoner-appeants
2. WON, concedng wthout decdng that the Presdent can
personay order the arrest of the aen companed of, such power
can be deegated by hm to the DB
3ELD
1. Yes. The act of profteerng, hoardng, or backmarketng of US
doars voate Centra Bank reguatons and coud be treated as
ECONOMIC SABOTAGE, whch s a ground for deportaton under RA
503 amendng Sec 37 of CA 613.
2. No. Offca functons requrng the exercse of dscreton such as
the power to arrest cannot be deegated to an agent of the
Presdent.
!biter
I wa1s to +eport an un+esira6le alien-
(e0tion MH5 C& !o. 81M (Immigration &0t o/ 1FGJ) :
Commssoner of Immgraton empowered to effect the arrest
and expuson of an aen, after prevous determnaton by the
Board of Commssoners of the exstence of ground or grounds
therefore .%# +i+ not 0on0entrate e:er0ise power to
+eport to t*e Commissioner5 as seen in (e0 5I |whch s
the repeang cause of the Immgraton Act, whch expressy
exempted Sec 69 of Act 2711
(e0tion 8F o/ t*e evise+ &+ministrative Co+e (&0t !o.
IH11)- ony ndcates that the E,e%$t#*e or h#s a$thor#6e&
agent coud ony deport/expe/excude from RP aens upon
conductng a pror nvestgaton of the ground of such acton
and the rest of t ndcates the procedure concernng the
protecton of the sad aen durng the deportaton proceedngs.
|ndcaton of the recognton of the exstence of power of the
executve to deport aens|
Presi+entAs power un+er (e0. 8F5 &0t IH11 ma1 6e
+elegate+- proo/s t*roug* *istor1
EO !o. GFG (/irst EO o/ Gov-Gen "urp*15 1FMG)- consttute
a board to take actons on compants aganst foregners,
conduct nvestgatons and make recommendatons
EO !o. MM (@ue,on5 1FM8)- creaton of DB to receve
compants aganst aens, to conduct nvestgatons (under Sec
69, Act 2711) and make recommendatons - authorzed by
Presdent
***TAKE NOTE: Power to INVESTIGATE, not POWER TO ORDER
ARREST OF THE ALIEN
EO 8F (o:as5 1FGH)- orders respondents n deportaton
proceedngs to fe a bond wth the Commssoner of
Immgraton to ensure ther appearance and factate executon
of deportaton order whenever the Presdent decdes the case
aganst the respondent
***TAKE NOTE: Fng of BOND, NOT AUTHORIZE ARREST OF THE
RESPONDENT
EO MF; (@uirino5 1F51)- reorganzed the DB and authorzed
the DB, upn fng of forma charges by the Speca Prosecutor of
the Board, to ssue warrant for the arrest of the aen
companed of and to hod hm under detenton durng the
nvestgaton uness he fes a bond (so here, PRESIDENT
ALREADY AUTHORIZED ARREST OF RESPONDENT ALIENS)
On rig*ts o/ t*e a00use+- (e0 15 &# III o/ 1FM5 CO!(#I [
(e0 I5 &# III5 1F;H CO!(#I
Ths provson specfes that the probabe cause must be
determned b( t&e 'ud;e after examnaton under oath of the
companant and the wtness produced unke that of the 4
th
Amendment, Phppne B, or |ones Act whch does not
determne who exacty woud determne the probabe cause for
the order of arrest. The Const s sent on whether a warrant of
arrest may be ssued upon determnaton of the probabe cause
by other authorty besdes the |udge.
*DURING INVESTIGATION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ALIEN
BE ARRESTED. IT IS ENOUGH THAT A BOND BE REOUIRED TO
INSURE THE APPEARANCE OF THE ALIEN DurNG THE
INVESTIGATION.
0ecision EO 398, seres of 1951, nsofar as t empowers the DB to
ssue warrant of arrest upon the fng of forma charges aganst an
aen or aens and to fx bond and prescrbe the condtons for the
temporary reease of sad aens, s decared ega.
Order of arrest nu and vod, bonds fed decreed canceed.
Decson appeaed from affrmed wth modfcaton.
#/ 2III: J50ICI#8
DE"E#I& V &L.&
FERNAN; February 27, 1987
'&C#(
- Pettoners, n ths petton for prohbton wth prayer for a wrt of
premnary n|uncton assaed the consttutonaty of the frst
paragraph of Secton 44 of Presdenta Decree No. 1177, otherwse
known as the "Budget Reform Decree of 1977" on the ff. grounds:
o t nfrnges upon the fundamenta aw by authorzng the
ega transfer of pubc moneys
o t s repugnant to the consttuton as t fas to specfy the
ob|ectves and purposes for whch the proposed transfer of
funds are to be made
o t aows the Presdent to overrde the safeguards, form and
procedure prescrbed by the Consttuton n approvng
appropratons
o t amounts to undue deegaton of egsatve powers
o the transfer of funds by the Presdent and the mpementaton
thereof by the Budget Mnster and the Treasurer are wthout
or n excess of ther authorty and |ursdcton
- Soctor Genera, for the pubc respondents, questoned the ega
standng of pettoners. He further contended that:
o The provson under consderaton was enacted pursuant to
Secton 16(5), Art.VIII of the 1973 Consttuton
o Prohbton w not e form one branch of the government to a
coordnate branch to en|on the performance of dutes wthn
the atters sphere of responsbty
- On February 27, the Court requred pettoners to fe a Repy to
the Comment
- Pettoners stated that as a resut of the change n the
admnstraton, there s a need to hod the resouton of the present
case n abeyance
- The Soctor Genera fed a re|onder wth a moton to dsmss
settng forth as ground therefore, abrogaton of Secton 16(5),
Art.VIII of the 1973 Consttuton by the Freedom Consttuton,
renderng the petton moot and academc
I((%E(
1. WON the case s |ustcabe
2. WON the Paragraph 1 of Secton 44 of Presdenta Decree No.
1177 s unconsttutona
3ELD
1. YES
- The court cted Eceo |aver v. COMELEC where t sad that: "Ths
Court w not dsregard and n effect condone wrong on the
smpstc and toerant pretext that the case has become moot and
academc."
- As regards taxpayers sut, ths Court en|oys that open dscreton
to entertan the same or not
- Where the egsature or the executve branch acts beyond the
scope of ts consttutona powers, t becomes the duty of the
|udcary to decare what the other branches of the government had
assumed to do, as vod. Ths s the essence of |udca power
conferred by the Consttuton "n one Supreme Court and n such
ower courts as may be estabshed by aw."
2. YES. Paragra)h 1of Se%t#on 44 of Pres#&ent#al :e%ree No. 1177,
/e#ng re)$gnant to Se%t#on 16(! 0rt#%le V777 of the 197(
Const#t$t#on, #s n$ll an& *o#&.
- Paragraph 1 of Secton 44 provdes: "The Presdent sha have the
authorty to transfer any fund, approprated for the dfferent
departments, bureaus, offces and agences of the Executve
Department, whch are ncuded n the Genera Appropratons Act,
to any program, pro|ect or actvty of any department, bureau, or
offce ncuded n the Genera Appropratons Act or approved after
ts enactment."
- Secton 16(5) Artce VIII reads as foows: "No aw sha be passed
authorzng any transfer of appropratons, however, the Presdent,
the Prme Mnster, the Speaker, the Chef |ustce of the Supreme
Court, and the heads of consttutona commssons may by aw be
authorzed to augment any tem n the genera appropratons aw
for ther respectve offces from savngs n other tems of ther
respectve appropratons."
- Prohbton to transfer was expct and categorca
- For fexbty, the Consttuton provded a eeway
- The purpose and condton for whch funds may be transferred
were specfed
- Paragraph 1 of Secton 44 unduy over-extends the prvege
granted under Secton 16(5), and empowers the Presdent to
ndscrmnatey transfer funds from one department, bureau, offce
or agency of the Executve Department, whch are ncuded n the
Genera Appropratons Act, to any program, pro|ect or actvty of
any department, bureau, or offce ncuded n the Genera
Appropratons Act or approved after ts enactment, wthout regard
to WON the funds to be transferred are savngs, or WON the
transfer s for the purpose of augmentng the tem to whch the
transfer s to be made
- It competey dsregards the standards set n the fundamenta aw,
amountng to an undue deegaton of egsatve power

DE &G.&2&!I V P3ILIPPI!E !&#IO!&L .&!)
FERNANDO; Apr 29, 1971
'&C#(
- Francsca De Agbayan obtaned a P450.00oan from PNB dated
|uy 19, 1939 maturng on |uy 19, 1944, secured by rea estate
mortgage
- As of November 27, 1959 the oan baance was P1,294.00
- |uy 13 1959, PNB nsttuted extra-|udca forecosure proceedngs
n the offce of Pangasnan Provnca Sherrff for the recovery of the
unpad oan baance
- August 10, 1959 Pantff fed sut aganst PNB and Sherff aegng
that 15 years havng eapsed from the date of maturty the
mortgage have prescrbed.
- PNB prayed for the dsmssa snce the defense of prescrpton
woud not be avaabe n the perod of March 10, 1945 , when EO
32 provdng for a moratorum on debts was ssued, to |uy 26, 1948
when RA 342 whch extended the perod of moratorum was
decared nvad, were to be deducted from the tme durng whch
PNB took no ega steps for the recovery of the oan
- Lower court rued n favor of De Agbayan
I((%E(
1. WON a statute subsequenty ad|udged as nvad shoud be
deemed to have force and effect before the decaraton of ts
nuty.
2. (f yes) WON prescrpton ran durng the eght year perod that
EO 32 and RA 342 was n force.
3ELD
1. YES Pror to the decaraton of nuty a chaenged egsatve or
executve act must have been n force and effect.
- The actua exstence of a statute, pror to the determnaton of
unconsttutonaty s an operatve fact and may have
consequences whch cannot be |usty gnored.
2. NOBecause of the |udca recognton that moratorum was a
vad governmenta response to the pght of the debtors who were
war sufferer the SC has made cear ts vew n a seres of cases that
durng the eght year perod that EO 32 and RA 342 was n force,
prescrpton dd not run. (cases decded: Day v. CFI, Repubc vs.
Hernaez.
- 2rtho&o, *#e. on an $n%onst#t$t#onal a%t@ 0n $n%onst#t$t#onal a%t,
for that matter an e,e%$t#*e or&er or a m$n#%#)al or&#nan%e
l#=e.#se s$ffer#ng from that #nf#rm#t+, %annot /e the so$r%e of an+
legal r#ghts or &$t#es. Nor %an #t 3$st#f+ an+ off#%#al a%t ta=en $n&er
#t.
- SC sa#&, #n 0g/a+an# *s. PN- that ortho&o, *#e. #s $nreal#st#% an&
that $nt#l after the 3$&#%#ar+ &e%lares #ts #n*al#&#t+ #t #s ent#tle& to
o/e&#en%e an& res)e%t.
DE L& LL&!& V &L.&
FERNANDO; March 12, 1982
'&C#(
- The Natona Assemby enacted the Batas Pambansa Bg. 129,
entted "An Act Reorganzng the |udcary, Appropratng Funds
Therefor and for other Purposes". BP 129 mandates that |ustces
and |udges of nferor courts from the Court of Appeas to muncpa
courts, except the occupants of the Sandganbayan and the Court
of Tax Appeas, uness apponted to the nferor courts estabshed
by such Act, woud be consdered separated from the |udcary. The
ntent of ths Act s to attan (1) more effcency n the dsposa of
cases, (2) mprovement n the quaty of |ustce dspensed
by the court, (3) democratzaton of soca and economc
opportuntes and the substantaton of the true meanng of soca
|ustce.
- +rocedure De La Lana,a |udge, together wth other pettoners
fed a Petton for Decaratory Reef and/or Prohbton, seekng to
en|on respondent Mnster of the Budget, respondent Charman of
the Commsson on Audt, and respondent Mnster of |ustce from
takng any acton mpementng BP 129.
I((%E(
1.WON the pettoners have ega standng.
2.On Consttutonaty of BP 129
a. WON there was ack of good fath on the part of Legsature n
ts enactment.
b. WON the aboton of an offce by the Legsature s vad.
c. WON the provson of BP 129 (regardng fxng of compensaton
and aowances of members of |udcary by the Executve)
consttutes an undue deegaton of egsatve power.
d. WON BP 129 s voatve of the securty of tenure (Art. X Sec 7
of 1973 Consttuton) en|oyed by ncumbent |ustces and |udges
and the Supreme Court's power to dscpne and remove |udges.
3ELD
1.YES. The pettoners, beng members of the bar and offcers of the
court and taxpayers, have a persona and substanta nterest n the
case such that he has sustaned, or w sustan, drect n|ury as a
resut of ts enforcement.
2.a. NO. The Legsature, after carefu study and evauaton of the
|udca system n the country, found out that nsttutona reforms s
both pressng and urgent.
b. YES. The aboton of an offce,f wthn the competence of a
egtmate body and f done n good fath suffers from no nfrmty.
easonin;
0 adherence to precedent (n Bendano Sr. v. Provnca Gov and n
Zandueta v. De La Costa, the Court aso hed that the aboton of
an
offce s vad)
- Interpretaton of the Const provson - Artce VII Sec 2 of 1973
Const "vests n the NA the power to defne, prescrbe and
apporton the |ursdcton of the varous courts, sub|ect to certan
mtaton n the case of SC." In short, the NA has the power to
abosh an offce that t created.
c. NO. There s no undue deegaton of egsatve power f the aw s
compete and provdes for a standard.
easonin;
- In ths case, the Act provdes a cear standard. The Presdent may
be authorzed to fx the aowances and compensaton but guded
by the
Letter of Impementaton No. 93 and pursuant to PD 985.
d. NO. Remova from offce s dfferent from termnaton by vrtue of
the aboton of the offce. In case of remova, there s an offce wth
an occupant who woud thereby ose hs poston. In the case of
aboton, there s n aw no occupant. There can be no tenure to a
non-exstent offce.
easonin;
- Confctng consttutona provsons, the power of the NA to
abosh an offce on one hand and the securty of tenure, on the
other, must be reconced and harmonzed. Reconcaton and
baancng s we hgh unavodabe under the fundamenta prncpe
of separaton of powers.
- Potca theory (Homes and Tuazon): There s more trusm and
actuaty of nterdependence among dfferent branches of
government
than n ndependence and separaton of powers.
0ecision: Dsmssed. The unconsttutonaty of BP 129 has not
been shown.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
#EE3&!)EE D+issentE
The express consttutona guaranty of securty of tenure of |udges
must preva over the mped consttutona authorty to abosh
courts and to oust |udges. Such sub|ecton of a |udge to pubc
"harassment and humaton ....can dmnsh pubc confdence n
the courts." The s the |udcary suffers from were caused by
mparng ts ndependence: they w not be cured by totay
destroyng ther ndependence. It woud be ronca f |udges who
are caed upon to gve due process cannot count t on themseves.
.&EDO D0on0urE
Inferor courts are mere creatures of aw (of the Legsature) . It
foows that t s wthn the egsature' s power to abosh or
reorganze them no matter what the cost s. He personay beeves
that the present stuaton n the |udcary cas for ts
reorganzaton. He beeves that the Consttuton s a vng
nstrument whch transates and adapts tsef to the demands of
obtanng crcumstances (reast approach n nterpretng the
Const)
&@%I!O D0on0ur in t*e resultE
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.2'(
For hm the sut s premature, but affrmng expressy that the
aboton was n good fath. CONCEPCION (concurs n the resut)
G%EEO D0on0urE
Soca |ustfcaton and the functona utty of the aw to uphod ts
consttutonaty s the rato decdend of ths case. For hm,
nqurng nto the wsdom of the aw s a potca queston. Pubc
offce s a prvege n the gft of the State and not a rght. Dura ex
sed ex, even though t s harsh.
&.&D (&!#O( D0on0ur an+ +issentE
Concurs but dssented on the ground that the statute beng free
from any consttutona nfrmty, the "Executve s entted to
exercse ts consttutona power to f the newy created |udca
postons wthout any obgaton to consut wth the Supreme Court
and to accord ts vews the fuest consderaton.
DE C&(#O D0on0ur e:0ept as Luali/ie+E
The power of the Legsature to create courts aso ncudes the
power to abosh them. When there s a confct between pubc
wefare(the duty of the egsature to provde a socety wth a far
and effectve |udca system) and persona beneft (securty of
tenure), the atter must of necessty to yed to the former. The
aboton of the courts s a matter of egsatve ntent nto whch no
|udca nqury s proper. Petton s premature. No actua
controversy yet. Not unt the aboton of courts s not done, can
there be possby a voaton of the securty of tenure. "Saus popu
est suprema ex" - The wefare of the peope s the supreme aw.
"ELE!CIO-3EE& D0on0urE
Tenure of |udges s dfferent from tenure of Courts. A egsature s
not bound to gve securty of tenure to courts. The consttutona
guarantee of tenure of |udges appes ony as ther Courts exst.
EIC#& D0on0urE
No aw s rrepeaabe. The power to create an offce ncudes the
power to abosh them. "Saus popu est suprema ex" - The wefare
of the peope s the supreme aw.
PL&!& D0on0urs an+ +issentE
Actua and not merey presumptve good fath attended ts
enactment. Hs quafcaton beng that the "Presdent s under no
obgaton to consut wth the SC and the SC as such s not caed
upon to gve ega advce to the Presdent."
PEOPLE V C%&E("&
NARVASA; Apr 18, 1989
'&C#(
- On the bass of affdavts of Luz Lumacao and her wtness,
Soedad Tanon, both dated August 21,1978 whch were sworn to
before the Frst Assstant Cty Fsca of Dumaguete Cty, sad
Assstant Fsca fed on the same day an nformaton wth the Cty
Court |udge of Dumaguete Cty chargng Rose Cuaresma wth ora
defamaton. The compant was docketed as Crmna Case Number
7238.
- Rose Cuaresma moved to quash the case contendng that the
case had been commenced by an nformaton by the fsca nstead
of a compant of the offended party as requred by Artce 360 of
the revsed Pena Code. The sad artce provdes that crmna
acton for defamaton cannot be prosecuted &e of#%#o except at the
nstance of and upon the compant expressy fed by the offended
party.
- The |udge, on August 4, 1980, dened the moton on the bass of
the Supreme Court rung n ;ernan&e6 *. 5ant#n, 74 SC>0 (('
(1976!, whch stated that the error can be corrected by the fng of
the sworn statement of the companant, assumng t contans a
the nformaton requred under the Rues, wth the Court to compy
wth Artce 360 of the Revsed Pena Code. Aternatvey, the fsca
can fe wth the court a verfed compant of the offended party. In
the order denyng the quasha, the |udge, however, requred the
fsca to fe the verfed compant wthn ten days. The fsca
comped wth the order by fng the needed document on the
same day.
- Cuaresma fed another moton to quash three months ater
aegng that the offense had prescrbed snce the fng of the
orgna nformaton o August 2, 1978 dd not nterrupt the runnng
of the perod of prescrpton of the crme ( two months from
dscovery) and that sad prescrptve perod had ong apsed pror to
the submsson of the correctve compant on august 4, 1980.
|udge granted her the moton statng that "t was the fng of the
verfed that conferred |ursdcton upon the Court and ths was on
August 4, 1980".
- The fsca beatedy fed a moton for consderaton on |ube 26,
1981 whch was dened for ack of mert and for havng been fed
out of tme.
- Hence ths acton for certorar wth the Supreme Court as fed by
the Second Assstant Cty Fsca on May 31, 1984 or three years
after the dsmssa of the moton to reconsder.

I((%E
WON the Supreme Court shoud gve due course to the appcaton
for certorar
3ELD
1. The order of dsmssa dated Apr 4, 1980 s a fna order havng
been dsposed of by the Court. The appea, f taken n a tmey
fashon, coud have succeeded as the order of the Court was
tanted by an error of aw. The fng of the compant n the form of
an affdavt, the nvestgaton by the fsca, and the subsequent
fng of the nformaton wth the Court dd ndeed to the perod of
prescrpton.
2. The fng of the wrt for certorar was aso mproper n severa
counts:
a. The fng shoud have been done by the Soctor Genera
nstead of the Second Assstant Cty Fsca and was dsmssbe on
ths account |Repubc v Partsaa , 118 SCRA 870 (1982)|.
b. Remedy of certorar s mted to acts of any agency or offcer
exercsng |udca functons or of any |udge whch are camed to
be wthout or n excess of ts or hs |ursdcton, or wth
grave abuse of dscreton. In the case at bar, the correct
procedure s the fng of an appea as the |udgment rendered s
an error n aw and not grave abuse of dscreton.
c. The Supreme Courts |ursdcton to ssue extraordnary wrts
(e.g. certorar, mandamus, etc.) s not excusve and granted to
ower courts. There s aso a herarchy that shoud be foowed n
matters of ths nature. Drect acton to the Supreme Court w be
aowed ony when there are speca and mportant reasons
therefore. And these reasons shoud be ceary set out n the
petton.
2!O# V I!#E"EDI&#E &PPEL&#E CO%#
CRUZ; March 20, 1987
'&C#(
The pettoner had transported sx carabaos n a pump boat from
Masbate to Ioo on |anuary 13, 1984, when they were confscated
by the poce staton commander of Barotac Nuevo, Ioo, for
voaton of EO No. 626-A. The pettoner sued for recovery, and the
Regona Tra Court of Ioo Cty ssued a wrt of repevn upon hs
fng of a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. After consderng the
merts of the case, the court sustaned the confscaton of the
carabaos and, snce they coud no onger be produced, ordered the
confscaton of the bond. The court aso decned to rue on the
consttutonaty of the executve order, as rased by the pettoner,
for ack of authorty and aso for ts presumed vadty. The thrust of
hs petton s that the executve order s unconsttutona nsofar as
t authorzes outrght confscaton of the carabao or carabeef beng
transported across provnca boundares. Hs cam s that the
penaty s nvad because t s mposed wthout accordng the
owner a rght to be heard before a competent and mparta court
as guaranteed by due process. He compans that the measure
shoud not have been presumed, and so sustaned, as
consttutona. There s aso a chaenge to the mproper exercse of
the egsatve power by the former Presdent under Amendment
No. 6 of the 1973 Consttuton.
I((%E(
1. WON the SC mpedy affrmed the consttutonaty of EO No.
626-A
2. WON ower courts have authorty to rue on consttutonaty of
statute
3. WON EO No. 626-A voates due process
4. WON EO No. 626-A s an nvad exercse of poce power
5. WON EO No. 626-A s an nvad deegaton of egsatve power
3ELD
1. NO. Whe aso nvovng the same executve order, the case of
Pesgan v. Angees s not appcabe here. The queston rased there
was the necessty of the prevous pubcaton of the measure n the
Offca Gazette before t coud be consdered enforceabe. We
mposed the requrement then on the bass of due process of aw.
In dong so, however, ths Court dd not, as contended by the
Soctor Genera, mpedy affrm the consttutonaty of EO No.
626-A.
2. YES. Whe ower courts shoud observe a becomng modesty n
examnng consttutona questons, they are nonetheess not
prevented from resovng the same whenever warranted, sub|ect
ony to revew by the hghest trbuna. We have |ursdcton under
the Consttuton to "revew, revse, reverse, modfy or affrm on
appea or certorar, as the aw or rues of court may provde," fna
|udgments and orders of ower courts n, among others, a cases
nvovng the consttutonaty of certan measures. Ths smpy
means that the resouton of such cases may be made n the frst
nstance by these ower courts.
3. YES. The mnmum requrements of due process are notce and
hearng whch, generay speakng, may not be dspensed wth
because they are ntended as a safeguard aganst offca
arbtrarness. In the nstant case, the carabaos were arbtrary
confscated by the poce staton commander, were returned to the
pettoner ony after he had fed a compant for recovery and gven
a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00, whch was ordered confscated
upon hs faure to produce the carabaos when ordered by the tra
court. The executve order defned the prohbton, convcted the
pettoner and mmedatey mposed punshment, whch was carred
out forthrght. The conferment on the admnstratve authortes of
the power to ad|udge the gut of the supposed offender s a cear
encroachment on |udca functons and mtates aganst the
doctrne of separaton of powers.
4. YES. The poce power s smpy defned as the power nherent n
the State to reguate berty and property for the promoton of the
genera wefare. To |ustfy the State n thus nterposng ts authorty
n behaf of the pubc, t must appear, frst, that the nterests of the
pubc generay, as dstngushed from those of a partcuar cass,
requre such nterference; and second, that the means are
reasonaby necessary for the accompshment of the purpose, and
not unduy oppressve upon ndvduas. The carabao, as the poor
man's tractor, so to speak, has a drect reevance to the pubc
wefare and so s a awfu sub|ect of EO No. 626-A. But whe the
amendatory measure has the same awfu sub|ect as the orgna
executve order, we cannot say wth equa certanty that t compes
wth the second requrement, that there be a awfu method. To
strengthen the orgna measure, EO No. 626-A mposes an absoute
ban not on the saughter of the carabaos but on ther movement,
provdng that "no carabao, regardess of age, sex, physca
condton or purpose (sc) and no carabeef sha be transported
from one provnce to another." The ob|ect of the prohbton
escapes us. The reasonabe connecton between the means
empoyed and the purpose sought to be acheved by the
questoned measure s mssng.
5. YES. Secton 1 of EO No. 626-A reads: "The carabao or carabeef
transported n voaton of ths Executve Order as amended sha
be sub|ect to confscaton and forfeture by the government, to be
dstrbuted to chartabe nsttutons and other smar nsttutons as
the Charman of the Natona Meat Inspecton Commsson may see
ft, n the case of carabeef, and to deservng farmers through
dspersa as the Drector of Anma Industry may see ft, n the case
of carabaos." There s an nvad deegaton of egsatve powers to
the offcers mentoned theren who are granted unmted dscreton
n the dstrbuton of the propertes arbtrary taken. The phrase
"may see ft" s an extremey generous and dangerous condton.
Defntey, there s here a "rovng commsson," a wde and
sweepng authorty that s not "canazed wthn banks that keep t
from overfowng," n short, a ceary profgate and therefore
nvad deegaton of egsatve powers.
.E!G4O! V DILO!
GUTIERREZ; Apr 15, 1992
'&C#(
- Petton to revew the consttutonaty of the veto by the Presdent
of certan provsons of the Genera Appropratons Act (GAA) for the
Fsca Year 1992
- Pettoners are retred |ustces of the SC and the CA who were
recevng monthy pensons under RA No.910 as amended by RA
No. 1797
- Respondents Dron et a are sued n ther offca capactes of the
Executve, nvoved n the mpementaton of the reease of funds
under the GAA
- RA910 was enacted n 1953 to provde retrement pensons to
|ustces of the SC and the CA who have rendered servce at east 2o
years ether n the |udcary or n any branch of govt, or n, both, or
havng attaned the age of 70, or who resgn by reason of
ncapacty to dscharge the dutes of the offce; he sha receve
unt hs death the saary whch he has receved at the tme of hs
retrement
- RA910 was amended by RA1797. Identca retrement benefts
were gven to Const Commssons and the AFP, under RA1568, as
amended by RA3595, and PD578, respectvey
- Marcos ssued successve decrees whch automatcay read|usted
the retrement pensons of mtary offcers and ensted men. But
those n the |udcary and the Const Commssons were not
ncuded n ths automatc read|ustment, as Marcos repeaed the
automatc read|ustment provsons (Secton 3-a of RA1797 and
RA3595) for the |udcary and the Const Commssons
- Reazng ths unfarness, Congress n 1990 sought to reenact the
repeaed provsons by approvng a b on the matter (HB16297
and SB740)
- Pres. Aquno vetoed the HB on the ground that t woud erode the
foundaton of the pocy on standardzaton of compensaton under
the Saary Standardzaton Law, RA6758
- On the other hand, retred CA |ustces Barceona and Enrquez
fed a petton for read|ustment of ther pensons n accordance
wth RA1797 by reasonng out that PD644 repeang RA1797 dd not
take effect as there was no vad pubcaton pursuant to Tanada v
Tuvera, supposedy promugated n 1975 but pubshed ony n the
OG n 1983; Court authorzed t as a resut
- As a resut of the resouton by the Court, Congress ncuded n the
GAA appropratons for the |udcary ntended for the payment of
ad|usted pensons rates for the retred |ustces
- In |an 1992, Presdent vetoed portons of Secton 1, and the entre
Secton 4 of the Speca Provson for the SC and the Lower Courts
on the ground that the Presdent vetoed the HB on the matter
aready, and such appropraton woud erode the pocy of saary
standardzaton
I((%E
WON the veto by the presdent of certan provsons n the Genera
Appropratons Act for the Fsca Year 1992 reatng to the payment
of the ad|usted penson of the retred |ustces of the SC and the CA
3ELD
- The Presdent dd not veto tems but provsons of the aw n the
GAA.
- 7*ile veto power is generall1 all or not*ing5 vetoing t*e
entire 6ill or none at all5 it +oes not *ol+ w*en it 0omes to
appropriation5 revenue or tari// 6ills.
o The Consttuton has a tem veto power to avod nexpedent
rders beng attached to an ndspensabe appropraton or
revenue measure; ony a partcuar tem or tems may be
vetoed
o Item n a b refers to the partcuars, the detas, the dstnct
and severabe parts; t s a specfc appropraton of money,
not some genera provson of aw, whch happens to be put
nto an appropraton b
o The Presdent dd not veto the genera fund ad|ustment of
500M, to meet certan obgatons WHICH s an ITEM.
o What she vetoed were provisions - methods and systems
paced by Congress to nsure that obgatons woud be pad
when they fe due
o Thus, a$gmentat#on of specfc appropratons found
nadequate to pay retrement benefts s a provson and not
an tem
o Actuay, what she reay vetoed were RA1797 and the
Resouton of the SC dated Nov 1991. WHICH SHE CANNOT
VETO.
- The repeang decrees (PD644) of Marcos re takng away the
automatc read|ustment for the |udcary never became vad aw
because t was never pubshed, pursuant to the Tanada v Tuvera
doctrne; RA 1797 was never repeaed and there was no need for
an HB n 1990 to restore t so even the presdents veto of the HB
does not even have any effect n the contnung mpementaton of
the aw
- The Veto by the presdent trenches upon the 0onstitutional
grant o/ /is0al autonom1 to t*e $u+i0iar1
o Guaranty of fu fexbty to aocate and utze ther
resources wth the wsdom and dspatch that ther needs
requre
o Power to evy, assess and coect fees, fx rates of
compensaton not exceedng hghest rates authorzed by
aw
o Veto s tantamount to dctatng to the |udcary how ts funds
shoud be utzed
- The |ustces have a rght to ther pensons pursuant to RA1797
o The purpose retrement aws ke such s to entce
competent men and women to enter the government
servce and retre wth reatve securty
G&CI& V "&C&&EG
BARREDO; May 31, 1971
'&C#(
- Admnstratve compant fed by Paz M. Garca aganst Hon.
Catano Macarag, |r., |udge of the CFI of Laguna Branch VI, now
Undersecretary of |ustce, n hs former capacty as |udge, for
aeged "dshonesty, voaton of hs oath of offce as |udge ... gross
ncompetence, voaton of Repubc Act 296 or the |udcary Act of
1948, as amended, (partcuary) Sectons 5, 55 and 58 thereof.
- |udge Macarag took hs oath as |udge of the CFI of Laguna and
San Pabo Cty wth staton at Caamba on |une 29, 1970. The court,
beng one of the 112 newy created CFI branches, had to be
organzed from scratch. After consutatons wth the offcas of the
provnce of Laguna, the muncpaty of Caamba and the
Department of |ustce, he decded to accept the offer of the
Caamba Muncpa Government to suppy the space for the
courtroom and offces of the court, to utze the fnanca assstance
promsed by the Laguna provnca government for the purchase of
the necessary suppes and materas and to rey on the natona
government for the equpment needed by the court (Under Secton
190 of the Revsed Admnstratve Code, a these tems must be
furnshed by the provnca government The provnca offcas of
Laguna, however, nformed hm that the provnce was not n a
poston to do so).
- As to the space requrements of the court, the Muncpa Mayor of
Caamba assured hm that the court coud be accommodated n the
west wng of the Caamba muncpa budng as soon as the offce
of the muncpa treasurer and hs personne are transferred to
another ocaton. When the pro|ected transfer of the muncpa
treasurer's offce was about to be effected, the treasurer and
severa muncpa councors ob|ected. The muncpa mayor then
requested Macarag to ook over some of the offce spaces for rent
n Caamba, wth the commtment that the muncpa government
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.2''
w shouder the payment of the rentas. Respondent's frst choce
was the second foor of the Repubc Bank branch n Caamba, but
the negotatons faed when the owner of the budng refused to
reduce the rent to P300 a month. The next sutabe space seected
by Macarag was the second foor of the Laguna Deveopment
Bank. After a month's negotatons, the muncpaty fnay sgned a
ease agreement wth the owner on October 26, 1970. Another
month passed before the muncpa government coud reease the
amount necessary for the mprovements to convert the space that
was rented, whch was a bg ha wthout parttons, nto a
courtroom and offces for the personne of the court and for the
assstant provnca fsca. Thereafter, upon Macarag's
representatons, the provnca government approprated the
amount of P5,000 for the purchase of the suppes and materas
needed by the court. Eary n December, 1970 respondent aso
paced hs order for the necessary equpment wth the Property
Offcer of the DO| but, unfortunatey, the appropraton for the
equpment of the CFI was reeased ony on December 23, 1970 and
the procurement of the equpment chargeabe aganst ths
aotment s st under way.
- When Macarag reazed that t woud be sometme before he
coud actuay presde over hs court, he apped for an extended
eave (durng the 16 years he had worked n the DO|, Macarag had,
due to pressure of dutes, never gone on extended eave, resutng
n hs forfetng a the eave benefts he had earned beyond the
maxmum ten months aowed by the aw). #*e (e0retar1 o/
$usti0e5 *owever5 prevaile+ upon *im to /orego *is leave
an+ instea+ to assist *im5 wit*out 6eing e:ten+e+ a /ormal
+etail5 w*enever *e was not 6us1 atten+ing to t*e nee+s o/
*is 0ourt.
- Companant Garca aeged:
> That from |uy 1, 1970 up to February 28, 1971 ncusve,
respondent has not submtted hs monthy reports contanng the
number of cases fed, dsposed of, decded and/or resoved, the
number of cases pendng decsons for one month, two months to
over three months, together wth the tte, number, number of
hours of court sesson hed a day.
> That he has not submtted hs certfcate of servce (New
|udca Form No. 86, Revsed 1966) from |uy to December, 1970
and from |anuary to February, 1971 ncusve.
> That as ncumbent |udge of Branch VI, CFI of Laguna and San
Pabo and knowng fuy we that he has never performed hs
offca dutes or dscharged the dutes appertanng to hs offce,
he has coected and was pad hs saares from |uy 1970 to
February 1971 n fagrant voaton of Secton 5 of the |udcary
Act of 1948.
> That hs deberate faure to submt the monthy reports on the
accompshments of the Court consttutes a cear voaton of
Sectons 55 and 58 of the |udcary Act of 1948, as amended.
I((%E
WON respondent s guty of dshonesty, voaton of hs oath of
offce as |udge, gross ncompetence and voaton of Crcuar No. 10
dated February 6, 1952 of the Department of |ustce and RA 296 or
the |udcary Act of 1948 partcuary Sectons 5, 55 and 58
3ELD
- Sectons 5, 55 and 58 of the |udcary Act and Crcuar No. 10 of
the Department of |ustce are not appcabe to a |udge not actuay
dschargng hs |udca dutes. Respondent's nabty to perform hs
|udca dutes under the crcumstances does not consttute
ncompetence. Respondent was, ke every awyer who gets hs frst
appontment to the bench, eager to assume hs |udca dutes and
rd hmsef of the stgma of beng 'a |udge wthout a saa,' but
forces and crcumstances beyond hs contro prevented hm from
dschargng hs |udca dutes. Respondent's coecton of saares
as |udge does not consttute dshonesty because asde from the
tme, effort and money he spent n Organzng the CFI at Caamba,
he worked n the Department of |ustce.
- None of these s to be taken as meanng that ths Court ooks wth
favor at the practce of ong standng of |udges beng detaed n
the DO| to assst the Secretary even f t were ony n connecton
wth hs work of exercsng admnstratve authorty over the courts.
#*e line 6etween w*at a <u+ge ma1 +o an+ w*at *e ma1 not
+o in 0olla6orating or wor9ing wit* ot*er o//i0es or o//i0ers
un+er t*e ot*er great +epartments o/ t*e government must
alwa1s 6e 9ept 0lear an+ <ealousl1 o6serve+5 lest t*e
prin0iple o/ separation o/ powers on w*i0* our government
tests 61 man+ate o/ t*e people t*ru t*e Constitution 6e
gra+uall1 ero+e+ 61 pra0ti0es purporte+l1 motivate+ 61
goo+ intentions in t*e interest o/ t*e pu6li0 servi0e. The
fundamenta advantages and the necessty of the ndependence of
sad three departments from each other, mted ony by the
specfc consttutona precepts on check and baance between and
among them, have ong been acknowedged as more paramount
than the servng of any temporary or passng governmenta
convenences or exgences. It s thus of grave mportance to the
|udcary under our present consttutona scheme of government
that no |udge of even the owest court n ths Repubc shoud pace
hmsef n a poston where hs actuatons on matters submtted to
hm for acton or resouton woud be sub|ect to revew and pror
approva and, worst st, reversa, before they can have ega
effect, by any authorty other than the Court of Appeas or the
Supreme Court, as the case may be. Needess to say, the Court
fees very strongy that t s best that ths practce s dscontnued.
0ecision Compant dsmssed. (8 votes to dsmss, Castro &
Teehankee took no part.)
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
'E!&!DO D0on0urE
- Respondent |udge Macarag shoud not be hed n any wse
accountabe. No tant of bad fath can be attached to hs conduct.
What he was requred to do was n accordance wth the practce
heretofore foowed by the Department of |ustce. He s, under the
statute n force, under the admnstratve supervson of ts head.
Nor can the good fath of Secretary of |ustce Abad Santos be
mpugned. What was done by hm was kewse n accordance wth
what prevous secretares of |ustce were accustomed to do. #*e
root o/ t*e evil t*en is t*e statutor1 aut*orit1 o/ t*e
Department o/ $usti0e over 0ourts o/ /irst instan0e an+
ot*er in/erior 0ourts. Whe a dstncton coud be made between
the performance of |udca functons whch n no way coud be
nterfered wth by the Department and the task of admnstraton
whch s executve n character, st the conferment of such
competence to a department head, an ater ego of the Presdent, s
to my mnd, not ony unwse but of doubtfu consttutonaty. For n
ssung admnstratve rues and reguatons over matters deemed
non-|udca, they may trench upon the dscreton of |udges whch
shoud be exercsed accordng to ther conscence aone. What s
more, the nfuence that the Secretary has over them s magnfed.
It s aready unavodabe under our scheme of government that
they court hs goodw; ther promoton may at tmes depend on t.
Wth ths grant of authorty, the asserton of ndependence
becomes even more dffcut. t s thus ob|ectonabe n prncpe
and perncous n operaton. That certany s not the way to reduce
to the mnmum any partcpaton of the executve n |udca affars
arsng from the power to appont. As t s, even when the
government as the adverse party n crmna cases, tax suts, and
other tgatons s n the rght, a favorabe decson from the ower
courts coud be ooked upon wth suspcon. #*e <u+i0iar1 must
not onl1 6e in+epen+entP it must appear to 6e so.
- The presence n the statute books of such power of admnstratve
oversght then, s, to my mnd, anomaous. More specfcay, were
t not for such power granted the department head, respondent
|udge n ths case coud not have been caed upon to assst the
Secretary of |ustce. Consi+ering t*at t*e Constitutional
Convention is a6out to meet5 it is to 6e *ope+ t*at it 6e
ma+e 0lear t*at t*e <u+i0iar1 is to 6e totall1 /ree+ /rom an1
supervisor1 aut*orit1 o/ an e:e0utive +epartment. (Take
note guys that ths case was decded |ust a day before the Mana
Hote naugura sesson of the con-con that created the 1973
Const. And remember that the supervson of the CFI and other
nferor courts (under the DO| n the 1935 Const) was transferred
to the SC under the new Const whch provson was coped n the
1987 Const. I guess ths case was nfuenta n makng that change
possbe. By the way, Macarag was a former UP aw prof.)
.&D%& V CODILLE& .ODO!G &D"I!I(#&#IO!
GRINO-AOUINO; February 14, 1991
'&C#(
Respondent Davd Ouema aeges that he s the owner of a parce
of and whch he mortgaged to Dra. Vaera. He was abe to redeem
the property but ony after 22 years. On the other hand, pettoner
spouses cam the property was sod to them by Dra. Vaera.
Ouema fed a case before the Barangay Counc but when t faed
to sette, he fed a compant n the trba court of the Maeng Trbe.
(The dsputed and s ocated n Vavcosa, Abra) The trba court
decded n favor of Ouema. But as the spouses dd not mmedatey
vacate the and, they receved a warnng order from the Cordera
Peopes Lberaton Army (CPLA). Pettoners fed ths acton
aegng that respondent Cordera Bodong Admnstratons
decson s vod for ack of |udca power or |ursdcton.
Respondent contends the Supreme Court has no |ursdcton over
trba courts because they are not part of the |udca system.
I((%E
WON a trba court of the Cordera Bodong Admnstraton can
render a vad and executory decson
3ELD
NO. Decson of trba court s annued for ack of |ursdcton. The
creaton of the Cordera Autonomous Regon was re|ected n a
pebscte by the provnces and ctes of the Cordera Regon hence
the Cordera Bodong Admnstraton, the ndgenous and speca
courts for the ndgenous cutura communtes and the CPLA as a
regona command of the Armed Forces of the Phppnes do not
egay exst. The Maeng Trba Court not beng consttuted nto an
ndgenous court, t s but an ordnary trba court exstng under the
customs and tradtons of an ndgenous cutura communty. .uc&
tribal courts are not part o9 t&e +&ilippine Judicial .(stem
:&ic& consists o9 t&e .upreme Court and t&e lo:er courts
:&ic& &ave been establis&ed b( la:. /&e( do not possess
'udicial po:er.
P3ILIPPI!E PO#( &%#3OI#2 V CO%# O' &PPE&L(
ROMERO; February 5, 1996
'&C#(
- Phppne Ports Authorty (PPA) entered nto three contracts
regardng varous servces at the South Harbor:
> Wth Ocean Termnas Servces, Inc. (OTSI). OTSI was granted
excusve rght to manage and operate stevedorng servces at
the South Harbor
> Wth Marna Port Servces Inc. (MPSI). MPSI was granted
excusve management and operaton of arrastre and contaner
handng servces at the South Harbor
> Wth 7-R Ports Servces. 7-R was granted warehousng servces
- On November 28, 1991, the contract wth MPSI was renewed. Part
of the contract requred the MPSI to cause ntegraton of storage,
arrastre and stevedorng servces at the South Harbor.
Consequenty, OTSI and 7-R assgned ther respectve stevedorng
and warehousng servces to MPSI. In effect MPSI had the duty and
responsbty to manage, operate and render the foowng
servces:
- &rrastre- recevng, handng, checkng as we as custody and
devery of cargo servces. These are servces done on and.
- (teve+oring- a work performed on board vesse, that s, the
process of oadng and unoadng cargo, stowng nsde hatches,
compartments and on deck or open cargo spaces on board vesses.
- Container #erminal 3an+ling- the servces of handng
contaner dscharged or oaded unto vesses.
- (torage- storng of contaners, buk and break buk cargoes n a
storage areas at the South Harbor.
- Apr 2, 1992, PPA entered nto a contract wth pettoner Mana
Foatng So Corporaton (MAFSICOR) whereby the atter was
granted rght, prvege, responsbty and authorty to provde,
operate a foatng buk termna factes for buk cargoes bound for
the South Harbor wth a provso that use of such facty sha not be
compusory to buk shppers or mporters. Contract woud be
enforced for 5 years and sha be on an nterm bass unt an actua
and based buk termna pant for the Port of Mana.
- Sept. 8, 1192, PPA and MAFSICOR entered a suppementa
agreement statng that manpower needed for stevedorng servces
sha be hred from OTSI.
- MPSI fed a petton aganst PPA and MAFSICOR for "decaratory
reef, fna n|uncton wth prayer for temporary restranng order
and premnary prohbtory n|uncton camng that sad contract
was n compete derogaton of ther rghts under ther contract wth
PPA.
- RTC of Mana through |udge Verdano II, ssued TRO drectng PPA
to mantan status quo and en|onng MAFSICOR from brngng n
the foatng termna and set a hearng on the ssuance of a wrt of
premnary n|uncton.
- PPA fed an opposton to the ssuance of sad wrt statng PPA-
MAFSICOR contract actuay supports PPA-MPSI contract as
stevedorng manpower woud be hred from MPSI. And that on a 2-
day pubc hearng, most of the regstrants agreed to the operaton
of the foatng termna.
- MAFSICOR aso fed an urgent moton for the ftng of the TRO
and a dena of the the premnary n|uncton on the ground that an
n|unctve reef s not avaabe n an acton for decaratory reef.
They fed another moton to dsmss compant statng that
decaratory reef was not avaabe to MPSI because MAFSICOR was
not a party n the PPA-MPSI contract therefore they were not a
party-n-nterest.
- AUGUST 25, 1993, tra court dened wrt of premnary n|uncton
and fted TRO statng that frst, the rght to operate a foatng
termna was not on the PPA-MPSI contract and there woud be no
confct between contracts wth MPSI and MAFSICOR snce MPSI s
not the soe entty authorzed to render stevedorng servces n the
South Harbor and besdes, stevedorng servces for MAFSICOR sha
be provded by OTSI. Second, contract wth MAFSICOR was noon-
excusve meanng MPSI coud aso operate a foatng termna.
Thrd, n|unctve reef may not be granted for an acton for
decaratory reef. Further, MPSI coud not queston PPA-MAFSICOR
contract they beng not a party thereto.
- MPSI fed a moton for reconsderaton whch was dened by the
court on Sept. 15, 1993.
- Meanwhe on Sept. 3 1993, Katpunan ng mga Manggagawa sa
Daungan (KAMADA) the barganng agent or the 4000 stevedores
empoyed by MPSI, fed a compant aganst MPSI, PPA and
MAFSICOR for the annument of PPA-MAFSICOR contract aegng
that the operaton of the foatng buk woud dupcate ther functon
of stevedorng n the South Harbor. They aso aeged that
MAFSICOR had not contacted them on the matter regardng the
hrng of ther servces n the suppementa contract. Aso, KAMADA
sad that the requrement of MAFSICOR of traned and quafed
stevedores (snce servces n the foatng termna woud be done
by machne), certany some of ther member empoyees woud be
deprved.
- Case was raffed and was presded by |udge Mabunay. Court
granted TRO statng great and rreparabe n|ures upon the
appcant woud resut before the matter can be heard on notce.
- MAFSICOR fed a moton to dsmss cv case and for the ftng of
the TRO (compete reasons n p.224-25). Reasons ncuded Court
Crcuar No. 13-93 whch prohbts the ssuance of n|uncton aganst
certan government agences ncudng pubc uttes. Moton was
dened.
- Sept. 10, 1993, MAFSICOR fed a suppement to ts moton to
dsmss and to ft TRO, rasng as an addtona reason, Secton 1 of
P.D. no. 1818 whch states that:
Hno %o$rt #n the Ph#l#))#nes shall ha*e 3$r#s&#%t#on to #ss$e an+
restra#n#ng or&er, )rel#m#nar+ #n3$n%t#on, or )rel#m#nar+
man&ator+ #n3$n%t#on #n an+ %ase, &#s)$te or %ontro*ers+
#n*ol*#ng an #nfrastr$%t$re )ro3e%tI #n%l$&#ng among others
)$/l#% $t#l#t#es for the trans)ort of goo&s or %ommo&#t#es,
ste*e&or#ng an& arrastre %ontra%ts, to )roh#/#t an+ )erson or
)ersons, ent#t+ or go*ernment off#%e from )ro%ee&#ng .#thI the
o)erat#on of s$%h )$/l#% $t#l#t+IJ
- MPSI opposed statng MAFSICOR s not a pubc utty nor s
performng a pubc functon and thus non pubc nterest may be
affected.
- |udge Mabunay dened MAFSICORs moton.
- Sept. 28,1993, KAMADA case was resoved by |udge Mabunay n
whch wrt was dened due to faure of KAMADA to present cear
and convncng evdence of any damages t w suffer."
- Another case was fed by yet another party. Ths was a case for
n|uncton wth provsona remedy of premnary n|uncton
nvovng the same PPA-MAFSICOR contract. Ths was fed by the
Chamber of Customs Brokers Inc., the ony accredted assocaton
for customs brokers n the country, statng that they were never
nformed of the proposa to put up a foatng grans termna and
that operaton of such woud adversey affect and pre|udce ts
members (reason n p.226-227).
- Case was raffed and was presded by |udge Bayhon. Court ssued
a restranng order. In due course, on October 1, 1993, ower court
ssued a premnary n|uncton upon the fng of MPSI of an
n|uncton bond.
- PPA and MAFSICOR fed before the SC a petton for certorar and
prohbton wth a prayer for an ssuance of a TRO and/or
premnary n|uncton. Petton mpeaded |udge Verdano as a
pubc respondent. Petton aso prayed |udges Mabunay and
Bayhon be admnstratvey deat wth for dsregardng Crcuar No.
13-93.
- Pursuant to Sec. 9(1) of B.P. 29, SC referred case to Court of
Appeas.
- October 13, 1993, CA ssued a wrt of premnary n|uncton
fndng that MPSI has excusve stevedorng rghts at the South
Harbor and that the operaton of a foatng grans termna by
MAFSICOR woud overap on the rghts of MPSI. On the appcabty
of PD 1818 and Crcuar No. 13-93, court stated that what s beng
stopped temporary s prvate respondents operaton of the
foatng buk termna facty that woud essen MPSIs stevedorng
servces as t nfrnges on the atters contractua rght.
- MAFSICOR fed a moton for reconsderaton but was dened.
- On |une 8, 1994, CA decded that wrt of premnary n|uncton s
made permanent and that |udge Bayhon be permanenty en|oned
from ssung n|unctve orders durng the tra of the case n the
court.
- Thus, CA affrmed the excusvty of the stevedorng contract n
favor of MPSI. That beng so, t precuded nfrngement of the PPA-
MPSI contract by the PPA-MAFSICOR contract. CA expaned that the
foatng grans termna s smpy a mechanzed unoadng of grans
cargo from the vesse to the barge or other transport factes. And
aso that what s soey done by stevedores s substtuted by
machnes compemented by needed stevedores. Wth respect to
the suppementa agreement whch states that stevedores woud
be hred by MAFSICOR from OTSI, court stated that t was |ust an
ad|ustment n order not to voate PPA-MPSI contract. And that
MAFSICOR can egay excuse themseves from the contract
because OTSI aready assgned ts stevedorng servces to MPSI. As
regards to forum shoppng aegaton of MAFSICOR (fng of
separate pettons by MPSI, KAMADA and Chamber), court sad that
there was no forum shoppng because pettoners had separate and
dstnct ega personates. There aso was no proof that they
confabuated to forum-shop. On the appcabty of PD 1818, CA
affrmed ts Oct.13 rung.
- PPA and MAFSICOR fed a moton for revew on certorar aegng
that Court of Appeas decson: a) voates PD 1818 and Crcuar No.
13-93, the consttutona prncpe of separaton of |udca and
executve powers and prescrpton aganst forum shoppng, b)
suppants the dscreton of the tra court to pass upon the proprety
of a premnary n|uncton and c) s contrary to the evdence on
record.
I((%E
WON PD 1818 appcabe to the case
3ELD
YES
atio Hno %o$rt #n the Ph#l#))#nes shall ha*e 3$r#s&#%t#on to #ss$e
an+ restra#n#ng or&er, )rel#m#nar+ #n3$n%t#on, or )rel#m#nar+
man&ator+ #n3$n%t#on #n an+ %ase, &#s)$te or %ontro*ers+ #n*ol*#ng
an #nfrastr$%t$re )ro3e%tI includin; amon; ot&ers public
utilities 9or t&e transport o9 ;oods or commodities,
stevedorin; and arrastre contracts, to )roh#/#t an+ )erson or
)ersons, ent#t+ or go*ernment off#%e from )ro%ee&#ng .#thI the
o)erat#on of s$%h )$/l#% $t#l#t+IJ
- Ceary, the prohbton n PD 1818 does not cover nfrastructure
aone. It ncudes among others stevedorng servces. The aw beng
cear, there s no room for nterpretaton or constructon. 0 *er/#s
leg#s non est re%en&$m (from the words of a statute there shoud
be no departure).
- PD 1818 appes H#n %ontro*ers#es #n*ol*#ng fa%ts or the e,er%#se
of &#s%ret#on #n te%hn#%al %ases.J It s founded on the prncpe that
to aow courts to determne such matters woud dsturb the smooth
functonng of the admnstratve machnery.
- In >e)$/l#% *. Ca)$long dscreton was defned as "a power or
rght conferred upon them by aw of actng offcay under certan
crcumstances, uncontroed by the |udgment or conscence of
others.
- Enterng nto a contract for the operaton af a foatng grans
termna notwthstandng the exstence of other stevedorng
contracts pertanng to the South Harbor s undoubtedy an exercse
of the dscreton on the part of the PPA. No other persons or
agences are n a better poston to gauge the need for the foatng
termna than the PPA; certany not the courts. Courts have no
broodng of such admnstratve agences (Hon. Renero Reyes et a
v. Hon Doroteo Caneba et a). courts w ntervene ony to ascertan
whether a branch or nstrumentaty of the Government has
transgressed ts consttutona boundares (Bureau Vertas v. Offce
of the Presdent). Under the separaton of powers, the courts may
not tread nto matters requrng the exercse of dscreton of a
functonary or offce n the executve and egsatve branches,
uness t s ceary shown that the government offca or offce
abused hs or ts dscreton. In t*is 0ase t*ere is no s*owing
t*at t*e PP& a6use+ its +is0retion in entering into t*e
0ontra0t wit* "&'(ICO. $u+ge Veri+iano 0orre0tl1
0on0lu+e+ t*at t*ere is no provision /or t*e putting up o/ a
/loating grains terminal in t*e PP&-"P(& 0ontra0t. &ll it
0overs are t*e general servi0es o/ steve+oring. 7*ile t*e
operation o/ a /loating grains terminal ma1 6e 0onsi+ere+
as part an+ par0el o/ steve+oring as su0* operation merel1
entails t*e me0*ani,ation o/ steve+oring5 it was 0onsi+ere+
61 t*e PP&5 in t*e e:er0ise o/ its +is0retion5 as ne0essar1 to
improve t*e servi0es ren+ere+ in t*e (out* 3ar6or in t*e
meantime t*at no lan+-6ase+ 6ul9 terminal is 1et
operational.
- There are actuay nstances when PD 1818 shoud not fnd
appcaton. These are a) where there s cear and grave abuse of
dscreton b) where the effect of the non-ssuance of an n|uncton
or a restranng order woud be to "stave off mpementaton of a
government pro|ect." In ths case the operaton of a foatng buk
termna woud augment and mprove the over-a operatons at the
port of Mana and/or stevedorng servces awarded to MPSI.
- Another contenton aganst the appcabty of PD 1818 s that
MAFSICOR s a prvate entty. Such contenton betrays a faure to
comprehend the functons of the PPA. One of the dutes of the PPA
s to provde servces (whether on ts own, by contract or otherwse)
wthn the Port Dstrcts . to make or enter contracts of any knd or
nature to enabe t to dscharge ts functons under ts decree.
- Secton 1 of PD 1818 ceary states that an n|uncton may not be
ssued to prevent any person or persons, entty or government
offca from undertakng the protected actvtes enumerated. The
prohbton therefore appes regardess of whether or not the entty
or person beng en|oned s a pubc or prvate person or entty,
provded that the purpose of the aw to protect essenta
government pro|ects n pursut of economc deveopment s
attaned.
- court dd not resove man ssues offered (such as the excusvty
of the PPA-MPSI contract) for resouton theren whch necesstates
tra on merts. However court took note of the aegatons aganst
two |udges
0ecision Petton on certorar granted decson of the CA s
reversed and set asde.
I! E- V&LE!4%EL& &!D V&LL&#&
NARVASA; November 9, 1998
'&C#(
- The Resouton of the Court En Banc, handed down on May 14,
1998, sets out the reevant facts.
- Referred to the Court En Banc by the Chef |ustce are the
appontments sgned by the Presdent under date of March 30,
1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Vaenzuea and Hon. Pacdo B. Vaarta as
|udges of the Regona Tra Court of Branch 62, Bago Cty and of
Branch 24, Cabanatuan Cty, respectvey.
- receved at the Chef |ustce's chambers on May 12, 1998
- vew by Senor Assocate |ustce Forenz D. Regaado, Consutant
of the Counc, who had been a member of the Commttee of the
Executve Department and of the Commttee on the |udca
Department of the 1986 Consttutona Commsson: that on the
bass of the Commsson's records, the ele0tion 6an *a+ no
appli0ation to appointments to t*e Court o/ &ppeals. Wthout
any extended dscusson or any pror research and study on the
part of the other Members of the |BC, ths hypothess was accepted,
and was then submtted to the Presdent for consderaton, together
wth the Counc's nomnatons for eght (8) vacances n the Court
of Appeas
- Apr 6, 1998: Chef |ustce receved an offca communcaton
from the Executve Secretary transmttng the appontments of
eght (8) Assocate |ustces of the Court of Appeas a of whch had
been duy sgned on March 11, 1998 by the Presdent
- In vew of the fact that a the appontments had been sgned on
March 11, 1998 - the day mmedatey before the commencement
of the ban on appontments mposed by Secton 15, Artce VII of
the Consttuton - whch mpedy ndcated that the Presdent's
Offce dd not agree wth the hypothess that appontments to the
|udcary were not covered by sad ban, the Chef |ustce resoved to
defer consderaton of nomnatons for the vacancy n the Supreme
Court created by the retrement of Assocate |ustce Rcardo |.
Francsco
- May 4, 1998: Chef |ustce receved a etter from the Presdent,
addressed to the |BC, requestng transmsson of the "st of fna
nomnees" for the vacancy" no ater than Wednesday, May 6,
1998," n vew of the duty mposed on hm by the Consttuton "to
f up the vacancy . . . wthn nnety (90) days from February 13,
1998, the date the present vacancy occurred."
- May 5, 1998: Secretary of |ustce Svestre Beo III requested the
Chef |ustce for "gudance" respectng the expressed desre of the
"reguar members" of the |BC to hod a meetng mmedatey to f
up the vacancy n the Court n ne wth the Presdent's etter . The
Chef |ustce advsed Secretary Beo to awat the repy that he was
draftng
- May 6, 1998: the Chef |ustce sent hs repy to the Presdent--
statng that no sessons had been schedued for the Counc unt
after the May eectons because of the "need to undertake further
study of the matter," prescndng from "the desre to avod any
consttutona ssue regardng the appontment to the mentoned
vacancy"; devered to Maacaang May 6, 1998, and a copy gven
to the Offce of |ustce Secretary Beo
- |ustce Secretary and the reguar members of the Counc had
aready taken acton -on May 6, 1998 they came to an agreement
on a resouton: they drew attenton to Secton 4 (1), Artce VIII of
the Consttuton (omttng any menton of Secton 15, Artce VII) as
we as to the Presdent's etter of May 4, wth an appea that the
Chef |ustce convene the Counc for the purpose "on May 7, 1998
- C| convoked the Counc to a meetng at 3 o'cock n the afternoon
of May 7, 1998
- May 7, 1998: Chef |ustce receved a etter from Presdent: "the
eecton-ban provson appes ony to executve appontments or
appontments n the executve branch of government," the whoe
artce beng "entted 'EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.'", "frmy and
respectfuy reterate(d) . . . (hs) request for the |udca and Bar
Counc to transmt . . . the fna st of nomnees for the one
Supreme Court vacancy."
- May 8, 1998: Chef |ustce reped: --Secton 15 of Artce VII
mposes a drect prohbton on the Presdent whch s the genera
rue, the ony excepton beng ony as regards "executve
postons"(|udca postons are covered by the genera rue)
- Secton 4 (1) of Artce VIII, unke Secton 15, Artce VII, the duty
of fng the vacancy s not specfcay mposed on the Presdent
- normay, w*en t*ere are no presi+ential ele0tions (e0tion
G (1)5 &rti0le VIII s*all appl1 6ut w*en (as now) t*ere are
presi+ential ele0tions5 t*e pro*i6ition in (e0tion 155 &rti0le
VII 0omes into pla1- t*e Presi+ent s*all not ma9e an1
appointments
- requestng the reguar Members of the |udca and Bar Counc to
defer acton on the matter unt further advce by the Court
- May 8, 1998: another meetng was hed; cosed wth a resouton
that "the consttutona provsons be referred to the Supreme Court
En Banc for approprate acton
- May 12, 1998: Chef |ustce receved from Maacaang the
appontments of two (2) |udges of the Regona Tra Court
mentoned above; paces on the Chef |ustce the obgaton of
transmttng the appontments to the appontees so that they mght
take ther oaths and assume the dutes of ther offce (troube s
that n dong so, the Chef |ustce runs the rsk of actng n a
manner nconsstent wth the Consttuton)
- the Court Resoved that pendng the foregong proceedngs and
the deberaton by the court on the matter, and unt further
orders, no acton be taken on the appontments of Hon. Vaenzuea
and Hon. Vaarta whch n the meantme sha be hed n abeyance
and not gven any effect and sad appontees sha refran from
takng ther oath of offce and the |udca and Bar Counc s
INSTRUCTED to defer a acton on the matter of nomnatons
- Vaenzuea took hs oath on May 14, 1998 -- In hs "Expanaton"
he stated that he dd so because on May 7, 1998 he "receved from
Maacaang copy of hs appontment . . ." whch contaned the
foowng drecton: "By vrtue hereof, you may quafy and enter
upon the performance of the dutes of the offce"
- #*e elevant Constitutional Provisions
Se%t#on 1, 0rt#%le V77:
"Two months mmedatey before the next presdenta eectons
and up to the end of hs term, a Presdent or Actng Presdent sha
not make appontments, except temporary appontments to
executve postons when contnued vacances theren pre|udce
pubc servce or endanger pubc safety."
Se%t#on 4 (1!, 0rt#%le V777:
"The Supreme Court sha be composed of a Chef |ustce and
fourteen Assocate |ustces. It may st en banc or, n ts dscreton,
n dvsons of three, fve, or seven Members. Any vacancy sha be
fed wthn nnety days from the occurrence thereof ."
Se%t#on 9, 0rt#%le V777:
"The Members of the Supreme Court and |udges n ower courts
sha be apponted by the Presdent from a st of at east three
nomnees prepared by the |udca and Bar Counc for every
vacancy. Such appontments need no confrmaton.
For the ower courts, the Presdent sha ssue the appontments
wthn nnety days from the submsson of the st."
I((%E
WON durng the perod of the ban on appontments mposed by
Secton 15, Artce VII of the Consttuton, the Presdent s
nonetheess requred to f vacances n the |udcary, n vew of
Sectons 4(1) and 9 of Artce VIII
3ELD
The appontments of Messrs. Vaenzuea and Vaarta on March 30,
1998 were unquestonaby made durng the perod of the ban. Such
appontments come wthn the operaton of the frst prohbton
reatng to appontments whch are consdered to be for the
purpose of buyng votes or nfuencng the eecton.
easonin;
- Whe the fng of vacances n the |udcary s undoubtedy n the
pubc nterest there s no showng n ths case of any compeng
reason to |ustfy the makng of the appontments durng the perod
of the ban. On the other hand, there s a strong pubc pocy for the
prohbton aganst appontments made wthn the perod of the
ban.
- Sectons 4(1) and 9 of Artce VIII smpy mean that the Presdent
s requred to f vacances n the courts wthn the tme frames
provded theren uness prohbted by Secton 15 of Artce VII.
- |ourna of the commsson whch drew up the present Consttuton
dscoses: desre to make certan that the sze of the Court woud
not be decreased for any substanta perod as a resut of
vacances, the nserton n the provson of the same mandate that
"IN CASE OF ANY VACANCY, THE SAME SHALL BE FILLED WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM OCCURRENCE THEREOF." was proposed
- Secton 15, Artce VII s drected aganst two types of
appontments: (1) those made for buyng votes and (2) those made
for partsan consderatons. The frst refers to those appontments
made wthn the two months precedng a Presdenta eecton
The second type of appontments prohbted by Secton 15, Artce
VII conssts of the so-caed "mdnght" appontments
- the Court recognzed that there may we be appontments to
mportant postons whch have to be made even after the
procamaton of the new Presdent. Such appontments, so ong as
they are "few and so spaced as to afford some assurance of
deberate acton and carefu consderaton of the need for the
appontment and the appontee's quafcatons," can be made by
the outgong Presdent
- The excepton aows ony the makng of temporary appontments
to executve postons when contnued vacances w pre|udce
pubc servce or endanger pubc safety. Obvousy, the artce
greaty restrcts the appontng power of the Presdent durng the
perod of the ban.
- Consderng the respectve reasons for the tme frames for fng
vacances n the courts and the restrcton on the Presdent's power
of appontment, t s ths Court's vew that, as a genera proposton,
n case of confct, the former shoud yed to the atter
- the Consttuton must be construed n ts entrety as one, snge
nstrument; nstances may be conceved of the mperatve need for
an appontment, durng the perod of the ban, not ony n the
executve but aso n the Supreme Court.
- concernng Vaenzuea's oath-takng and "reportng for duty"--
Standng practce s for the orgnas of a appontments to the
|udcary to be sent by the Offce of the Presdent to the Offce of
the Chef |ustce, the appontments beng addressed to the
appontees "Thru: the Chef |ustce, Supreme Court, Mana." It s
the Cerk of Court of the Supreme Court, n the Chef |ustce's
behaf, who thereafter advses the ndvdua appontees of ther
appontments and aso of the date of commencement of the pre-
requste orentaton semnar to be conducted by the Phppne
|udca Academy for new |udges.
OIL &!D !&#%&L G&( CO""I((IO! V OC%# O' &PPE&L(
MARTINEZ; |uy 23, 1998
'&C#(
- O & Natura Gas Commsson (petitioner)- a foregn corporaton
owned and controed by the Government of Inda
- Pacfc Cement Company (respon+ent) -a prvate corporaton
duy organzed and exstng under the aws of the Phppnes.
- The two partes entered nto a contract on Feb 26, 1983, where
respondent undertook to suppy the pettoner (4,300) metrc tons
of oil well 0ement; pettoner to pay ($477,300.00)
- The o we cement was oaded on the shp MV SURUTANA NAVA
n Surgao Cty, for devery at Bombay and Cacutta, Inda.
- respondent had aready receved payment but faed to dever the
o we cement due to a dspute between the shp owner and
respondent, the cargo was hed up n Bangkok and dd not reach ts
pont of destnaton
- so they |ust agreed that the prvate respondent w repace the
entre 4,300 metrc tons of o we cement wth Cass "G" cement
cost free. However, upon nspecton, the Cass "G" cement dd not
conform to the pettoner's specfcatons.
- The pettoner then nformed the prvate respondent that t was
referrng ts cam to an arbtrator pursuant to Cause 16 of ther
contract
- |uy 23, 1988, the chosen arbtrator (Shr N.N. Mahotra) resoved
the dspute n pettoner's favor
- Respondent- to pay $ 899,603.77 + 6% nterest
- To enabe the pettoner to execute the award, t fed a Petton
before the Court n Inda prayng that the decson of the arbtrator
be made "the Rue of Court" n Inda whch the sad court granted
- The pantff sha aso be entted to get from defendant
US$899,603.77 wth 9% nterest per annum t the ast date of
reazaton
- However, respondent refused to pay
- Pettoner fed a compant to RTC of Surgao
- RTC and CA dsmssed the compant
I((%E(
1. WON the arbtrator had |ursdcton over the dspute between the
pettoner and the prvate respondent under Cause 16 of the
contract; phrased dfferenty, WON the non-devery of the sad
cargo s a proper sub|ect for arbtraton under the above-quoted
Cause 16
2. WON the |udgment of the foregn court s enforceabe n ths
|ursdcton
3ELD
1. YES. the correct nterpretaton to gve effect to both stpuatons
n the contract s for Cause 16 to be confned to a cams or
dsputes arsng from or reatng to the desgn, drawng,
nstructons, specfcatons or quaty of the materas of the suppy
order/contract, and for Cause 15 to cover a other cams or
dsputes.
- For the sake of argument, granted that the non-devery of the o
we cement s not a proper sub|ect for arbtraton, the faure of the
repacement cement to conform to the specfcatons of the
contract s a matter ceary fang wthn the ambt of Cause 16.
2. YES.
- Ths Court has hed that matters of remedy and procedure are
governed by the ex for or the nterna aw of the forum. 32 Thus, f
under the procedura rues of the Cv Court of Dehra Dun, Inda, a
vad |udgment may be rendered by adoptng the arbtrators
fndngs, then the same must be accorded respect
- f the procedure n the foregn court mandates that an Order of
the Court becomes fna and executory upon faure to pay the
necessary docket fees, then the courts n ths |ursdcton cannot
nvadate the order of the foregn court smpy because our rues
provde otherwse
- the prvate respondent heren, as the party attackng a foregn
|udgment, has the burden of overcomng the presumpton of ts
vadty whch t faed to do n the nstant case.
0ecision Petton GRANTED
#/ 1: -!C#- 4!2,N*,N/
&..&( V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
CORTES; November 10, 1989
'&C#(
- Pettoner Abbas, a representatve of other taxpayers n Mndanao,
fed ths petton to(1) en|on the Commsson on Eectons
(COMELEC) from conductng the pebscte and the Secretary of
Budget and Management from reeasng funds to the COMELEC for
that purpose; and (2) decare R.A. No. 6734, or parts thereof,
unconsttutona
- The 1987 Consttuton provdes for regona autonomy through
Artce X, secton 15 whch provdes that "there sha be created
autonomous regons n Musm Mndanao and n the Corderas
consstng of provnces, ctes, muncpates, and geographca
areas sharng common and dstnctve hstorca and cutura
hertage, economc and soca structures, and other reevant
characterstcs wthn the framework of ths Consttuton and the
natona soveregnty as we as terrtora ntegrty of the Repubc of
the Phppnes."
- To effectuate ths mandate, the Consttuton further provdes:
Sec. 16. The Presdent sha exercse genera supervson over
autonomous regons to ensure that the aws are fathfuy
executed.
Sec. 17. A powers, functons, and responsbtes not granted by
ths Consttuton or by aw to the autonomous regons sha be
vested n the Natona Government.
Sec. 18. The Congress sha enact an organc act for each
autonomous regon wth the assstance and partcpaton of the
regona consutatve commsson composed of representatves
apponted by the Presdent from a st of nomnees from
mutsectora bodes. The organc act sha defne the basc
structure of government for the regon consstng of the executve
and representatve of the consttuent potca unts. The organc
acts sha kewse provde for speca courts wth persona, famy,
and property aw |ursdcton consstent wth the provsons of ths
Consttuton and natona aws.
The creaton of the autonomous regon sha be effectve when
approved by ma|orty of the votes cast by the consttuent unts n
a pebscte caed for the purpose, provded that ony the
provnces, ctes, and geographc areas votng favoraby n such
pebscte sha be ncuded n the autonomous regon.
Sec. 19 The frst Congress eected under ths Consttuton sha,
wthn eghteen months from the tme of organzaton of both
Houses, pass the organc acts for the autonomous regons n
Musm Mndanao and the Corderas.
Sec. 20. Wthn ts terrtora |ursdcton and sub|ect to the
provsons of ths Consttuton and natona aws, the organc act
of autonomous regons sha provde for egsatve powers over:
(1) Admnstratve organzaton;
(2) Creaton of sources of revenues;
(3) Ancestra doman and natura resources;
(4) Persona, famy, and property reatons;
(5) Regona urban and rura pannng deveopment;
(6) Economc, soca and toursm deveopment;
(7) Educatona poces;
(8) Preservaton and deveopment of the cutura hertage; and
(9) Such other matters as may be authorzed by aw for the
promoton of the genera wefare of the peope of the regon.
Sec. 21. The preservaton of peace and order wthn the regons
sha be the responsbty of the oca poce agences whch sha
be organzed, mantaned, supervsed, and utzed n accordance
wth appcabe aws. The defense and securty of the regon sha
be the responsbty of the Natona Government.
Pursuant to the consttutona mandate, R.A. No. 6734 was enacted
and sgned nto aw on August 1, 1989.The present controversy
reates to the pebscte n thrteen (13) provnces and nne (9)
ctes n Mndanao and Paawan, schedued for November 19, 1989,
n mpementaton of Repubc Act No. 6734, entted "An Act
Provdng for an Organc Act for the Autonomous Regon n Musm
Mndanao."
I((%E(
1. WON certan provsons of R.A. No. 6734 confct wth the Trpo
Agreement.
2 .WON R.A. 6734, or parts thereof, voates the Consttuton.
3ELD
1. No, RA 6743 does not confct wth the Trpo Agreement.
SC fnds t nether necessary nor determnatve of the case to rue
on the nature of the Trpo Agreement and ts bndng effect on the
Phppne Government whether under pubc nternatona or
nterna Phppne aw. The Consttuton tsef provdes for the
creaton of an autonomous regon n Musm Mndanao. The
standard for any nqury nto the vadty of R.A. No. 6734 woud
therefore be what s so provded n the Consttuton. Thus, any
confct between the provsons of R.A. No. 6734 and the provsons
of the Trpo Agreement w not have the effect of en|onng the
mpementaton of the Organc Act. Assumng for the sake of
argument that the Trpo Agreement s a bndng treaty or
nternatona agreement, t woud then consttute part of the aw of
the and. But as nterna aw t woud not be superor to R.A. No.
6734, an enactment of the Congress of the Phppnes, rather t
woud be n the same cass as the atter.
2. No, R.A. No. 6734 does not voate 1987 Consttuton.
a. Pettoner Abbas argues that R.A. No. 6734 uncondtonay
creates an autonomous regon n Mndanao, contrary to the
aforequoted provsons of the Consttuton on the autonomous
regon whch make the creaton of such regon dependent upon the
outcome of the pebscte.
The reference to the consttutona provson cannot be gossed
over for t ceary ndcates that the creaton of the autonomous
regon sha take pace ony n accord wth the consttutona
requrements. Second, there s a specfc provson n the Transtory
Provsons (Artce XIX) of the Organc Act, whch ncorporates
substantay the same requrements emboded n the Consttuton
and fs n the detas, thus:
SEC. 13. The creaton of the Autonomous Regon n Musm
Mndanao sha take effect when approved by a ma|orty of the
votes cast by the consttuent unts provded n paragraph (2) of
Sec. 1 of Artce II of ths Act n a pebscte whch sha be hed not
earer than nnety (90) days or ater than one hundred twenty
(120) days after the approva of ths Act: Pro*#&e&, That ony the
provnces and ctes votng favoraby n such pebscte sha be
ncuded n the Autonomous Regon n Musm Mndanao. The
provnces and ctes whch n the pebscte do not vote for ncuson
n the Autonomous Regon sha reman the exstng admnstratve
determnaton, merge the exstng regons.
Thus, under the Consttuton and R.A. No 6734, the creaton of the
autonomous regon sha take effect ony when approved by a
ma|orty of the votes cast by the consttuent unts n a pebscte,
and ony those provnces and ctes where a ma|orty vote n favor
of the Organc Act sha be ncuded n the autonomous regon. The
provnces and ctes wheren such a ma|orty s not attaned sha
not be ncuded n the autonomous regon. It may be that even f an
autonomous regon s created, not a of the thrteen (13) provnces
and nne (9) ctes mentoned n Artce II, secton 1 (2) of R.A. No.
6734 sha be ncuded theren. The snge pebscte contempated
by the Consttuton and R.A. No. 6734 w therefore be
determnatve of (1) whether there sha be an autonomous regon
n Musm Mndanao and (2) whch provnces and ctes, among
those enumerated n R.A. No. 6734, sha compromse t.
b. Equa protecton of the aw - Pettoner nssts that R.A. No. 6734
s unconsttutona because ony the provnces of Basan, Suu,
Taw-Taw, Lanao de Sur, Lanao de Norte and Magundanao and
the ctes of Maraw and Cotabato, and not a of the thrteen (13)
provnces and nne (9) ctes ncuded n the Organc Act, possess
such concurrence n hstorca and cutura hertage and other
reevant characterstcs. By ncudng areas whch do not strcty
share the same characterstc as the others, pettoner cams that
Congress has expanded the scope of the autonomous regon whch
the consttuton tsef has prescrbed to be mted.
Pettoner's argument s not tenabe. The Consttuton ays down
the standards by whch Congress sha determne whch areas
shoud consttute the autonomous regon. Guded by these
consttutona crtera, the ascertanment by Congress of the areas
that share common attrbutes s wthn the excusve ream of the
egsature's dscreton. Any revew of ths ascertanment woud
have to go nto the wsdom of the aw. SC cannot do ths wthout
dong voence to the separaton of governmenta powers
Moreover, equa protecton permts of reasonabe cassfcaton. The
guarantee of equa protecton s thus not nfrnged n ths case, the
cassfcaton havng been made by Congress on the bass of
substanta dstnctons as set forth by the Consttuton tsef.
c. Free exercse of regon - Pettoner questons the vadty of R.A.
No. 6734 on the ground that t voates the consttutona guarantee
on free exercse of regon |Art. III, sec. 5|. The ob|ecton centers on
a provson n the Organc Act whch mandates that shoud there be
any confct between the Musm Code |P.D. No. 1083| and the
Trba Code (st be enacted) on the one had, and the natona aw
on the other hand, the Shar'ah courts created under the same Act
shoud appy natona aw. Pettoners mantan that the samc aw
(Shar'ah) s derved from the Koran, whch makes t part of dvne
aw. Thus t may not be sub|ected to any "man-made" natona aw.
Pettoner Abbas supports ths ob|ecton by enumeratng possbe
nstances of confct between provsons of the Musm Code and
natona aw, wheren an appcaton of natona aw mght be
offensve to a Musm's regous convctons.
|udca power ncudes the duty to sette actua controverses
nvovng rghts whch are egay demandabe and enforceabe.
|Art. VIII, Sec. 11. As a condton precedent for the power to be
exercsed, an actua controversy between tgants must frst exst.
In the present case, no actua controversy between rea tgants
exsts. There are no confctng cams nvovng the appcaton of
natona aw resutng n an aeged voaton of regous freedom.
The Court n ths case may not be caed upon to resove what s
merey a perceved potenta confct between the provsons the
Musm Code and natona aw.

#&!O V (OC&#E(
DAVIDE; August 21, 1997
'&C#(
- speca cv acton for certorar and prohbton prayng to:
1. decare as unconsttutona:
(a) Ordnance No. 15-92, dated 15 December 1992, of the
Sanggunang Panungsod of Puerto Prncesa
(b) Offce Order No. 23, Seres of 1993, dated 22 |anuary 1993,
ssued by Actng Cty Mayor Amado L. Lucero of Puerto Prncesa
Cty; and
(c) Resouton No. 33, Ordnance No. 2, Seres of 1993, dated 19
February 1993, of the Sanggunang Panaawgan of Paawan;
2. en|on the enforcement thereof; and
3. restran respondents Provnca and Cty Prosecutors of Paawan
and Puerto Prncesa Cty and |udges of the Regona Tra Courts
and Muncpa Crcut Tra Courts n Paawan from assumng
|ursdcton over and hearng cases concernng the voaton of the
Ordnances and of the Offce Order.
- !rdinance No. 1D<9$
- took effect on |anuary 1, 1993
- entted: "AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE
FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM
|ANUARY 1, 1993 TO |ANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING
EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF,"
- P$r)ose@ to effectvey free our water from Cyande and other
Obnoxous substance
- unawfu for any person, busness enterprse, company to shp
out from Puerto Prncesa Cty to any pont of destnaton ether
va arcraft or seacraft of any ve fsh (a ave, breathng not
necessary movng, used for foor and for aquarum purposes) and
obster except SEA BASS (apahap), CATFISH (hto-hto), MUDFISH
(daag), AND MILKFISH FRIES.
- Penalt+: fne of not more than P5,000.00, mprsonment of not
more than 12 mos and/or canceaton of ther permt to do
busness n the Cty of Puerto Prncesa
< !99ice !rder No. $C, .eries o9 199C
- pursuant to Cty Ordnance No. PD426-14-74 (requrement of
mayors permt) and Ordnance No. 15-92 (bannng of shpment of
ve fsh and obster), authorzed and drected to check or conduct
ne%essar+ #ns)e%t#ons on cargoes contanng ve fsh and obster
to ascertan whether the shpper )ossesse& the re4$#re& Ma+orBs
Perm#t ssued by ths Offce and the shpment s %o*ere& /+
#n*o#%e or %learan%e #ss$e& /+ the lo%al off#%e of the -$rea$ of
;#sher#es an& 04$at#% >eso$r%es
- esolution No. CC
- prohbts catchng, gatherng, possessng, buyng, seng, and
shpment of ve marne cora dweng aquatc organsms comng
from Paawan waters (mameng, suno, panther/senorta, takobo,
mother of pear, gant cams, tger prawn, oba/green grouper,
tropca aquarum fshes) for a perod of fve years
- WHEREAS
- studes dscose ony 5% of the coras of Paawan reman to be
n exceent condton
- cannot be gansad that destructon and devastaton of the
coras of our provnce were prncpay due to ega fshng
actvtes ke dynamte fshng, sodum cyande fshng, use of
other obnoxous substances
- need to protect and preserve the exstence of the remanng
exceent coras and aow the devastated ones to regenerate
wthn 5 years
- RA 7160 (Loca Government Code of 1991) empowers the
Sanggunang Panaawgan to protect the envronment and
mpose approprate penates e.g. to dynamte fshng and other
forms of destructve fshng
< !rdinance No. $
- prohbts catchng, gatherng, possessng, buyng, seng, and
shpment of ve marne cora dweng aquatc organsms
comng from Paawan waters (mameng, suno, panther/senorta,
takobo, mother of pear, gant cams, tger prawn, oba/green
grouper, tropca aquarum fshes) for a perod of fve years
- Pol#%+ Cons#&erat#ons:
- Sec. 2-A (RA 7160: pocy of the state that subdvsons of the
State sha en|oy gen$#ne an& mean#ngf$l lo%al a$tonom+ to
be sef-reant communtes, more res)ons#*e an& a%%o$nta/le
oca government structure through a s+stem of
&e%entral#6at#on whereby oca government unts sha be
gven more )o.ers, a$thor#t+, res)ons#/#l#t#es an& reso$r%es.
- Sec. 5-A (RA 7160): Any far and reasonabe doubts as to the
e,#sten%e of the )o.er sha be nterpreted #n fa*or of the
Loca Government Unt concerned
- Sec. 5-C (RA 7160). The general .elfare )ro*#s#ons n ths
Code sha be l#/erall+ #nter)rete& to g#*e more )o.ers to LGU
n acceeratng e%onom#% &e*elo)ment and upgradng the
4$al#t+ of l#fe for the peope n the communty.
- Sec. 16 (RA 7160). Every LGU sha exercse the )o.ers
e,)ressl+ grante&, those ne%essar#l+ #m)l#e& therefrom, as
we as )o.ers ne%essar+, a))ro)r#ate, or #n%#&ental for ts
effcent and effectve governance; and those whch are
essenta to the promoton of the genera wefare.
- Pol#%+ of the Pro*#n%e of Pala.an: to protect and conserve the
marne resources of Paawan
- Penalt+@ fne of not more P5,000.00, and/or mprsonment of 6
mos to 12 mos and confscaton and forfeture of paraphernaa
- +etitioners #lle;e:
- Ordnances deprved them of due process of aw (no
consutaton), ther vehood (a the fshermen of Paawan), and
unduy restrcted them from the practce of ther trade (Arne
Shppers Assocaton of Paawan), n voaton of Art XII Sec 2 (2)
(3)
57
and Art XIII Sec 2
58
, 7
59
(1987).
- Offce Order No. 23 contaned no reguaton or condton under
whch the Mayor's permt coud be granted or dened (Mayor -
absoute authorty WON to ssue permt)
- Ordnance No. 2 atogether prohbted the catchng, gatherng,
possesson, buyng, seng and shppng of ve marne cora
dweng organsms, .#tho$t an+ &#st#n%t#on whether t was caught
or gathered through la.f$l f#sh#ng metho&
- fshermen to earn ther vehood n awfu ways
- members of Arne Shppers Assocaton were unduy
prevented from pursung ther vocaton and enterng contracts
essenta to carry out ther busness endeavors to a successfu
concuson
- f Ordnance No. 2 s nu and vod, TF crmna cases aganst
Tano et a have to be dsmssed
- Interests o9 petitioners
- Tano et a: to prevent prosecuton, tra and determnaton of the
crmna cases unt consttutonaty or egaty of the sad
Ordnances they aegedy voated sha have been resoved
5<
Art XII Sec 2 (2): The State sha protect the natons marne weath n ts archpeagc waters, terrtora sea,
and excusve economc zone, and reserve ts use and en|oyment excusvey to Fpno ctzens.
(3) The Congress may, by aw, aow sma-scae utzaton of natura resources by Fpno ctzens, as we as
cooperatve fsh farmng, wth prorty to subsstence fshermen and fsherworks n rvers, akes, bays and
agoons.
58
Art XIII Sec 2: The promoton of soca |ustce sha ncude the commtment to create economc opportuntes
based on freedom of ntatve and sef-reance.
59
Art XIII Sec 7: The State sha protect the rghts of subsstence fshermen, especay of oca communtes, to
the preferenta use of the communa marne and fshng resources, both nand and offshore. It sha provde
support to such fshermen through approprate technoogy and research, adequate fnanca, producton, and
marketng assstance, and other servces. The State sha aso protect, deveop, and conserve such resources.
The protecton sha extend to offshore fshng grounds of subsstence fshermen aganst foregn ntruson.
Fsherworks sha receve a |ust share form ther abor n the utzaton of marne and fshng resources.
- Arne Shppers Assocaton of Paawan and 77 fshermen:
decaratory reef because Ordnances adversey affects them
I((%E(
1. WON SC has |ursdcton
2. WON Ordnances 15-92, Offce Order 23, Ordnance 2 of
Resouton 33 are consttutona
3ELD
1.NO because there s cear dsregard for herarchy of courts and
pettoners have no cause of acton BUT SC opt to resove ths case
because of the fetme of the chaenged Ordnances s about to
end (1993-1998).
easonin;
Pet#t#oners "ano, et al A>" %a$se of a%t#on
- no cause of acton because there s no showng that the
pettoners fed a Moton to Ouash the nformaton n ther
respectve crmna cases that woud have ths remedy proper
therefore the pettoners cannot aege the ower courts of havng
acted n excess of ther |ursdcton or grave abuse of dscreton
- If pettoners fed moton to quash nformaton, t shoud have
contaned that the facts charged do not consttute an offense
because the ordnances n queston are unconsttutona. BUT f
ther Mot#on to <$ash was dened, the remedy s not certorar but
to go to tra wthout pre|udce to reteratng speca defenses and f
an adverse decson s rendered, an a))eal shoud have been the
proper remedy. And f there s an exceptona crcumstance where
s)e%#al %#*#l a%t#on for %ert#orar# may be fed, the ower court must
be accorded a Mot#on for >e%ons#&erat#on to aow tsef to correct
any errors
Pet#t#oners 0#rl#ne Sh#))ers et al A>" :e%larator+ >el#ef
- SC s not possessed of orgna |ursdcton over pettons for
decaratory reef even f ony questons of aw are nvoved beng
setted that the SC merey exercses appeate |ursdcton over
such pettons
Peo)le * C$aresma
- There s after a herarchy of courts. A drect nvocaton of the
Supreme Court's orgna |ursdcton to ssue these wrts shoud be
aowed ony when there are s)e%#al an& #m)ortant reasons
therefor, %learl+ an& s)e%#f#%all+ set o$t #n the )et#t#on. Ths s
estabshed pocy. strct adherence thereto n the ght of what t
perceves to be a growng tendency on the part of tgants and
awyers to have ther appcatons for the so-caed extraordnary
wrts. drecty and mmedatey by the hghest trbuna of the
and...
Sant#ago * Vas4$es
- |udca pocy that SC w not entertan drect resort to t uness
the redress desred cannot be obtaned n the approprate courts or
where exceptona and compeng crcumstances |ustfy avament
of a remedy wthn and cang for the exercse of ts prmary
|ursdcton
"5/, t&ese !rdinances :ere undoubtedl( enacted in t&e
e)ercise o9 po:ers under t&e ne: -4C relative to t&e
protection and preservation o9 t&e environment and are
t&us novel and or paramount importance. No 9urt&er dela(
t&en ma( be allo:ed.
2. YES, snce t s setted that aws, ncudng ordnances of LGUs
en|oy the presumpton of consttutonaty and the pettoners dd
not present cear, convncng and unequvoca evdence to
overthrow ths assumpton.
easonin;
Perata v COMELEC
- presumpton of consttutonaty of aws ncudng ordnances of
LGUs and to overthrow ths presumpton, t must be shown
beyond reasonabe doubt.
Subsstence or Margna Fshermen
- There s no showng that any of the pettoners quafy as
subsstence or margna fshermen
> Arne Shppng Assocaton of Paawan: a prvate assocaton
composed of marne merchants
> Vrgna and Robert Lm: merchants
> the rest of pettoners: f#shermen .#tho$t an+ 4$al#f#%at#on to
the#r stat$s
- Snce const does not provde for the defnton of subsstence or
margna
Marg#nal ;#sherman
- Generay, an ndvdua engaged n fshng whose margn of
return or reward n hs harvest of fsh s barey suffcent to yed a
proft or cover the cost of gatherng fsh
- Sec 13 RA7160 an ndvdua engaged n subsstence fshng
whch sha be mted to the sae, barter or exchange of
agrcutura or marne products produced by hmsef and hs
mmedate famy
S$/s#sten%e ;#shermen
- Generay, one whose catch yeds but the rreducbe mnmum
for hs vehood
0rt R77 Se% 2
- am prmary not to bestow any rght of subsstence fshermen
but to ay stress on the duty of the State to protect the natons
marne weath
- provson merey recognzes prorty to subsstence fshermen
Se% 149 of 59C
- ony provson of aw whch speaks of preferenta rght of
margna fshermen
1o#nt 0&m#n#strat#*e 2r&er No. ( (1996!
- prescrbed gudenes concernng preferenta treatment of sma
fsherfok reatve to fshery rght n Sec 149 but ths case does
not nvove such fshery rght
Protecton of the Envronment v Rght of Margna Fshermen
0rt R777 Se% 7
- speaks not ony of communa marne and fshng resources but
of ther protecton, deveopment, and conservaton
0rt R77 Se% 2 (>egal#an :o%tr#ne!
- marne resources beong to the State and EDU sha be under
fu contro and supervson of the State
Const#t$t#onal Comm#ss#on
- between Rodrgo and Bengzon
- margna fshermen sub|ect to rues and reguatons and oca
aws
2)osa * ;a%toran
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(0(
- even though baanced and heathfu ecoogy s under
Decaraton of Prncpes and State Poces t does not foow that
s ess mportant the cv and potca rghts enshrned n the B
of Rghts. for t concerns sef-preservaton and sef-
perpetuaton. ths basc rght need not be wrtten n the
Consttuton for they are assumed to exst from the ncepton of
humanknd
Se% 16 59C
- rght of peope to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy n Genera
Wefare Cause
Reazaton of the Genera Wefare Cause, Decentrazaton and
Exercse of Poce Power
Se% (%! 59C
- genera wefare provsons of the LGC sha be beray
nterpreted to gve more powers to the LGU n acceeratng
economc deveopment and upgradng the quaty of fe
;#sher+ 5a.s
- that LGU may enforce under Sec 17 n muncpa water ncude
- PD 704
- PD 1015 - cosed season
- PD 1219 - exporaton, expotaton, utzaton, conservaton of
cora resources
- PD 5474 - unawfu to catch, se, etc. pon durng cosed
season
- PD 6451 - prohbts and punshes eectrofshng
Memoran&$m of 0greement (1994!
- between Dept of Agrcuture and DILG
- ssuance of permts to construct fsh cages, gather aquarum
fshes, gather kaps shes, gather/cuture sheed mousks,
estabsh seaweed farms, estabsh cuture pears, transports fsh
and fshery products and estabshment of cosed season
>0 7611 Strateg#% En*#ronment Plan for Pala.an 0%t
- comprehensve framework for sustanabe deveopment of
Paawan compatbe wth protectng and enhancng the natura
resources and endangered envronment of the provnce whch
sha serve to gude the oca government of Paawan nd the
government agences concerned n the formuaton and
mpementaton of pans, programs and pro|ects affectng
Paawan
Prncpa Ob|ectves of Ordnances
1) estabsh cosed season for the speces covered n the sad
ordnances for a perod of fve years
2) to protect the coras n the marne waters of Puerto Prncesa
and Paawan from further destructon due to ega fshng
actvtes
|ursdcton of BFAR or LGU
- Beoso: Lack of authorty of Sanggunang Panungsod of Puerto
Prncesa to enact Ordnance 15 Seres of 1992 because supposed
to be wthn the |ursdcton and responsbty of BFAR (Fsheres
and Aquatc Resources) under PD 704 otherwse known as Fsheres
Act of 1975 TF unenforceabe for ack of approva by the Secretary
of DNR (Nat Res)
- Ma|orty: BFAR |ursdcton over management, conservaton,
deveopment, etc not a-encompassng; excudes muncpa waters;
BFAR no onger under DNR, now under DoA TF ncorrect to
chaenge that ordnances unenforceabe because no approva of
Sec of DENR but of Sec of DoA nstead; BUT ths can be dspensed
wth because of Repeang Caus of LGC nsofar as those provsons
are nconsstent and power to enact ordnances to enhance rght of
peope to a baanced ecoogy contaned n the Genera Wefare
Cause n the LGC
0ecision Petton dsmssed for ack of mert and TRO fted
2otin; 10 concur, 4 dssent, 1 on eave

(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
"E!DO4& D0on0urE
- fuy concurs wth the decson
- two mportant ponts: uphod presumpton of vadty of the
ordnances n vew of tota absence of evdence that undermne
ther factua bass AND need not aow shortcrcutng of the norma
process of ad|udcaton on the mere pea that uness we take
cognzance of pettons ke ths, by-passng the tra courts, aeged
voatons of consttutona rghts w be eft unprotected, when the
matter can be very we be ooked nto by tra courts and n fact t
shoud be brought there
.ELLO(ILLO D+issentE
- Lack of authorty of Sanggunang Panungsod of Puerto Prncesa to
enact Ordnance 15 Seres of 1992 because supposed to be wthn
the |ursdcton and responsbty of BFAR (Fsheres and Aquatc
Resources) under PD 704 otherwse known as Fsheres Act of 1975
TF unenforceabe for ack of approva by the Secretary of DNR (Nat
Res)
POVI!CE O' .&#&!G&( V O"%LO
CALLE|O; May 30, 2004
'&C#(
- EO G; X ssued by Pres. Estrada on 12/07/98 entted
"Estabshng a Program for Devouton Ad|ustment and
Equazaton":
Devolution &+<ustment an+ ELuali,ation 'un+ was created
DBM was drected to set asde an amount to be determned by
the Oversght Commttee based on apprasa surveys by DILG
Oversig*t Committee (whch was consttuted under Loca
Govt Code of 1991) has been tasked to ssue mpementng
rues and reguatons governng equtabe aocaton and
dstrbuton of the sad fund to the LGUs
- G&& o/ 1FFF - In ths Genera Appropratons Act, the program
was renamed as Lo0al GovAt (ervi0e ELuali,ation 'un+ (LGSEF)
Php96.78B was the aotted share of the LGUs n the IR taxes
"Speca Provsons" ncuded that the amo$nt of Ph)- shall /e
earmar=e& for 59SE;, an& #t shall /e release& to the 59Es
s$/3e%t to the 7>> (7m)lement#ng >$les an& >eg$lat#ons!
)res%r#/e& /+ the 2*ers#ght Comm#ttee
Interna Revenue Aotment sha be reeased drecty by the
DBM to the LGUs concerned
- OCD esolutions - Oversght Commttee allo0ate+ P*p5. as
foows:
Php2B n accordance wth formua sharng scheme prescrbed
under LGC of 1991
Php2B aocated wth a modfed CODEF sharng scheme
Php1B to be earmarked to support oca affrmatve acton
pro|ects and other prorty ntatves; proposas were to be
submtted by the LGUs to the Oversght Commttee sub|ect to
ts approva (OC prescrbed a Cr#ter#a for El#g#/#l#t+)
- G&& o/ IJJJ - Aso contaned a provso earmarkng Php5B of the
IRA for the LGSEF (smar to GAA of 1999)
Php3.5B shared by the LGUs usng a percentage-sharng
formua agreed upon by the varous Leagues of LGUs
Php1.5B to be earmarked for pro|ects, whch are to be endorsed
to and approved by the Oversght Commttee
- G&& o/ IJJ1 - GAA of 2000 was deemed re-enacted and OC
aocated Php5B LGSEF as foows:
Php3B accordng to the modfed coda formua
Php1.9B s earmarked for prorty pro|ects
Php100M for capabty budng fund sub|ect to OCs approva
- Pro%e&$re
Provin0e o/ .atangas, represented by Gov. "&!D&!&( fed a
petton for CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, and MANDAMUS to decare
as unconsttutona the assaed provsos n GAA of 99, 00, 01 and
OCD Resoutons and was ssued aganst E:e0. (e0. O"%LO
(Charman of Oversght Commttee on Devouton), (e0.
.O!CODI! (Dept. of Budget and Mngmt.), and (e0. LI!& (DILG)
- Pettoners grounds -
Voatve of Sec.6 Art.10 of 1987 Const (|ust share must be
automatcay reeased to the LGUs)
Vestng the Oversght Commttee wth authorty n determnng
dstrbuton and reease of LGSEF s contrary to the prncpe of
oca autonomy
Improper sharng scheme (provsos modfed sec.285 of LGC)
resutng to an ega amendment by the Executve branch of
substantve aw
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON pettoner has ega standng
2. WON petton nvoves factua questons propery cognzabe by
ower courts
3. WON petton has been rendered moot and academc
S$/stant#*e
4. WON assaed provsos voate consttutona provson on oca
autonomy
5. WON the assaed provsos resut to a proper amendment of
sharng scheme provded n LGC
3ELD
1. Yes.
- #*e petitioner see9s relie/ in or+er to prote0t or vin+i0ate
its own interests5 w*i0* pertains to t*e LG%sA s*are in t*e
national ta:es (I&). The potenta n|ury t stands to suffer s the
dmnuton of ts share n the IRA, whch s ceary "a pan, drect
and adequate nterest."
2. No.
- It involves a legal Luestion (on w*at is t*e proper legal
interpretation) w*i0* is to 6e settle+ 61 t*e (C. Aso, the
facts necessary to resove the ssue need not be determned by a
tra court snce they are not dsputed.
3. No.
- Even f the LGSEF for 99, 00, and 01 have aready been
reeased, there s st compeng reason for the SC to resove
substantve ssues.
- >Even in 0ases w*ere supervening events5 w*et*er
inten+e+ or a00i+ental5 *a+ ma+e t*e 0ases moot5 t*e Court
+i+ not *esitate to resolve t*e legal or 0onstitutional issues
raise+ to /ormulate 0ontrolling prin0iples to gui+e t*e
6en0*5 6ar an+ pu6li0.?
!biter
- Sec.25 Art.2: The State sha ensure the autonomy of oca
governments.
- Sec.2 Art.10: The terrtora and potca subdvsons sha en|oy
oca autonomy.
- Presdents power over LGUs s one of genera supervson, and
ths excudes power of contro. (:r#lon *. 5#m@ "The supervsor
merey sees to t that the rues are foowed, but he hmsef does
not ay down such rues, nor does he have the dscreton to modfy
or repace them.")
- Autonomy s ether DECENTRALIZATION of ADMINISTRATION or
decentrazaton of POWER.
- LOCAL AUTONOMY means a more responsve and accountabe
oca government structure nsttuted through a system of
decentrazaton. LGUs are sub|ect to reguaton, however mted,
for no other purpose than to enhance sef-government.
- Loca autonomy ncudes both ADMINISTRATIVE (autonomy n the
exercse of ts functons) and FISCAL AUTONOMY (power to create
own sources of revenue, n addton to equtabe share n natona
taxes.)
4. Yes.
- (e0.8 &rt.1J mandates that -
o LGUs sha have a |UST SHARE n the NATIONAL TAXES
o "|ust share" sha be DETERMINED BY LAW
o "|ust share" sha be AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED to the LGUs
- &s su0*5 t*e LG%s are !O# reLuire+ to per/orm an1 a0t to
re0eive t*e ><ust s*are? a00ruing to t*em /rom national
ta:es (Sec.286 LGC: It sha be reeased to them wthout need of
further acton.") #*e provision is I"PE&#IVE. Any retenton s
prohbted.
- atio "o s$/3e%t the &#str#/$t#on an& release of the 59SE; to
#m)lement#ng r$les an& reg$lat#ons, #n%l$&#ng me%han#sms
)res%r#/e& /+ the 2C, as san%t#one& /+ the )ro*#sos #n the 900s of
G99, G00, G01 an& the 2C: >esol$t#ons ma=es the release N2"
a$tomat#%, .h#%h *#olates the Const#t$t#on.
- OC exercsng |ursdcton and contro contradcts prncpe of oca
autonomy. There s aso NO STATUTORY BASIS for ths power snce
the OC was created merey to formuate rues and reguatons for
effcent mpementaton of the LGC (ony ad hoc character)
- As evdent from the Con-Com deberatons, the Automatc reease
provson was ntended to GUARANTEE prncpe of oca autonomy.
5. No.
- #*e s*aring s0*eme provi+e+ /or in t*e LGC is /i:e+ an+
ma1 not 6e re+u0e+ e:0ept >in t*e event t*at t*e national
government in0urs an unmanagea6le pu6li0 se0tor +e/i0it.?
(Sec.285 LGC: Provnces - 23%, Ctes - 23%, Muncpates - 34%,
Barangays - 20%)
- Congress ma1 amen+ LGC 6ut s*oul+ +o so t*roug* a
separate law5 an+ not <ust t*roug* an appropriations law.
0ecision Petton granted.
Provsons reatng to LGSEF decared unconsttutona.
Respondents are drected to rectfy unawfu dstrbuton of
LGSEF.
Entre IRA to be reeased automatcay wthout further acton by
LGUs.
"I&!D& V &G%IE
PUNO; September 16, 1999
'&C#(
- Speca Cv Acton n Supreme Court. of prohbton wth prayer
for premnary n|uncton.
- Pettoners are Mranda, mayor of Santago Cty at tme of fng of
petton, and resdents of Santago Cty (ocated n Provnce of
Isabea)
- Respondents are executve, oca government and budget
secretares, and pubc offcas of the provnce of Isabea
- Intervenor s wnner of addtona seat n provnca board brought
about by the "reaocaton."
- Assaed s the consttutonaty of RA 8528 -AN ACT
AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF RA 7720(AN ACT CONVERTING
THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTIAGO INTO AN INDEPENDENT
COMPONENT CITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY OF SANTIAGO.)
- The RA deetes the word "ndependent" and treats
Santago Cty |ust as a component cty. Its terrtory and terrtora
|ursdcton remans unchanged.
- Pettoners beeve that ths amounts to a converson of
Santago Cty and must therefore be decded by the ctys ctzens
n a pebscte, of whch the RA has no provsons provded for.
Respondents, on the other hand, deem that ths s a mere
recassfcaton.
I((%E(
2. WON a pebscte must be provded
3ELD
1. atio The enumeraton n Secton 10, Artce X of the 1987
Consttuton sha ncude any matera change n the potca and
economc rghts of the oca government unt(s) drecty affected.
- Pettoners have standng. The change w affect the powers of
the mayor and the votng exercse of resdents.
- Not a potca queston. Pettoners cam that under Sec. 10, Art.
X of the 1987 Consttuton they have a rght to approve or
dsapprove RA 8528 n a pebscte before t can be enforced. The
Court has the duty to ensure that Congress compes wth the
Consttuton n aw-makng.
2. atio The change from ndependent component cty to
component cty sha amount to a converson whch therefore
requres a pebscte as contempated n Rue II, Artce 6, paragraph
(f) (1) of the Impementng Rues and Reguatons of the Loca
Government Code.
- Sec. 10, Art. X of the 1987 Consttuton provdes:
HNo )ro*#n%e, %#t+, m$n#%#)al#t+, or /aranga+ ma+ /e %reate&, or
&#*#&e&, merge&, or a/ol#she&, or #ts /o$n&ar+ s$/stant#all+ altere&
e,%e)t #n a%%or&an%e .#th the %r#ter#a esta/l#she& #n the lo%al
go*ernment %o&e an& s$/3e%t to a))ro*al /+ a ma3or#t+ of the
*otes %ast #n a )le/#s%#te #n the )ol#t#%al $n#ts &#re%tl+ affe%te&.J
- Respondents emphasze that the change provded n the RA s not
among those enumerated n the foregong provson. Moreover, the
terrtory and boundares of Santago Cty remaned unchanged.
- But the ponente ponts out that there s a common denomnator
among those enumerated n the provson -a of them resut to a
matera change n the potca and economc rghts of the oca
government unts drecty affected and the peope theren. The
same appes to the present case.
- As the pettoners mentoned, the change of Santago Cty from
ndependent component cty to component cty w have the
foowng effects:
From beng drecty under the Offce of the Presdent, the cty
w be reverted to the Provnca Government of Isabea,
thereby ncreasng ts and area and subsequenty ncreasng
ts share n the nterna revenue aotment.
Taxes whch the cty coects for ts beneft w be redefned
and may be shared wth the provnce.
Aocaton of operatng funds w now come from the Provnce
whch amounts to a decrease n the ctys funds.
Regstered voters of Santago Cty w vote for and can be
voted as provnca offcas
Cty offcas, especay the mayor, w now be under the
contro of the Provnca Governor
Resoutons and ordnances by the Sanggunang Panungsod
w now be sub|ect to revew of the Sanggunang
Panaawgan
- Ceary ths amounts to a converson f not a downgrade of
Santago Cty.
- Rue II, Artce 6, paragraph (f) (1) of the Impementng Rues and
Reguatons of the Loca Government Code s n accord wth the
Consttuton when t provdes that:
- "(f) Pebscte -(1) no creaton, %on*ers#on, dvson, merger,
aboton, or substanta ateraton of boundares of LGUs sha take
effect uness approved by a ma|orty of the votes cast n a
pebscte caed for the purpose n the LGU or LGUs affected. The
pebscte sha be conducted by the Commsson on Eectons
(COMELEC) wthn one hundred twenty (120) days from the
effectvty of the aw or ordnance prescrbng such acton, uness
sad aw or ordnance fxes another date."
0ecision Petton s granted. Repubc Act No. 8528 s decared
unconsttutona and the wrt of prohbton s hereby ssued
commandng the respondents to desst from mpementng sad
aw.
2otin; 10 concur; 4 dssent
#O&L.& V "%!ICIP&LI#2
MELENCIO-HERRERA; |anuary 29, 1987
'&C#(
- Resdents and taxpayers of Butuan Cty wth Torraba, a member
of the Sanggunang Pangungsod of the same cty contend that
Batas Pambansa (BP) 56, creatng the Muncpaty of Sbagat,
Provnce of Agusan de Sur, voated Sec. 3, Art. 11 of the 1973
Consttuton: No )ro*#n%e, %#t+, m$n#%#)al#t+, or /arr#o ma+ /e
%reate&, &#*#&e&, merge&, a/ol#she&, or #ts /o$n&ar+ s$/stant#all+
altere&, e,%e)t #n a%%or&an%e .#th the %r#ter#a esta/l#she& #n the
5o%al 9o*ernment Co&e, an& s$/3e%t to the a))ro*al /+ a ma3or#t+
of the *otes %ast #n a )le/#s%#te #n the $n#t or $n#ts affe%te&.
Pettoners argue that under the sad provson, the Loca
Government Code must frst be enacted to determne the crtera of
the creaton, dvson, merger, aboton, or substanta ateraton of
the boundary of any provnce, muncpaty, or barro; and that
snce no Loca Government Code had as yet been enacted as of the
date BP 56 was passed, the statute coud not have possby
comped wth any crtera when respondent Muncpaty was
created. Hence, t s nu and vod.
- The Loca Government Code was enacted ony on 10 February
1983 so that when BP 56 was enacted, the Code was not yet n
exstence. A pebscte had aso been conducted among the peope
of the unt/unts affected by the creaton of the new Muncpaty,
who expressed approva thereof; and that offcas of the newy
created Muncpaty had been apponted and had assumed there
respectve postons as such.
I((%E
WON BP Bg 56 s unconsttutona.
3ELD
- No. The absence of the Loca Government Code at the tme of ts
enactment dd not curta nor was t ntended to crppe egsatve
competence to create muncpa corporatons. Sec. 3, Art. 11 of the
1973 does not prohbt the modfcaton of terrtora and potca
subdvsons before the enactment of the Loca Government Code.
It contans no requrement that the Loca Government Code s a
condton s#ne 4$a non for creatng a new muncpaty, n much the
same way that creatng a new muncpaty does not precude the
enactment of a Loca Government Code. What the consttutona
provson means s that the once sad Code s enacted, the creaton,
modfcaton or dssouton of oca government unts shoud
conform to the crtera thus ad down. In the nterregnum, before
the enactment of such code, the egsatve power remans penary
except that the creaton of the new oca government unt shoud
be approved by the peope concerned n a pebscte caed for the
purpose.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(0'
- The creaton of the new Muncpaty of Sbagat conformed to sad
requste. A pebscte was conducted and the peope of the
unt/unts affected endorsed and approved the creaton of the new
oca government unt. Further, t s a ong-recognzed prncpe that
the power to create a muncpa corporaton s essentay
egsatve n nature. Absent any consttutona mtatons, a
egsatve body may create any corporaton t deems essenta for
the more effcent admnstraton of government. The creaton of
the new muncpaty of Sbagat was a vad exercse of the
egsatve power then vested by the 1973 Consttuton n the
Interm Batasang Pambansa.
#&! V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
ALAMPAY; |uy 11, 1986
'&C#(
- A pebscte was hed on |anuary 3, 1986 whch dvded the
provnce of Negros Occdenta nto two - Negros de Norte and
Negros Occdenta.
- The pettoners, resdents of the provnce of Negros Occdenta,
chaenge the consttutonaty of the Batas Pambansa Bg. 885, the
act whch created Negros de Norte. The sad aw provdes that
some ctes from the sand of Negros woud be separated n order
to create the new provnce, sub|ect to a concurrence of the
ma|orty n a pebscte.
- The pettoners contend that the act s not n accord wth the Loca
Government Code as n Artce 11, Secton 3 of the Consttuton.
The Consttuton provdes that a pebscte be hed "n the unt or
unts affected". The pettoners sad that Negros Occdenta s a unt
affected by the creaton of the new provnce, thus, they shoud be
aowed to vote. Aso, they contend that the mnmum requrement
of 3500 square kometers for the creaton of a new provnce (as
provded by the Loca Government Code) has not been comped
snce the Negros de Norte s ony comprsed of 2856.56 square
kometers. They pray that the pebscte be decared nu and vod,
and that the Court order the COMELEC to conduct another
pebscte whch ncudes Negros Occdenta.
- The respondents, meanwhe, argue that the term "unt or unts
affected" does not ncude Negros Occdenta. As such, they cted a
Paredes vs. Executve Secretary, where the court rued that ony
the members of the newy created barangay are aowed to vote n
the pebscte. Aso, they contend that Negros de Norte actuay s
comprsed of 4,019.95 square kometers, thus, t has met the
requrement of the LGC. Lasty, they argue that snce the pebscte
has aready happened, the case s moot and academc.
I((%E(
1. WON the case s moot and academc
2. WON the act comped wth the consttutona requrements
3ELD
1. No. The case cannot be truy vewed as moot and academc. The
egaty of the pebscte tsef s beng chaenged by the
pettoners. The Court has the duty to repudate acts whch run
counter to the Consttuton, done by whatever branch of
government.
2. No.
Ple/#s%#te
- The provnce of the Negros Occdenta shoud be aowed to vote
n the pebscte. It s cear that they are part of the "unts affected"
by the creaton of the new provnce, t beng the "parent provnce".
- The case cted by the pettoners, Paredes vs. Executve
Secretary, s dfferent wth the case at bar. It merey ncudes the
dvson of a barangay, the smaest potca unt. Ths case refers
to a dvson of the argest potca unt, a barangay, thus there w
be more probems nvoved. The Court aso ooked at the dssent of
|ustce Vcente Abad Santos n that case, whch mmcs they
decson of the Court n ths case.
- Lookng at Paramentary B No. 3644, the b wheren BP Bg.
885 orgnated, t ceary sad that a pebscte "sha be conducted
n the areas affected". BP Bg. 885, on the other hand, says that a
pebscte "sha be conducted n the proposed new provnce whch
are the areas affected". The Court found no ega bass for the
change.
- The Court aso decared the pronouncement n Paredes vs
Executve Secretary s abandoned.
- However, the act beng unconsttutona, the Court cannot drect
the conduct of a new pebscte, there beng no ega bass to do so.
M#n#m$m area re4$#rement
- Upon examnng the certfcaton ssued by the Provnca
Treasurer, the new provnce, at most, has a and area of ony
2765.4 square kometers. Respondents contenton that the term
"and area" s meant to ncude not ony and, but water aso cannot
be apprecated. The Court ooked at the ast sentence of the frst
paragraph of Sec 197 of the LGC whch states that "the terrtory
need not be contguous f t comprses two or more sands". It s
cear that the use of the word terrtory has reference ony to and
mass snce t speaks of terrtory not needng to be contguous or
ad|acent to each other.
0ecision Petton granted. BP Bg. 885 decared unconsttutona.
The pebscte s vod as we as the procamaton of Negros de
Norte as a new provnce and the appontment of ts new offcas.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
#EE3&!)EE
- congratuated the Court n ts unanmty n the decson.
- Addtona facts: Act was approved n "deep secrecy and
nordnate haste" n
the ast day of sesson, Dec 3, 1985. Though the act provded that a
pebscte be conducted 120 days ts approva, but the pebscte
was hed n |an 3, 1986. The pettoners fed the case n Dec 23,
1985, even as no prnted copes of the Act were avaabe, snce ts
has not been pubshed. Snce t was Chrstmas break at that tme,
the petton was ony acted upon by the Court ony on |anuary 7,
1986, after the pebscte has been hed.
CODILLE& .O&D CO&LI#IO! V CO""I((IO! O! &%DI#
CORTES; |anuary 29, 1990
'&C#(
- Note ea+ /irst se0. 15-I15 &rt. B o/ t*e 1F;H Constitution
/or t*is 0ase.
- The consttutonaty of Executve Order No. 220, dated |uy
15,1987, whch created the Cordera Admnstratve Regon, s
assaed on the prmary ground that t pre-empts the enactment of
an organc act by the Congress (see sec. 18, Art. X) and the
creaton of the autonomous regon n the Corderas condtona on
the approva of the act through a pebscte.
- Executve Order No. 220, ssued by the Presdent n the exercse
of her egsatve powers under Art. XVIII, sec. 6 of the 1987
Consttuton, created the Cordera Admnstratve Regon (CAR),
whch covers the provnces of Abra, Benguet, Ifugao, Kanga-
Apayao and Mountan Provnce and the Cty of Baguo |secs. 1 and
2|.
- It was created to acceerate economc and soca growth n the
regon and to prepare for the estabshment of the autonomous
regon n the Corderas |sec. 3|.
- Its man functon s to coordnate the pannng and
mpementaton of programs and servces n the regon,
partcuary, to coordnate wth the oca government unts as we
as wth the executve departments of the Natona Government n
the supervson of fed offces and n dentfyng, pannng,
montorng, and acceptng pro|ects and actvtes n the regon |sec.
5)|.
- It sha aso montor the mpementaton of a ongong natona
and oca government pro|ects n the regon.
- The CAR sha have a Cordera Regona Assemby as a pocy
formuatng body and a Cordera Executve Board as an
mpementng arm (secs. 7, 8 and 10|.
- The CAR and the Assemby and Executve Board sha exst unt
such tme as the autonomous regona government s estabshed
and organzed |sec. 17|.
- Expanng the ratonae for the ssuance of E.O. No. 220, ts ast
"Whereas" cause provdes:
WHEREAS, pendng the convenng of the frst Congress and the
enactment of the organc act for a Cordera autonomous regon,
there s an urgent need, n the nterest of natona securty and
pubc order, for the Presdent to reorganze mmedatey the
exstng admnstratve structure n the Corderas to sut t to the
exstng potca reates theren and the Government's egtmate
concerns n the areas, wthout attemptng to pre-empt the
consttutona duty of the frst Congress to undertake the creaton
of an autonomous regon on a permanent bass.
- Durng the pendency of ths case, Repubc Act No. 6766 entted
D0n 0%t Pro*#&#ng for an 2rgan#% 0%t for the Cor&#llera 0$tonomo$s
>eg#on," was enacted and sgned nto aw. The Act recognzes the
CAR and the offces and agences created under E.O. No. 220 and
ts transtory nature.
I((%E
1. WON EO No. 220 s unconsttutona because t pre-empts the
enactment of an organc act by the Congress and the creaton of
the autonomous regon n the Corderas condtona on the
approva of the sad organc act through a pebscte
2. WON EO No. 220 created a new terrtora and potca
subdvson wth CAR
3. WON the creaton of the CAR contravened the consttutona
guarantee of the oca autonomy for the provnces
3ELD
1. EO. No. 220 s consttutona.
- Pettoners assertons that the Presdent has pre-empted
Congress from ts mandated task of enactng sad organc act.
- EO No. 220 does not create the autonomous regon
contempated n the Consttuton. It merey provdes for transtory
measures n antcpaton of the enactment of an organc act and
the creaton of an autonomous regon. In short, t prepares the
ground for autonomy.
- The Presdent s actng on a contngency. The compex
procedure n Art. X of the Consttuton w take tme.
o The Presdent, n 1987 st exercsng egsatve powers, as
the frst Congress had not yet convened, saw t ft to provde
for some measures to address the urgent needs of the
Corderas n the meantme that the organc act had not yet
been passed and the autonomous regon created.
- The transtory nature of the CAR does not necessary mean that t
s, as pettoner Cordera Broad Coaton asserts, "the nterm
autonomous regon n the Corderas."
o EO No. 220 created a regon, coverng a specfed area, for
admnstratve purposes wth the man ob|ectve of
coordnatng the pannng and mpementaton of programs
and servces |secs. 2 and 5|.
o The bodes created by E.O. No. 220 do not suppant the
exstng oca governmenta structure, nor are they
autonomous government agences. They merey consttute
the mechansm for an "umbrea" that brngs together the
exstng oca governments, the agences of the Natona
Government, the ethno-ngustc groups or trbes, and non-
governmenta organzatons n a concerted effort to spur
deveopment n the Corderas.
- The Congress was convened. It enacted Repubc Act No. 6658,
whch created the Cordera Regona Consutatve Commsson.
(per Sec. 18, Art. X). The Presdent then apponted ts members.
o The commsson prepared a draft organc act, whch became
the bass for the deberatons of the Senate and the House of
Representatves. The resut was Repubc Act No. 6766, the
organc act for the Cordera autonomous regon, whch was
sgned nto aw on October 23, 1989.
o A pebscte for the approva of the organc act, to be
conducted shorty, sha compete the process outned n the
Consttuton, n the meantme, E.O. No. 220 had been n force
and effect for more than two years and despte E.O. No. 220,
the autonomous regon n the Corderas s st to be created.
Events have shown that pettoners' fear that E.O. No. 220
was a "shortcut" for the creaton of the autonomous regon n
the Corderas was totay unfounded.
2. It dd not create a new terrtora and potca subdvson or
merge exstng ones nto a arger subdvson.
- The CAR s not a pubc corporaton or a terrtora and potca
subdvson. It does not have a separate |urdca personaty, unke
provnces, ctes and muncpates.
o Nether s t vested wth the powers that are normay granted
to pubc corporatons, e.g. the power to sue and be sued, the
power to own and dspose of property, the power to create ts
own sources of revenue, etc.
o As stated earer, the CAR was created prmary to coordnate
the pannng and mpementaton of programs and servces n
the covered areas.
- Consderng the contro and supervson exercsed by the
Presdent over the CAR and the offces created under E.O. No. 220,
and consderng further the ndspensabe partcpaton of the ne
departments of the Natona Government, the CAR may be
consdered more than anythng ese as a regona coordnatng
agency of the Natona Government, smar to the regona
deveopment councs whch the Presdent may create under the
Consttuton (Art. X, see. 14).
o These councs are "composed of oca government offcas,
regona heads of departments and other government offces,
and representatves from non-governmenta organzatons
wthn the regon for purposes of admnstratve
decentrazaton to strengthen the autonomy of the unts
theren and to acceerate the economc and soca growth and
deveopment of the unts n the regon."
3. The creaton of autonomous regons n Musm Mndanao and the
Corderas, whch s pecuar to the 1987 Consttuton,
contempates the grant of potca autonomy and not |ust
admnstratve autonomy to these regons. Thus, the provson n
the Consttuton for an autonomous regona government wth a
basc structure consstng of an executve department and a
egsatve assemby and speca courts wth persona, famy and
property aw |ursdcton n each of the autonomous regons |Art. X,
sec. 18|.
- The concept of oca autonomy:
It must be carfed that the consttutona guarantee of oca
autonomy n the Consttuton |Art. X, sec. 2| refers to the
admnstratve autonomy of oca government unts or, cast n
more technca anguage, the decentrazaton of government
authorty |Vegas v. Subdo, G.R. No. L31004, |anuary 8,
1971, 37 SCRA 11.|
The CAR s a mere transtory coordnatng agency that woud
prepare the stage for potca autonomy for the Corderas. It
fs n the resutng gap n the process of transformng a group
of ad|acent terrtora and potca subdvsons aready
en|oyng oca or admnstratve autonomy nto an
autonomous regon vested wth potca autonomy.
0ecision Petton to decare EO No. 220 as unconsttutona s
DISMISSED for ack of mert.
2otin; A 15 |ustces concurred wth |. Guterrez, |r. concurrng n
the resut snce for hm the ssue has become moot and academc
because Repubc Acts No. 6658 and No. 6766 superseded the
assaed EO aready.
ODILLO V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
GUTIERREZ; December 4, 1990
'&C#(
- |anuary 30, 1990, pursuant to Repubc Act No. 6766 entted "An
Act Provdng for an Organc Act for the Cordera Autonomous
Regon", the peope of the provnces of Benguet, Mountan
Provnce, Ifugao, Abra and Kanga-Apayao and the cty of Baguo
cast ther votes n a pebscte.
- Resuts of pebscte: approved by ma|orty of 5,889 votes n
Ifugao, re|ected by 148,676 n the rest provnces and cty. The
provnce of Ifugao makes up ony 11% of tota popuaton, and as
such has the second smaest number of nhabtants, of the
abovementoned areas.
- February 14, 1990, COMELEC ssued Resouton No. 2259 statng
that the Organc Act for the Regon has been approved and/or
ratfed by ma|orty of votes cast ony n the provnce of Ifugao.
Secretary of |ustce aso ssued a memorandum for the Presdent
reteratng COMELEC resouton, statng that ".Ifugao beng the
ony provnce whch voted favoraby - then. Aone, egay and
vady consttutes CAR."
- March 8, 1990, Congress ebacted Repubc Act No. 6861 settng
eectons n CAR of Ifugao on frst Monday of March 1991.
- Even before COMELEC resouton, Executve Secretary ssued
February 5, 1990 a memorandum grantng authorty to wnd up the
affars of the Cordera Executve Board and Cordera Regona
Assemby created under Executve Order No. 220.
- March 30, 1990, Presdent ssued Admnstratve Order No. 160
decarng among others that the Cordera Executve Board and
Cordera Regona Assemby and a offces under Executve Order
No. 220 were aboshed n vew of the ratfcaton of Organc Act.
- Pettoners: there can be no vad Cordera Autonomous Regon n
ony one provnce as the Consttuton and Repubc Act No. 6766
requre that the sad Regon be composed of more than one
consttuent unt.
- Pettoners therefore pray that the court:
a. decare nu and vod COMELEC resouton No. 2259, the
memorandum of the Secretary of |ustce, Admnstratve Order
No. 160, and Repubc Act No. 6861 and prohbt and restran
the respondents from mpementng the same and spendng
pubc funds for the purpose
b. decare Executve Order No. 220 consttutng the Cordera
Executve Board and the Cordera Regona Assemby and
other offces to be st n force and effect unt another organc
aw for the Autonomous Regon sha have been enacted by
Congress and the same s duy ratfed by the voters n the
consttuent unts.
I((%E
WON the provnce of Ifugao, beng the ony provnce whch voted
favoraby for the creaton of the Cordera Autonomous Regon can,
aone, egay and vady consttute such regon.
3ELD
- The soe provnce of Ifugao cannot vady consttute the Cordera
Autonomous Regon.
a. The keyword ns Artce X, Secton 15 of the 1987
Consttuton - provnces, ctes, muncpates and geographca
areas connote that "regon" s to be made up of more than one
consttuent unt. The term "regon" used n ts ordnary sense
means two or more provnces.
- rue n statutory constructon must be apped here: the
anguage of the Consttuton, as much as possbe shoud be
understood n the sense t has n common use and that the
words used n consttutona provsons are to be gven ther
ordnary meanng except where technca terms are
empoyed.
b. The entrety of Repubc Act No. 6766 creatng the Cordera
Autonomous Regon s nfused wth provsons whch rue
aganst the soe provnce of Ifugao consttutng the Regon.
- It can be geaned that Congress never ntended that a snge
provnce may consttute the autonomous regon.
- If ths were so, we woud be faced wth the absurd stuaton
of havng two sets of offcas: a set of provnca offcas and
another set of regona offcas exercsng ther executve and
egsatve powers over exacty the same sma area. (Ifugao s
one of the smaest provnces n the Phppnes, popuaton-
wse) (Art III sec 1 and 2; Art V, sec 1 and 4; Art XII sec 10 of
RA 6766)
- Aotment of Ten Mon Pesos to Regona Government for ts
nta organzatona requrements can not be construed as
fundng ony a one and sma provnce |Art XXI sec 13(B)(c)|
- Certan provsons of the Act ca for offcas "comng from
dfferent provnces and ctes" n the Regon, as we as trba
courts and the deveopment of a common regona anguage.
(Art V sec 16; Art VI sec 3; Art VII; Art XV RA 6766)
- Thus, to contempate the stuaton envsoned by the COMELEC
woud not ony voate the etter and ntent of the Consttuton and
Repubc Act No. 6766 but woud be mpractca and ogca.
0ecision Petton (both a and b) granted.
.&(CO V P3ILIPPI!E &"%(E"E!# G&"I!G COPO&#IO!
PARAS; May 14, 1991
'&C#(
- Pettoners are taxpayers and practcng awyers. Pettoner Basco
s the Charperson of the Commttee on Laws of the Cty Counc of
Mana. On |uy 1981 PAGCOR was created under P.D. 1869 to
enabe the Government to reguate and centraze a games of
chance authorzed by exstng franchse or permtted by aw
- Pettoners are assang the consttutonaty of PD 1869 and they
pray for ts annument based on the ff. grounds:
"A. It consttutes a waver of a rght pre|udca to a thrd person
wng rght recognzed byaw. It waved the Mana Cty
government's rght to mpose taxes and cense fees, whch s
recognzed by aw.
"B. The aw has ntruded nto the oca government's rght to
mpose oca taxes and cense fees. Ths, n contraventon of the
consttutonay enshrned prncpe of oca autonomy.
"C. It voates the equa protecton cause of the consttuton n
that t egazes PAGCOR - conducted gambng. whe most other
forms of' gambng are outawed. together wth prosttuton, drug
traffckng and other vces;
"C. It voates the avowed trend of the government away from
monopostc and crony economy and toward free enterprse and
prvatzaton.
I((%E(
1. WON pettoners have standng to queston and seek the
annument of PD 1869
2. WON PD 1869 voates the prncpe of oca autonomy of Mana
3. WON PD 1869 voates the equa protecton cause
3ELD
1. Yes, pettoners have standng to queston and seek the
annument of PD 1869.
- Consderng the mportance to the pubc of the case at bar, and n
keepng wth the Court's duty, under the 1987 Consttuton, to
determne whether or rot the other branches of government have
kept themseves wthn the mts of the Consttuton and the aws
and that they have not abused the dscreton gven to them, the
Court has brushed asde techncates of procedure and has taken
cognzance of ths petton.
Wth partcuar regard to the requrement of proper party as
apped n the cases before the Supreme Court, t hods that the
same s satsfed by the pettoners and ntervenors because each
of them has sustaned or s n danger of' sustanng an mmedate
n|ury as a resut of the acts or measures companed of." And even
f, strcty speakng they are not covered by the defnton, t s st
wthn the wde dscreton of the Court to wave the requrement
and so remove the mpedment to ts addressng and resovng the
serous consttutona questons rased.
2. No, PD 1869 does not voate the oca autonomy of Mana wth
regard to ts exempton cause.
a. The Cty of Mana, beng a mere Muncpa corporaton hts no
nherent rght to mpose taxes. Its "power to tax" must aways
yed to a egsatve act whch s superor havng been passed
upon by the state tsef whch has the "nherent power to tax"
b. The Charter of the Cty of Mana s sub|ect to contro by
Congress. The Cty of Mana's power to mpose cense fees on
gambng, has ong been revoked. As eary as 197.5, the power of
oca governments to reguate gambng thru the grant of
"franchse. censes or permts" was wthdrawn by P.D. No. 771
and was vested excusvey on the Natona Government.
Therefore, ony the Natona Government has the power to ssue
"censes or permts" for the operaton of gambng. Necessary,
the power to demand or coect cense fees whch s a
consequence of the ssuance of "censes or permts" s no onger
vested n the Cty of Mana.
3. No, PD 1869 does not voate the equa protecton cause of the
Consttuton
- The "equa protecton cause" does not prohbt the Legsature
from estabshng casses of ndvduas or ob|ects upon whch
dfferent rues sha. The mere fact that some gambng actvtes
ke cockfghtng (P.D. 449) horse racng (R -A. 306 as amended by
RA 983), sweepstakes, otteres and races (RA 1169 as amended by
B.P. 42) are egazed under certan condtons. whe others are
prohbted, does not render the appcabe aws, P.D. 1869 for one.
unconsttutona.
$%DGE LE2!E( V CO""I((IO! O! &%DI#
CORONA; December 11, 2003
'&C#(
- Pettoner s the presdng |udge of the Regona Tra Court of
Caapan Cty, Orenta Mndoro, was formery assgned n the
Muncpaty of Nau|an, Orenta Mndoro as the soe presdng |udge
of the Muncpa Tra Court.
- Hs saary and representaton and transportaton aowance
(RATA) were drawn from the budget of the Supreme Court. In
addton, he receved a monthy aowance from the oca funds of
the Muncpaty of Nau|an startng 1984.
- March 15, 1993- the Sanggunang Bayan of Nau|an, through
Resouton No. 057, sought the opnon of the Provnca Audtor and
the Provnca Budget Offcer regardng any budgetary mtaton on
the grant of a monthy aowance by the muncpaty to pettoner
|udge.
- May 7, 1993- the Sanggunang Bayan unanmousy approved
Resouton 101, ncreasng pettoner |udges monthy aowance
startng May 1993.
- February, 17, 1994- Provnca Audtor Savacon M. Dasay sent a
etter to the Muncpa Mayor and the Sanggunang Bayan of Nau|an
drectng them to stop the payment of the monthy aowance and
to requre the mmedate refund of the amounts prevousy pad.
Her drectve was based on the foowng:
1. Secton 36, RA No.7645, Genera Appropratons Act of
1993
2. Natona Compensaton Crcuar No. 67 of the
Department of Budget and Management
- Pettoner |udge appeaed to Commsson on Audt, Regona
Drector uphed opnon of Provnca Audtor Dasay and added that
Resouton No. 101 Seres of 1993 of the Sanggunang Bayan of
Nau|an faed to compy wth Secton 3 of the Loca Budge Crcuar
No. 53 outnng the condtons for the grant of the aowances to
|udges and other natona offcas or empoyees by the oca
government unts.
- Pettoner |udge appeaed the unfavorabe resouton of the
Regona Drector to the Commsson on Audt.
- September 14, 1999- Commsson on Audt ssued ts decson
affrmng Resouton of the Regona Drector.
1. the man ssue s whether or not the muncpaty can
vady provde RATA to ts muncpa |udge
2. Secton 36 of RA 7645 states:
- Payabe from the programmed/approprated amount and
others from persona servces savngs of the respectve offces
where the offcas or empoyees draw ther saares;
- Not exceedng the rates prescrbed by the Annua Genera
Appropratons Act;
- Offcas/ampoyees on deta wth other offces or assgned to
serve other offces or agences sha be pad from ther parent
agences
- No one sha be aowed to coect RATA from more than one
source.
2. The muncpa government may provde addtona
aowances and other benefts to |udges and other natona
government offcas or empoyees assgned or statoned n
the muncpaty, provded, that the fnances of the
muncpaty aow the grant thereof pursuant to Secton 447,
Par. 1 RA 7160, and provded further that smar
aowances/addtona compensaton are not granted by the
natona government to the offca/empoyee assgned to the
oca government unt as provded under Secton 3(e) of oca
Budget Crcuar No. 53.
3. Sanggunang Bayan Resouton No. 101 s nu and vod.
The Honorabe |udge Tomas C. Leynes, beng a natona
government offca s prohbted to receve addtona RATA
from the oca government fund pursuant to Secton 36 of the
Genera Appropratons Act and Natona Compensaton
Crcuar No. 67.
< +osition o9 Commission on #udit
> The muncpaty coud not grant RATA to |udges n addton to
the RATA aready receved from the Supreme Court
1. Natona Compensaton Crcuar No. 67
- the RATA of natona offcas and empoyees sha be payabe
from the programmed appropratons or persona servces
savngs of the agency where such offcas or empoyees draw
ther saary and
- no one sha be aowed to coect RATA from more than one
source
2. Genera Appropratons Act of 1993 (RA 7645)
- the RATA of natona offcas sha be payabe from the
programmed appropratons of ther respectve offces
3. Loca Budget Crcuar No. 53
- prohbts oca government unts from grantng aowances to
natona government offcas or empoyees statoned n ther
ocates when such aowances are aso granted by the
natona government or are smar to the aowances granted
by the natona government to such offcas or empoyees
< +osition o9 +etitioner
> Muncpaty s expressy and unequvocay empowered by RA
7160 (the Loca Government Code of 1991) to enact appropraton
ordnances grantng aowances and other benefts to |udges
statoned n ts terrtory.
> DBM cannot amend or modfy a substantve aw ke the Loca
Government Code 1991 through mere budget crcuars.
I((%E
WON |udge Leynes can vady receve aowance from muncpaty
3ELD
- atio When a natona offca s on deta wth another natona
agency, he shoud get hs RATA ony from hs parent natona
agency and not from the other natona agency he s detaed to.
-Respondent COA erred n opposng the grant of the monthy
aowance by the Muncpaty of Nau|an to pettoner |udge Leynes
< easonin;
RA 7645 s amended by NCC No. 67. No, admnstratve crcuar
cannot supersede, abrogate, modfy, or nufy a statute.
The Consttuton guarantees the prncpe of oca autonomy
- Artce 10, Secton 2
An ordnance must be presumed vad n the absence of
evdence showng that t s not n accordance wth the aw.
#/ 1I: #CC!5N/#"I-I/8 !F +5"-IC !FFIC,.
'&!CI(CO V 3O%(E O' EPE(E!#&#IVE(
PER CURIAM; September 27, 2005
'&C#(
Ernesto B. Francsco, |r. vs. The House Commttee on |ustce,
represented by Its Charman, Rep. Smeon Datumanong, The House
of Representatves, represented by Its Speaker, Rep. |ose de
Veneca and Presdent Gora Macapaga-Arroyo
"I!%#E E(OL%#IO!
- Urgent Moton for Reconsderaton dated 13 September 2005:
DENIED WITH FINALITY as no substanta arguments were
presented to warrant the reversa of the questoned resouton
- Urgent Moton for Consodaton dated 24 September 2005
DENIED for ack of mert
- Letter dated 26 September 2005 NOTED WITHOUT ACTION
'&!CI(CO V !&G"&"&L&(&)I# !& "G& "&!&!&!GGOL
!G "G& "&!G&G&7&!G PILIPI!O5 I!C.
CARPIO-MORALES; November 10, 2003
'&C#(
- Art 11, Sec 8 Consttuton - Congress sha promugate ts rues on
mpeachment to effectvey carry out the purpose of ths Secton.
- November 2001 - 12
th
Congress of the House of Representatves
adopted and approved the Rues of Procedure n Impeachment
Proceedngs (House Impeachment Rues) supersedng the Rues
approved by 11
th
Congress
> Secton 16. - 7m)ea%hment Pro%ee&#ngs :eeme& 7n#t#ate&. - In
cases where a Member of the House fes a verfed compant of
mpeachment or a ctzen fes a verfed compant that s
endorsed by a Member of the House through a resouton of
endorsement aganst an mpeachabe offcer, mpeachment
proceedngs aganst such offca are deemed ntated on the
day the Commttee on |ustce fnds that the verfed compant
and/or resouton aganst such offca, as the case may be, s
suffcent n substance, or on the date the House votes to
overturn or affrm the fndng of the sad Commttee that the
verfed compant and/or resouton, as the case may be, s not
suffcent n substance. In cases where a verfed compant or a
resouton of mpeachment s fed or endorsed, as the case may
be, by at east one-thrd (1/3) of the Members of the House,
mpeachment proceedngs are deemed ntated at the tme of
the fng of such verfed compant or resouton of
mpeachment wth the Secretary Genera.
> Secton 17. -ar 0ga#nst 7n#t#at#on 2f 7m)ea%hment
Pro%ee&#ngs. - Wthn a perod of one (1) year from the date
mpeachment proceedngs are deemed ntated as provded n
Secton 16 hereof, no mpeachment proceedngs, as such, can
be ntated aganst the same offca.
- |uy 2002 - House of representatves adopted a Resouton
drectng Commttee on |ustce to conduct an nvestgaton n ad
of egsaton on the manner of dsbursements and expendtures
by the Chef |ustce of the |udcary Deveopment Fund
- |une 2003 - Pres. Estrada fed the frst mpeachment compant
aganst Davde and 7 assocate |ustces for cupabe voaton of
the Consttuton, betraya of pubc trust, and other hgh crmes;
endorsed by Rep. Supco, Zamora, and Dangaen House
Commttee on |ustce dsmssed the compan because nsuffcent
n substance
- October 2003 - Rep. Teodoro and Fuentebea fed second
mpeachment compant founded on the aeged resuts of the
egsatve nqury; resouton of endorsement/mpeachment was
sgned by at east 1/3 of a the members of the House of
Representatves
I((%E(
2. WON Rues of Procedure for Impeachment Proceedngs adopted
by 12
th
Congress s consttutona and second mpeachment
compant s vad
3ELD
1. |ustcabe. The Consttuton dd not ntend to eave the matter of
mpeachment to the soe dscreton of Congress. Instead, t
provded for |udcay dscoverabe standards for determnng the
vadty of the exercse of such dscreton through power of |udca
revew.
o Locus stand - Case s of transcendenta pubc mportance.
o Rpe for ad|udcaton - the second compant had been fed
and the 2001 rues had been promugated and enforced.
o Ls mota - (1) whether Sectons 15 and 16 of Rue V of the
House Impeachment Rues adopted by the 12
th
Congress are
unconsttutona for voatng the provsons of Secton 3,
Artce XI of the Consttuton; and (2) whether, as a resut
thereof, the second mpeachment compant s barred under
Secton 3(5) of Artce XI of the Consttuton.
o |udca Restrant - not an opton because the Court s not
egay dsquafed; no other trbuna to whch the controversy
may be referred.
2. Sectons 16 and 17 of Rue V of the Rues of Procedure n
Impeachment Proceedngs whch were approved by the House of
Representatves on November 28, 2001 are unconsttutona.
Consequenty, the second mpeachment compant aganst Chef
|ustce Haro G. Davde, |r. whch was fed by Representatves
Gberto C. Teodoro, |r. and Fex Wam B. Fuentebea wth the
Offce of the Secretary Genera of the House of Representatves on
October 23, 2003 s barred under paragraph 5, secton 3 of Artce
XI of the Consttuton.
o Interpretaton of the term "ntate" - takes pace by the act of
fng and referra or endorsement of the mpeachment
compant to the House Commttee on |ustce or, by fng by
at east 1/3 of the members of the HR wth the Secretary
Genera of the House, the meanng of Sec 3 (5) of Art XI
becomes cear.
o Sec 3 (5) of Artce XI - once an mpeachment compans has
been ntated, another compant may not be fed aganst the
same offca wthn a perod of one year.
o Under Sectons 16 and 17 of Rue V of the House
Impeachment Rues, mpeachment proceedngs are deemed
ntated (1) f there s a fndng by the House Commttee on
|ustce that the verfed compant and/or resouton s
suffcent n substance, or (2) once the House tsef affrms or
overturns the fndng of the Commttee on |ustce that the
verfed compant and/or resouton s not suffcent n
substance or (3) by the fng or endorsement before the
Secretary-Genera of the House of Representatves of a
verfed compant or a resouton of mpeachment by at east
1/3 of the members of the House. These rues ceary
contravene Secton 3 (5) of Artce XI snce the rues gve the
term "ntate" a meanng dfferent meanng from fng and
referra.
CIVIL (EVICE CO""I((IO! V D&CO2CO2
PARDO; Apr 29, 1999
'&C#(
- Respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy was charged wth habtua
drunkenness, msconduct and nepotsm before the Cv Servce
Commsson. Accordngy, the Commsson conducted a forma
nvestgaton, and thereafter, promugated ts resouton fndng no
substanta evdence to support the charge of habtua drunkenness
and msconduct. However, the Commsson found respondent guty
of nepotsm on two counts as a resut of the appontment of hs two
sons, Rto and Ped Dacoycoy, as drver and utty worker,
respectvey, and ther assgnment under hs mmedate supervson
and contro as the Vocatona Schoo Admnstrator Bacuatro
Coege of Arts and Trades, and mposed on hm the penaty of
dsmssa from the servce.
- The Commsson dened respondent's moton for reconsderaton.
- Respondent fed wth the Court of Appeas a speca cv acton
for %ert#orar# wth premnary n|uncton to set asde the Cv
Servce Commssons resoutons. The Court of Appeas then
reversed and set asde the decson of the Cv Servce
Commsson, rung that respondent dd not appont or recommend
hs two sons Rto and Ped, and, hence, was not guty of nepotsm.
The Court of Appeas further hed that t s "the person who
recommends or apponts who shoud be sanctoned, as t s he who
performs the prohbted act." It kewse decared nu and vod the
Cv Servce Commssons resouton dsmssng hm from the
servce.
- The Commsson then fed an appea va %er#orar# before the
Supreme Court.
I((%E(
1. WON respondent s guty of nepotsm
2. WON the Commsson s the "party adversey affected by the
decson" of the Court of Appeas who may fe an appea therefrom
3ELD
1. YES
- Under the defnton of nepotsm (Secton 59 of Executve Order
292), one s guty of nepotsm f an appontment s ssued n favor
of a reatve wthn the thrd cv degree of consangunty or affnty
of any of the foowng:
a) appontng authorty;
b) recommendng authorty;
c) chef of the bureau or offce, and
d) person exercsng mmedate supervson over the appontee.
- the ast two mentoned stuatons, t s mmatera who the
appontng or recommendng authorty s. To consttute a voaton
of the aw, t suffces that an appontment s extended or ssued n
favor of a reatve wthn the thrd cv degree of consangunty or
affnty of the chef of the bureau or offce, or the person exercsng
mmedate supervson over the appontee.
- Respondent s the Vocatona Schoo Admnstrator, Bacuatro
Coege of Arts and Trades, Aen, Northern Samar. He dd not
appont or recommend hs two sons to the postons of drver and
utty worker n the Bacuatro Coege of Arts and Trades. It was
Mr. |ame Dacag, Head of the Vocatona Department of the BCAT,
who recommended the appontment of Rto. Mr. Dacag's authorty
to recommend the appontment of frst eve postons such as
watchmen, securty guards, drvers, utty workers, and casuas
and emergency aborers for short duratons of three to sx months
was recommended by respondent Dacoycoy and approved by DECS
Regona Drector Eado C. Doko, wth the provson that such
postons sha be under Mr. Dacags mmedate supervson. Atty.
Vctorno B. Tro II, Drector III, DECS Regona Offce VIII, Pao,
Leyte, apponted Rto Dacoycoy drver of the schoo. Mr. Dacag
aso apponted Ped Dacoycoy as casua utty worker. However, t
was respondent Dacoycoy who certfed that "funds are avaabe
for the proposed appontment of Rto Dacoycoy" and even rated hs
performance as "very satsfactory". On the other hand, hs son Ped
stated n hs poston descrpton form that hs father was "hs next
hgher supervsor". The crcumventon of the ban on nepotsm s
qute obvous. Unquestonaby, Mr. Dacag was a subordnate of
respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy, who was the schoo admnstrator.
He authorzed Mr. Dacag to recommend the appontment of frst
eve empoyees under hs mmedate supervson. Then Mr. Dacag
recommended the appontment of respondents two sons and
paced them under respondents mmedate supervson servng as
drver and utty worker of the schoo. Both postons are career
postons.
- To our mnd, the unseen but obvious &and of respondent
Dacoycoy was behnd the appontng or recommendng authorty n
the appontment of hs two sons. Ceary, he s guty of nepotsm.
- Nepotsm s one perncous ev mpedng the cv servce and the
effcency of ts personne. The basc purpose or ob|ectve of the
prohbton aganst nepotsm aso strongy ndcates that the
prohbton was ntended to be a comprehensve one. The Court
was unwng to restrct and mt the scope of the prohbton whch
s textuay very broad and comprehensve. If not wthn the
exceptons, t s a form of corrupton that must be npped n the bud
or bated whenever or wherever t rases ts ugy head. As we sad n
an earer case "what we need now s not ony to punsh the
wrongdoers or reward the outstandng cv servants, but aso to
pug the hdden gaps and pothoes of corrupton as we as to nsst
on strct compance wth exstng ega procedures n order to
abate any occason for graft or crcumventon of the aw."
2. YES
- There s no queston that respondent Dacoycoy may appea to the
Court of Appeas from the decson of the Cv Servce Commsson
adverse to hm. He was the respondent offca meted out the
penaty of dsmssa from the servce. On appea to the Court of
Appeas, the court requred the pettoner theren, here respondent
Dacoycoy, to mpead the Cv Servce Commsson as pubc
respondent as the government agency tasked wth the duty to
enforce the consttutona and statutory provsons on the cv
servce.
- Subsequenty, the Court of Appeas reversed the decson of the
Cv Servce Commsson and hed respondent not guty of
nepotsm. Who now may appea the decson of the Court of
Appeas to the Supreme Court? Certany not the respondent, who
was decared not guty of the charge. Nor the companant George
P. Suan, who was merey a wtness for the government.
Consequenty, the Cv Servce Commsson has become the party
adversey affected by such rung, whch serousy pre|udces the
cv servce system. Hence, as an aggreved party, t may appea
the decson of the Court of Appeas to the Supreme Court. By ths
rung, we now e:pressl1 a6an+on an+ overrule e:tant
<urispru+en0e that "the phrase party adversey affected by the
decson refers to the government empoyee aganst whom the
admnstratve case s fed for the purpose of dscpnary acton
whch may take the form of suspenson, demoton n rank or saary,
transfer, remova or dsmssa from offce" and not ncuded are
"cases where the penaty mposed s suspenson for not more then
thrty (30) days or fne n an amount not exceedng thrty days
saary" or "when the respondent s exonerated of the charges,
there s no occason for appea." In other words, we overrule prior
+e0isions *ol+ing t*at t*e Civil (ervi0e Law O+oes not
0ontemplate a review o/ +e0isions e:onerating o//i0ers or
emplo1ees /rom a+ministrative 0*arges.O
- The Court of Appeas reance on Debugado vs. Cv Servce
Commsson, to support ts rung s mspaced. The ssues n
Debugado are whether a promotona appontment s covered by
the prohbton aganst nepotsm or the prohbton appes ony to
orgna appontments to the cv servce, and whether the
Commsson had gravey abused ts dscreton n recang and
dsapprovng the promotona appontment gven to pettoner after
the Commsson had earer approved that appontment. Debugado
never even mpedy mted the coverage of the ban on nepotsm
to ony the appontng or recommendng authorty for appontng a
reatve. Precsey, n Debugado, the Court emphaszed that
Secton 59 "means exacty what t says n pan and ordnary
anguage: x x x The pubc pocy emboded n Secton 59 s ceary
fundamenta n mportance, and the Court had nether authorty nor
ncnaton to dute that mportant pubc pocy by ntroducng a
quafcaton here or a dstncton there."
0ecision Petton granted. The Court of Appeas' decson s
reversed and the resoutons of the Cv Servce Commsson are
revved and affrmed.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
"ELO D+issent an+ 0on0urE
- Athough I competey agree wth the resut and kewse wth the
wsdom n whch the ssues reatng to nepotsm are threshed out n
the ma|orty opnon, I do not agree wth the ma|orty opnon
statng that the Cv Servce Commsson may appea a |udgment of
exoneraton n an admnstratve case nvovng nepotsm. And Mr.
|ustce Puno woud go further by aowng even a prvate
companant - and by mpcaton, a companant offce, to appea a
decson exoneratng or absovng a cv servce empoyee of
charges aganst, or even mposng a penaty upon hm. Ths totay
contravenes our we-setted rung n severa cases.
- The Court of Appeas exonerated respondent Dacoycoy of the
charge of nepotsm. From such "adverse decson", the Cv Servce
Commsson, through ts Offce for Lega Affars, nterposed the
present appea by way of a petton for revew on %ert#orar# under
Rue 45 of the Rues of Court. Under exstng aws and
|ursprudence ths s not aowed, so ths Court rued n the above-
cted cases. If ths pont s not stressed by the Court, the present
decson mght be msconstrued as a waterng down of the setted
doctrne.
- It s axomatc that the rght to appea s merey a statutory
prvege and may be exercsed ony n the manner and n
accordance wth the provson of aw.
- A cursory readng of P.D. 807, otherwse known as "The Phppne
Cv Servce Law" shows that sad aw does not contempate a
revew of decsons exoneratng offcers or empoyees from
admnstratve charges.
- Secton 37 paragraph (a) thereof, provdes:
- "The Commsson sha decde upon appea a admnstratve
&#s%#)l#nar+ %ases #n*ol*#ng the #m)os#t#on of a )enalt+ of
s$s)ens#on for more that th#rt+ &a+s, or f#ne #n an amo$nt
e,%ee&#ng th#rt+ &a+sG salar+, &emot#on #n ran= or salar+ or
transfer, remo*al or &#sm#ssal from off#%e."
- Sad provson must be read together wth Secton 39 paragraph
(a) of P.D. 805 (shoud be 807) whch contempates:
"Appeas, .here allo.a/le, sha be made by the party
adversey affected by the decson."
- The phrase "party adversey affected by the decson" refers to
the government empoyee aganst whom the admnstratve case s
fed for the purpose of dscpnary acton whch may take the form
of suspenson, demoton n rank or saary, transfer, remova or
dsmssa from offce. The remedy of appea may be avaed of ony
n a case where the respondent s found guty of the charges
aganst hm. But when the respondent s exonerated of sad
charges, as n the case, there s no occason for appea.
- Based on the above provson of aw, appea to the Cv Servce
Commsson n an admnstratve case s extended to the party
adversey affected by the decson, that s, the person or the
respondent empoyee who has been meted out the penaty of
suspenson for more than thrty days; or fne n an amount
exceedng thrty days saary, demoton n rank or saary or transfer,
remova or dsmssa from offce. The decson of the dscpnng
authorty s even fna and not appeaabe to the Cv Servce
Commsson n cases where the penaty mposed s suspenson for
not more than thrty days or fne n an amount not exceedng thrty
days saary. Appea n cases aowed by aw must be fed wthn
ffteen days from recept of the decson.
- It s my submsson that the prerogatve to now determne
whether ths practce of dsaowng appeas n cases of exoneraton
shoud st contnue or not, excusvey beongs to Legsature. The
Court cannot and shoud not arrogate ths pocy-makng power of
Congress unto tsef, not even n the guse of the exercse of ts
expanded power of |udca revew under the 1987 Consttuton.
Ony Congress has authorty to remedy nadequaces n the wsdom
of a aw, shoud t fnd any, especay when the defnte ntenton of
the exstng aw was to dsaow the State to appea from |udgments
of exoneraton. Any attempt by the Court to transgress ths most
basc prncpe n the separaton of powers between these two
branches of government woud to my mnd, resut n the abhorrent
act of |udca egsaton.
- Effectve |une 1, 1995, Revsed Admnstratve Crcuar No. 1-95
ordaned that, appeas from awards, |udgments or fna orders or
resoutons of or authorzed by any quas-|udca agency (whch
ncudes the Cv Servce Commsson) n the exercse of ts quas-
|udca functons sha be taken by fng a verfed petton for
revew wth the Court of Appeas. Athough n genera, appea by
%ert#orar# from a |udgment or fna order or resouton of the Court
of Appeas may be fed va a verfed petton for revew on
%ert#orar# wth ths Court (where pure questons of aw, dstncty set
forth theren, may be duy rased), an appea nvovng a |udgment
or fna order of the Court of Appeas exoneratng a government
empoyee n an admnstratve case, n partcuar, fas wthn the
ambt of the provsons of Secton 39, paragraph (a) of Presdenta
Decree No. 807. It s eementary that a speca aw such as
Presdenta Decree No. 807 takes precedence over genera rues of
procedure such as Rue 45 of the Rues of Court. No appea may,
therefore, be taken under Rue 45.
- Moreover, t s recognzed n our |ursdcton that an admnstratve
case whch coud resut n the revocaton of cense, or smar
sanctons ke dsmssa from offce, consttutes a proceedng whch
partakes of a crmna nature. Beng such, provsons of aw
pertanng thereto must perforce be construed strcty aganst the
State, |ust as pena aws are strcty construed strcty aganst the
State. Any ambguty, shoud there be any, must be resoved n
favor of the respondent n the admnstratve case. The term "party
adversey affected" shoud not be construed as to ncude the State
n admnstratve charges nvovng nepotsm.
- To aow appeas from decsons, be they exoneratve or
otherwse, aganst cv servce empoyees woud, to my mnd, be
stockng the stakes too much aganst our cv servants. It shoud be
noted n ths regard that the greater buk of our government
workers are ordnary peope, workng under supervson and, more
often than not, exposed to potca pressure and the nfuence of
pedders of power. Ther smpe status notwthstandng, they are
not easy cowed and ntmdated. Many, though, are threatened
wth compants, transfer of staton, or demoton, f they refuse to
do the bddng of some unscrupuous superors or potcans. I can,
therefore, understand why the aw and our |ursprudence dsaow
appea by the companant from decsons n admnstratve cases,
be they exoneratve or otherwse. Very, an empoyee may be
hounded nto spendng up to hs ast resources and osng hs sef-
respect and honor by successve appeas.
- What w happen, f for nstance, the respondent government
empoyee s ntay exonerated or gven a ght penaty, and the
companant may appea, nsstng that the empoyee s guty or
that he deserves a heaver penaty? And, f the Cv Servce
Commsson thereafter metes out a penaty not to the kng of the
companant, the matter may st be eevated to the Court of
Appeas or even ths Court? Where ese w a ths end, f not n the
physca and fnanca exhauston of the respondent cv servant?
Agan, I wsh to stress that I speak here of the ordnary empoyees.
The bg shots n government who commt wrongs may somehow
hereby beneft, but then we sha be content n concudng that we
decded n favor of the many, that the good of the ma|orty
prevaed.
- A |udgment of exoneraton by the Court of Appeas, as n the case
of a |udgment of exoneraton by the Cv Servce Commsson or
the now defunct Mert System Protecton Board, may ndeed prove
to be truy adverse to the government agency concerned and
eventuay to the State as a whoe. Ths s especay so when there
had been apses n the nterpretaton and/or appcaton of the aw
as n the present case. Ths notwthstandng, the rght to appea,
whch s merey statutory may not be nvoked, much ess exercsed,
when the aw does not provde any. Agan, unt and uness
Congress exercses ts prerogatve to amend such aw, ths Court s
bound by t and has no other recourse except to appy the same.
Fortunatey for pettoner but not so for respondent, the atter faed
to nvoke the foregong genera rue. In a smar case, we hed that
the party favored by such aw who fas to nterpose any ob|ecton
to an appea may be deemed to have waved ths rght.
- Premses consdered and wth the above observatons, I vote to
grant the petton as stated n the dspostve thereof.
P%!O D0on0urE
- Appea to the Cv Servce Commsson n an admnstratve case
s extended to the party adversey affected by the decson, that s,
the person of the respondent empoyee who has been meted out
the penaty of suspenson for more than thrty days, or fne n an
amount exceedng thrty days saary, demoton n rank or saary or
transfer, remova or dsmssa from offce. The decson of the
dscpnng authorty s even fna and not appeaabe to the Cv
Servce Commsson n cases where the penaty mposed s
suspenson for not more than thrty days or fne n an amount not
exceedng thrty days saary. Appea n cases aowed by aw must
be fed wthn ffteen days from recept of the decson.
- It s axomatc that the rght to appea s merey a statutory
prvege and may be exercsed ony n the manner and n
accordance wth the provson of aw.
- By nference or mpcaton, the remedy of appea may be avaed
of ony n a case where the respondent s found guty of the
charges fed aganst hm. But when the respondent s exonerated
of sad charges, as n ths case, there s no occason for appea.
- The phrase party adversey affected by the decson refers to the
government empoyee aganst whom the admnstratve case s
fed for the purpose of dscpnary acton whch may take the form
of suspenson, demoton n rank or saary, transfer, remova or
dsmssa from offce.
- Wth humty, I make the submsson that s tme to strke down
the doctrne dsaowng appeas to the Cv Servce Commsson
when the decson exonerates a government offca or empoyee
from an admnstratve charge. The doctrne s prncpay based on
a constrcted nterpretaton of Secton 39 of P.D. No. 807 (Cv
Servce Law) whch states:
"Sec. 39. (a) Appeas, where aowabe, sha be made by the
party a+versel1 a//e0te+ by the decson wthn ffteen days
from recept of the decson uness a petton for reconsderaton
s seasonaby fed, whch petton sha be decded wthn ffteen
days. x x x"
- Accordng to Pare+es, "en+e, an+ "agpale, the phrase "party
adversey affected by the decson" refers aone to the respondent
government offca or empoyee aganst whom the admnstratve
case s fed. They excuded from ts compass the party
companant whose charge s dsmssed. Hence, when the
respondent government offca or empoyee s exonerated, the
decson s deemed fna as the party companant s precuded from
appeang.
- I fnd t dffcut to agree wth the above nterpretaton whch s not
ony too narrow but s subversve of the essence of our cv servce
aw. In the case at bar, prvate respondent s the Vocatona
Admnstrator of the Bacuatro Coege of Arts and Trades. Hs
charged wth the offense of nepotsm for the appontment of two
sons as drver and utty worker under hs mmedate contro and
supervson. It s beyond argument that nepotsm s prohbted by
our cv servce aw for t breeds neffcency, f not corrupton, n
government servce. The crtca queston, therefore, s: who has
the standng to prevent the voaton of ths aw and protect pubc
nterest? I submt that a taxpayer has the standng to brng sut to
vod nepotc acts for he has an nterest that "appontments n the
cv servce sha be made ony accordng to mert and ftness x x
x." A taxpayer has a rght to good government and good
government cannot resut from appontments determned by
boodnes. The Cv Servce Law tsef recognzes that there are
offenses whch can be the sub|ect of a compant by any prvate
ctzen. Thus, Secton 37 of the aw aows any private 0iti,en to
fe a compant aganst a government offca or empoyee drecty
wth the Commsson. Secton 38 aso recognzes that
"admnstratve proceedngs may be commenced aganst a
subordnate offcer or empoyee by the head of the department or
offce of equvaent rank, or head of oca government or chefs of
agences, or regona drectors or upon sworn wrtten compant of
an1 ot*er persons.? #*e general rule is t*at one w*o *as a
rig*t to 6e *ear+ *as stan+ing to see9 review o/ an1 ruling
a+verse to *im. Hence, f a prvate ctzen has the rght to fe an
admnstratve compant, he must aso have the rght to appea a
dsmssa of hs compant, unless t*e law 0learl1 pre0lu+es *is
rig*t o/ appeal /or in+u6ita6le poli01 reasons. A contrary rue
w dmnsh the vaue of the rght to compan. The cases of
Pare+es5 "en+e, an+ "agpale do not gve any pocy reasons
why the dsmssa of a charge of nepotsm cannot be appeaed.
They merey resort to +ou6t/ul in/eren0es n |ustfyng the bar to
appeas. Such an approach goes aganst the rue that "precusons
of |udca revew of admnstratve acton . . . s not ghty to be
nferred.
- In trut*5 t*e +o0trine 6arring appeal is not 0ategori0all1
san0tione+ 61 t*e Civil (ervi0e Law. For what the aw decares
as "fna" are decsons of heads of agences nvovng suspenson
for not more than 30 days or fne n an amount not exceedng 30
days saary. But there s a cear pocy reasons for decarng these
decsons fna. These decsons nvove mnor offenses. They are
numerous for they are the usua offenses commtted by
government offcas and empoyees. To aow ther mutpe eve
appea w doubtess overburden the quas-|udca machnery of
our admnstratve system and defeat the expectaton of fast and
effcent acton from these admnstratve agences. !epotism5
*owever5 is not a pett1 o//ense. Its +eleterious e//e0t on
government 0annot 6e over-emp*asi,e+. &n+ it is a
stu66orn evil. #*e o6<e0tive s*oul+ 6e to eliminate nepoti0
a0ts5 *en0e5 erroneous +e0isions allowing nepotism 0annot
6e given immunit1 /rom review5 espe0iall1 <u+i0ial review. It
s thus non se4$#t$r to contend that snce some decsons
exoneratng pubc offcas from minor offenses can not be
appeaed, ergo, even a decson acquttng a government offca
from a ma<or offense ke nepotsm cannot aso be appeaed.
- Smary, the doctrne barrng appea cannot be |ustfed by the
provson mtng the |ursdcton of the Cv Servce Commsson to
revew decsons nvovng: (1) suspenson for more than thrty (30)
days; (2) fne n an amount exceedng thrty (30) days saary; (3)
demoton n rank or saary; and (4) transfer, remova or dsmssa
from offce. Agan, there s nothng n ths provson ndcatng
egsatve ntent to bar appea from decsons exoneratng a
government offca or empoyee from nepotsm. Statutory
precuson of appeas s the excepton rather than the rue, for as
stressed by Mr. |ustce Dougas, "toerance of |udca revew has
been more and more the rue aganst the cam of admnstratve
fnaty." Yet the cases of Pare+es5 "en+e, an+ "agpale
precsey barred a appeas despte ack of an expct, postve
provson n the Cv Servce Law.
- Moreover, the case at bar nvoves the rght of a party adversey
affected to resort to <u+i0ial review. Ths case does not nvove
the appeate |ursdcton of the Cv Servce Commsson, .e.,
whether or not t has the power to revew a decson exoneratng a
government offca from a charge of nepotsm. The facts show that
t was the Cv Servce Commsson that at the frst nstance found
Dacoycoy guty of nepotsm. It was Dacoycoy who appeaed the
decson of the Cv Servce Commsson to our reguar court, more
exacty, the Court of Appeas pursuant to the Rues of Court. As
Dacoycoy ony mpeaded Suan as respondent, the Court of Appeas
ordered that the Cv Servce Commsson shoud aso be
mpeaded as party respondent. The Court of Appeas then reversed
the Commsson as t ceared Dacoycoy from the charge of
nepotsm. The queston therefore s whether or not ths Court s
precuded from revewng the decson of the Court of Appeas on a
petton for certorar under Rue 45. Agan, I submt that ths Court
has |ursdcton to entertan ths revew. Indeed, under the
Consttuton, the |ursdcton of ths Court has even been expanded
"to determne whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton on the part of
an1 6ran0* or instrumentalit1 o/ government." The queston
s not our ack of |ursdcton but the prudenta exercse of power.
In %ert#orar# cases aegng grave abuse of dscreton, our gven task
s to determne how much s too much of an abuse.
- To my mnd, t s aso of &e m#n#m#s mportance that the petton
of thus Court was fed by the Cv Servce Commsson. The
records w revea that Suan, the orgna companant, wrote to the
Cv Servce Commsson urgng t to make the appea ostensby
for ack of means. But even wthout Suan, I su6mit t*at t*e
nature o/ t*e issue in t*e 0ase at 6ar an+ its impa0t on t*e
e//e0tiveness o/ government give t*e Civil (ervi0e
Commission t*e stan+ing to pursue t*is appeal. The ssue n
the case at bar s bascay a ega one, .e., the proper
nterpretaton of who can be convcted of nepotsm, and
undoubtedy, ths Court has the authortatve say on how to
nterpret aws. Admnstratve agences have aways conceded that
the fna nterpretaton of aws beongs to reguar courts. And the
ssue has broad mpcatons on the mert and ftness phosophy of
our cv servce system. Under Sec. 3, Artce IX (B) of our
Consttuton, t s the Cv Servce Commsson that has oversght of
our cv servce system. It s thus the party better equpped to
argue the dverse dmensons of the ssue. It s aso the most
affected, for t has the duty not to stand st when nepotc practces
threaten the prncpe of mertrocacy n our government. It seems
to me sef evdent that ths type of n|ury to pubc nterest can best
be vndcated by the Commsson and not by a prvate person.
- There are ot*er +istur6ing impli0ation f we do not |unk the
doctrne of non-revewabty of decsons exoneratng government
offcas from charges of nepotsm. For one, the doctrne unduy
favors offcas charged wth nepotsm, for whe we aow further
revew of ther convcton, we dsaow revew of ther exoneraton,
regardess of the errors. Ths dstorted rue contravenes our
dstaste aganst nepotsm, a practce whose contnuance can fatay
erode fath n government. For another, perpetuatng a nepotc act,
an ev that shoud be extrpated wherever found, can never be the
ntent of our egsators who crafted our Cv Servce Law. 'or still
anot*er5 0ompletel1 0utting o// a00ess to <u+i0ial review
goes against t*e spirit o/ t*e 1F;H Constitution e:pan+ing
t*e <uris+i0tion o/ t*is Court. Putting up 6or+ers o/ non-
reviewa6ilit1 wea9ens t*e <u+i0iar1As 0*e09ing power.
In+ee+5 s*iel+ing a6usive a+ministrative a0tions an+
+e0isions /rom <u+i0ial oversig*t will ultimatel1 ero+e t*e
rule o/ law. As |ustce Brandes opned, "supremacy of aw
demands that there sha be an opportunty to have some court
decde whether an erroneous rue of aw was apped and whether
the proceedng n whch facts were ad|udcated was conducted
reguary."
- I |on the ma|orty opnon.
O"EO D+issentE
- Does the Cv Servce Commsson have the ega personaty to
appea a decson of the Court of Appeas exoneratng an empoyee
charged n an admnstratve case, whch decson, n effect,
reversed and nufed the Commssons fndng that the
respondent empoyee s guty as charged?
- After an exhaustve and carefu scrutny of P.D. No. 807
(otherwse known as the Cv Servce Law), Executve Order No.
292 (otherwse known as the Revsed Admnstratve Code of 1987)
as we as the Omnbus Rues Impementng Book V of Executve
Order No. 292, I fnd no ega bass to support the contenton of the
ma|orty that the Commsson has that ega personaty.
- The Cv Servce Commsson s the centra personne agency of
the government. Coroary, t s equpped wth the power and
functon to hear and decde admnstratve cases nsttuted by or
brought before t drecty or on appea, ncudng contested
appontments and to revew decsons and actons of ts offces and
the agences attached to t. Ths s n consonance wth ts authorty
to pass upon the remova, separaton and suspenson of a offcers
and empoyees n the cv servce and upon a matters reatng to
the conduct, dscpne and effcency of such offcers and
empoyees except as otherwse provded by the Consttuton or by
aw. It s thus cear that the Cv Servce Commsson has been
consttuted as a dscpnng authorty.
- Secton 34, Rue XIV of the Omnbus Rues Impementng Book V
of Executve Order No. 292 provdes the answer as to who may
appear before the Commsson, thus:
"Admnstratve proceedngs may be commenced aganst a
subordnate offcer or empoyee by the foowng offcas and
empoyees:
(a) Secretary of department;
(b) Head of Offce of Equvaent rank;
(c) Head of Loca Government Unt;
(d) Chef of Agency;
(e) Regona Drector; or
(f) Upon Sworn, Wrtten compant of Any other Person."
- Consequenty, the compant can ether be the Secretary of
department, head of offce of equvaent rank, head of a oca
government unt, chef of agency, regona drector or any other
person or party. The phrase any other party has been understood
to be a companant other than the head of department or offce of
equvaent rank or head of oca government or chefs of agences
or regona drectors.
- The respondent, on the other hand, s any subordnate offcer or
empoyee. Nowhere can be found, expressy or mpedy, n Secton
34 of Rue XIV of Omnbus Rues Impementng Book V of E.O. No.
292, the Commsson as one of the partes, ether as companant or
respondent n an admnstratve case. Logcay and by necessary
mpcaton, t cannot consdered ether a compant or a
respondent. E,)ress#o $n#$s est e,%l$s#o alter#$s. The express
menton of one person, thng or consequence mpes the excuson
of a others. Based on the foregong, there s no other concuson
but that the Cv Servce Commsson s not a party to an
admnstratve proceedng brought before t. As provded by
Supreme Court Admnstratve Crcuar 1-95, decsons, orders or
rungs of the Commsson may be brought to the Supreme Court,
now to the Court of Appeas, on %ert#orar# by the aggreved party.
By nference, an aggreved party s ether the one who ntated the
compant before the Commsson or the respondent, the person
sub|ect of the compant. In fact, the queston as to who s an
"aggreved party" has ong been setted n a tany of cases. An
aggreved party n an admnstratve case s the government
empoyee aganst whom an admnstratve compant s fed. The
Cv Servce Commsson s defntey not a government empoyee.
Nether s t an agency aganst whom an admnstratve charge s
fed. Whe t may be argued that, n a sense, the government s an
"aggreved party" n admnstratve proceedngs before the
Commsson, t nevertheess s not the "aggreved party"
contempated under P.D. No. 807 or the Cv Servce Law.
- Havng estabshed that the Cv Servce Commsson s not a
party, much ess an aggreved party, then ndubtaby, t has no
ega personaty to eevate the case to the appeate authorty. The
Commsson, therefore, has no ega standng to fe the nstant
petton.
- Whe admttedy, the Cv Servce Commsson s consdered a
nomna party when ts decson s brought before the Court of
Appeas, such s ony a procedura formaty. As wth appeate
processes, a nomna party s not the aggreved party. Its ncuson
as a party s based prmary on the fact that the decson, order or
rung t ssued s beng contested or assaed and secondary, for
purposes of enforcement. By anaogy, the Commsson n the
performance of ts quas-|udca functons s |ust ke a |udge who
shoud "detach hmsef from cases where hs decson s appeaed
to a hgher court for revew. The ra#son &Getre for such doctrne s
that a |udge s not an actve combatant n such proceedng and
must eave the opposng partes to contend ther ndvdua
postons and for the appeate court to decde the ssues wthout
hs actve partcpaton. By fng ths case, pettoner n a way
ceased to be |udca and has become adversara nstead."
- I dssent from the )onen%#aGs concuson that the Commsson may
appea a |udgement of exoneraton n an admnstratve case
nvovng nepotsm n ght of the foregong dsquston.
#/ I1: C!N./I/5/I!N#- C!**I..I!N.
CI2I- .,2IC,
%!IVE(I#2 O' #3E P3ILIPPI!E( V CIVIL (EVICE
CO""I((IO!
PANGANIBAN; Apr 3, 2001
'&C#(
- Dr. Afredo De Torres s UPLB Assoc Prof., who went on vacaton
LOA w/o pay, durng whch he served as offca rep to the Centre
on Integrated Rura Devt for Asa and the Pacfc (CIRDAP). CIRDAP
requested UPLB for extenson of LOA but was dened by Drector of
ACCI of UPLB. The Drector advsed De Torres to report for duty.
Aso. UPLB Chanceor de Guzman apprsed hm on rues of Cv
Servce and possbty of beng consdered AWOL. When De Torres
wrote that he w contnue wth CIRDAP, Chanceor warned that
UPLB woud be forced to drop hm fr ros of personne.
- After amost 5 yrs of absence w/o eave, De Torres wrote that he
was reportng back to duty at UPLB. Chanceor Varea sad he
shoud have come fr an approved eave. ACCI Drector sad De
Torres was consdered AWOL and advsed hm to reappy. But
Chanceor Varea reversed hs stand and sad De Torres may
report bec records do not show that he had been offcay dropped.
ACCI requested rung from Cv Servce Commsson.
- CSC rued that De Torres have been dropped fr servce.
Pettoners sought recourse before the CA but the petton was
dsmssed.
I((%E
WON De Torres automatc separaton from cv servce was vad
3ELD
NO. Automatc dsmssa was nvad.
- Secton 33, Rue XVI of Revsed Cv Servce Rues speaks of
automatc separaton even w/o pror notce and hearng.
- Ouezon v. Borromeo: chef nurse of Igan Cty Hospta
requested for two extensons of eave. Both granted. She sought
thrd extenson. It was not acted upon. It was rued that she
voated Sec 33. She was dropped.
- Isberto v. Raquza: Empoyee, absent w/o offca eave ought to
have known that he was deemed automatcay separated.
- Ramo v. Eefao: Pettoner was dropped fr servce for her faure
to return to duty after expraton of eave of absence.
- There s suffcent notce when Chanceor advsed pettoner and
warned of possbty of beng consdered AWOL. But n those three
cases, the pettoners were actuay dropped. Here, De Torres was
never actuay dropped. He remaned n the ros. Hs saary was
even ncreased severa tmes durng hs absence. Hs appontment
was aso recassfed. These are acts nconsstent w/ separaton.
UP has chosen not to exercse ts prerogatve to dsmss pettoner.
- Here, UP exercsed academc freedom. It has power to determne
who may teach, what may be taught, how t sha be taught, who
may be admtted to study. CSC has no authorty to dctate UP the
outrght dsmssa of ts personne.
C%EV&( V .&C&L
MENDOZA; December 6, 2000
'&C#(
- |ustce Cuevas, Executve Secretary Zamora, and Atty. Demasp v
Atty. Baca
- Ths case s a petton for certorar of a prevous rung of the
Court of Appeas regardng the egaty of the appontment and
transfer of |osefna Baca to the Offce of the Regona Drector of
the Pubc Attorneys Offce. |osefna Baca s a Career Executve
Offcer III whch she aeges entted her to the poston of Chef
Pubc Attorney n the Pubc Attorneys Offce.
- Baca passed the Career Executve Servces Examnatons n 1989
and on 1994 was conferred CES egbty and was apponted as
Regona Drector of the PAO. On |anuary 5, 1995 she was
apponted to the rank of CESO III and on November 5, 1997 the
Secretary of |ustce apponted her as Chef Pubc Attorney that was
confrmed by Presdent Ramos on February 5, 1998, wheren she
took her oath and assumed offce.
- On |uy 1, 1998 Carna Demasp was apponted Chef Pubc
Defender by Pres. Estrada whe Baca was apponted Regona
Drector wthout her consent. Demasp took her oath of offce on
the 7
th
of |uy. Baca fed a petton quo warranto that questoned
her repacement to the Supreme Court that was dsmssed wthout
pre|udce for t to refed n the Court of Appeas. Court of Appeas
rued n Bacas favor.
I((%E(
1. WON the case shoud be dsmssed for ts faure to exhaust
admnstratve remedes through an appea to the Offce of the
Presdent
2. WON Bacas remova amounted to a remova wthout cause
(whch s ega)
3. WON by the mere fact of beng apponted woud enabe the
ndvdua to acqure securty of tenure
4. WON a Career Executve Servce personne can be shfted from
one offce to another wthout voaton of ther rght to securty of
tenure as ther status and saares s based on ther ranks and not
on ther |obs
5. WON Demasp has a securty of tenure
3ELD
1. No, because the admnstratve decson sought to be revewed s
that of the Presdent hmsef. No appea need be taken to the Offce
of the Presdent from the decson of a department head because
the atter s n theory the ater ego of the former. In addton,
exhauston of admnstratve remedes does not appy when the
queston rased s purey ega.
2. No, her appontment to the poston of Chef Pubc Attorney
requres her to be apponted to a CES Rank Leve I whch never
materazed. If the rank of an ndvdua s not approprate to the
poston her appontment s deemed to be temporary and she
cannot cam securty of tenure. The rght to tenure s conferred
upon the ndvdua fng the poston based on the possesson of
requred quafcatons. The genera rue woud be that those who
were quafed woud be apponted, but as an excepton, those wth
nsuffcent quafcatons may be apponted but merey n an actng
capacty.
3. No, securty of tenure s acqured wth respect to the rank and
not to the poston. In addton, the guaranty of securty of tenure s
appcabe ony to those n the frst and second eve n the cv
servce.
4. No, readng through PD No. 1 that created the Integrated
Reorganzaton Pan, the Career Executve Servce provdes that
reassgnments or transfers are aowed provded that t s made n
the nterest of pubc servce and nvoves no reducton n the rank
or saary of the ndvdua and that ths shoud not be done more
oftener than two years. If the ndvdua deems t as un|ustfed s/he
may appea to the Presdent. The rue that an empoyee can cam
securty of tenure s appcabe ony to Eecton Regstrars, Eecton
Offcers, aso n the Commsson on Eectons, and Revenue Dstrct
Offcers n thew Bureau of Interna Revenues. Baca was |ust CESO
III therefore, she s meant to quafy n the poston where she was
subsequenty apponted to whch s Regona Drector.
5. No, she does not. The securty of tenure s aso not permanent
foowng the same ogc that was used for Baca, Demasp havng
not acqured the quafcaton of CES Rank Leve I mpes that her
stay n the poston s temporary.
C&!O!I4&DO V &G%IE
GONZAGA-REYES; |anuary 25, 2000
'&C#(
- PETITITON to decare RA 8851 (RA 8551) unconsttutona
- the Natona Poce Commsson (NAPOLCOM) was orgnay
created under RA 6975 entted "An Act Estabshng The Phppne
Natona Poce Under A Reorganzed Department Of The Interor
And Loca Government, And For other Purposes".
- under RA 6975, pettoners Aexs Canonzado, Edgar Torres,
Rogeo Pureza, and respondents |ose Adong and Dua Torres were
apponted as NAPOLCOM commssoners on |an. 1991 for sx year
terms
- 3/6/1998: RA 8551, aka the "Phppne Natona Poce Reform and
Reorganzaton Act of 1998" took effect, decarng the terms of the
current commssoners expred
- the pettoners queston the consttutonaty of S4 of RA 8551
whch amends S13 of RA 6975, aterng the composton of
NAPOLCOM as we as S8, whch removes them from offce and
aegedy voates ther securty of tenure.
- as members of the cv servce, the pettoners cannot be
removed from offce except for causes "provded by aw", that s,
wth ega cause and not merey for reasons deemed ft by the
appontng power
- the creaton or aboton of pubc offces s prmary a egsatve
functon; Congress may abosh any offce w/o mparng the
offcers rght to contnue n hs poston. Ths power may be
exercsed for reasons such as a ack of funds or the nterests of the
economy; aboton must be made n good fath, not persona or
potca reasons
I((%E(
1. WON there was a /ona f#&e reorganzaton of NAPOLCOM
2. WON there was a vad aboton of the pettoners offces
3ELD
1. NO. Under RA 6975, the NAPOLCOM was descrbed as "a
coega body w/n the DILG", and under RA 8551 t was defned as
"an agency attached to the Department for pocy and program
coordnaton." Ths ncrease n the agencys autonomy does not
resut n the creaton of an entrey new offce. S4 of RA
8551amends the NAPOLCOMs composton by addng the PNP
Chef as an ex-offco member, requrng the membershp of 3
cvan commssoners, a fourth commssoner from the aw
enforcement sector and at east one femae commssoner. Such
changes are trva and do not affect the nature of the NAPOLCOM;
n fact, the powers and dutes of NAPOLCOM reman unchanged.
Reorganzaton ony takes pace when there s an ateraton of the
exstng structure of the offce ncudng nes of contro and
authorty and may nvove a reducton of personne or aboton of
offces f done n good fath (economc purposes, bureaucratc
effcency, etc.) Despte the new aw, NAPOLCOM contnues to
exercse substantay the same admnstratve, supervsory, rue-
makng, advsory and ad|udcatory functons.
2. NO. Respondents stress that S8 of RA 8551 dscoses egsatve
ntent to abosh NAPOLCOM pursuant to a /ona f#&e reorganzaton.
As hed n EP -oar& of >egents *. >as$l, the remova of an
ncumbent s not |ustfed f the functons of the od and new
postons are the same, that s, f there s no true reorganzaton.
The court fnds that RA 8551 does not expressy abosh the
pettoners postons upon examnaton of the changes ntroduced
by the new aw. In the event of a reorganzaton done n good fath,
no dsmssa actuay occurs because the offce tsef ceases to
exst. If the aboton merey seeks to enact a change of
nomencature or attempt to crcumvent the consttutona securty
of tenure of cv servce personne, then the aboton s vod a/
#n#t#o. In the case at bar, no /ona f#&e reorganzaton had been
mandated by congress; hence, pettoners were removed from
offce wth no ega cause, makng S8 of RA 8551 unconsttutona,
and enttng them to mmedate renstatement.
0ecision -Petton GRANTED, but ony to the extent of decarng
S8 of RA 8551 unconsttutona for voatng the pettoners rghts
to securty of tenure. Pettoners are entted to renstatement.
G&"I!DE V CO""I((IO! O! &%DI#
PARDO; December 13, 2000
'&C#(
- The Case: Speca cv acton of certorar seekng to annu and set
asde two "decsons" of the Commsson on Audt (COA)
- On |une 11, 1993, Pettoner Thema P. Gamnde was apponted as
a& #nter#m Commssoner of the Cv Servce Commsson (CSC) by
then Pres. Ramos for a term exprng Feb. 2, 1999. She assumed
offce after takng her oath and her appontment was confrmed by
Congress.
- Before the end of her term, or on Feb. 24, 1998, pettoner sought
carfcaton from the Offce of the Pres. as to the expry date of her
term of offce. In repy, the Chef Presdenta Lega Counse (now
Assocate |ustce) Corona, n a etter, opned that pettoners term
woud expre on Feb. 2, 2000 not on Feb. 2, 1999. She thus
remaned n offce after Feb. 02, 1999, reyng on the sad advsory
opnon.
- On Feb. 04, 1999, CSC Charman Ama De Leon, requested opnon
from the COA on whether pettoner and her co-termnous staff
shoud contnue to be pad ther saares notwthstandng the fact
that ther appontment had aready expred. COA Genera Counse
ssued an opnon that the pettoners appontment had ndeed
expred.
- CSC Resdent Audtor ssued a notce dsaowng n audt the
saares and emouments pertanng to pettoner and her staff, a
decson whch pettoner appeaed to the COA en /an%. The appea
was dsmssed, COA affrmed the dsaowance, and hed that the
ssue of pettoners term of offce may be addressed by mere
reference to her appontment paper whch had Feb. 02, 1999 as
expraton date. COA aso stated that the Commsson s bereft of
power to recognze an extenson of her term, not even wth the
mped acquescence of the Offce of the Presdent. Pettoner
moved for reconsderaton, she was agan dened; hence ths
petton.

I((%E
WON pettoner Atty. Gamndes term of offce, as CSCommssoner,
expred on Feb. 2, 1999 or on Feb. 2, 2000
3ELD
It expred on Feb. 2, 1999. For Commssoners (5 year term) the
count s:
Feb.02, 1987---Feb.02, 1992---Feb.02, 1999---Feb.02, 2006.
atio The approprate startng pont of the terms of offce of the
frst appontees to the Consttutona Commssons under the 1987
Consttuton must be on Feb. 02, 1987, the date of the adopton of
the 1987 Consttuton n order to mantan the reguar nterva of
vacancy every 2 years consstent n the prevous appontment
ntervas.
easonin;
- The term of offce of the Charman and members of the Cv
Servce Commsson s prescrbed n the 1987 Consttuton under
Art IX-B Sec. 1(2). The 1973 Consttuton ntroduced the frst
system of a reguar rotaton or cyce n the membershp of the CSC
(Art. XII Sec. 1(1), 1973 Const). It was a copy of the Consttutona
prescrpton n the amended 1935 Consttuton of a rotatona
system for the appontment of the Charman and members of the
Commsson on Eectons (Art. X Sec. 1, 1935 Const, as amended).
- In >e)$/l#% * 7m)er#al, t was sad that "the operaton of the
rotatona pan requres two condtons: (1) that the terms of the
frst (3) Commssoners shoud start on a %ommon &ate, and, (2)
that any vacancy due to death, resgnaton or dsabty before the
expraton of the term shoud ony be fed ony for the $ne,)#re&
/alan%e of the term.J
- Consequenty, the terms of the frst Charman and Commssoners
of the Consttutona Commssons under the 1987 Consttuton
must start on a %ommon &ate, #rres)e%t#*e of the *ar#at#ons #n the
&ates of a))o#ntments an& 4$al#f#%at#ons of the a))o#ntees, n order
that the expratons of the frs terms of 7, 5 and 3 years shoud ead
to the reg$lar re%$rren%e of the 2-+ear #nter*al between the
expraton of the terms.
- In the aw of pubc offcers, "term" of offce s dstngushed from
"tenure" of the ncumbent. The term means the tme durng whch
the offcer may cam to hod offce as of rght, and fxes the nterva
after whch the severa ncumbents sha succeed one another. The
tenure represents the term durng whch the ncumbent actuay
hods the offce. The term of offce s not affected by the hod-over.
The tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons wthn or
beyond the power of the ncumbent.
- Athough Art. XVIII Sec. 15 provdes that #n%$m/ent mem/ers of
the Const#t$t#onal Comm#ss#ons shall %ont#n$e #n off#%e for one +ear
after the rat#f#%at#on of th#s Const#t$t#on, $nless the+ are sooner
remo*e& for %a$se or /e%ome #n%a)a%#tate& to &#s%harge the &$t#es
of the#r off#%e or a))o#nte& to a ne. term, what t contempates s
"tenure" not "term." The term "$nless" mports an excepton to the
genera rue. Ceary, the transtory provsons mean that the
ncumbent members of the Const Commssons sha contnue. for
1 year after ratfcaton of the Const under ther exstng
appontments at the dscreton of the appontng power who may
cut short ther tenure by reasons the reasons stated theren.
However, they do not affect the "term" of offce fxed n Art. IX,
provdng for a 7-5-3 yr rotatona nterva for the 1
st
appontees.
0ecision Term of offce expred on Feb. 2, 1999. However,
pettoner served as &e fa%to offcer n good fath unt Feb. 2, 2000
and thus entted to receve her saary and other emouments for
actua servce rendered. COA decson dsaowng
saares/emouments s reversed.
2otin; 10 Concur, -ellos#llo No part., Reated to one of the
partes, P$no, concur (In the resut), :e 5eon, 1r., Concurrng and
Dssentng opnon
Men&o6a, |ons De Leons dssent
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
DE LEO! D0on0ur an+ +issentE
Dssents:
-the term of pettoner expred on Feb. 2, 2000 not on Feb. 2, 1999
as expaned n ponenca.
-the term of the frst set of CSCommssoners apponted under the
1987 Consttuton commenced on the Feb. 2, 1988 not on the date
of ts ratfcaton on Feb. 2, 1987.
Concurs:
-that the saares and emouments whch pettoner as
CSCommssoner receved after Feb. 2, 1999 shoud not be
dsaowed by COA.
.L&@%E& V &LC&L&
PURISIMA; September 11, 1998
'&C#(
- G.R. Nos. 109406, 110642, 111494, and 112056 are cases for
%ert#orar# and prohbton, chaengng the consttutonaty and
vadty of AO 29 and 268
- Pettoners are offcas and empoyees of severa government
departments and agences who were pad ncentve benefts for the
year 1992, pursuant to EO 292 otherwse known as the
Admnstratve Code of 1987, and the Omnbus Rues Impementng
Book V of EO 292.
- In 1993, then Presdent Ramos ssued AO 29 authorzed the grant
of productvty ncentve benefts for the year 1992 n the maxmum
amount of P1,000.00 and reteratng the prohbton under Secton
7 of AO 268 (ssued by Presdent Aquno), en|onng sad grants
wthout pror approva of the Presdent. Secton 4 of AO 29 drected
"a departments, offces and agences whch authorzed payment
of CY 1992 Productvty Incentve Bonus n excess of the amount
authorzed under Secton 1 hereof to mmedatey cause the
return/refund of the excess." In compance therewth, the heads of
the departments or agences of the government concerned, who
are the heren Respondents, caused the deducton from pettoners
saares or aowances of the amounts needed to cover the aeged
overpayments.
- To prevent the Respondents from makng further deductons from
ther saares or aowances, the Pettoners have come before ths
Court to seek reef.
- In G.R. No. 119597, the facts are dfferent but the petton poses a
common ssue wth the other consodated cases. The Pettoner,
Assocaton of Dedcated Empoyees of the Phppne Toursm
Authorty (H0:EP"J!, s an assocaton of empoyees of the
Phppne Toursm Authorty (HP"0J! who were granted productvty
ncentve bonus for caendar year 1992 pursuant to RA 6971,
otherwse known as the Productvty Incentves Act of 1990.
Sub|ect bonus was, however, dsaowed by the Corporate Audtor
on the ground that t was prohbted under AO 29. The
dsaowance of the bonus n queston was fnay brought on appea
to the Commsson on Audt (COA) whch dened the appea.
I((%E(
1. WON wth regard to G.R. No. 119597, Incentves under RA 6971
are appcabe to ADEPT empoyees
2. WON AO 29 and 268 (beng Presdenta pronouncements) are
voatve of the provsons of EO 292 (beng a aw passed by the
egsature), and hence nu and vod, and WON AO 29 and 268
unawfuy usurp the Consttutona authorty granted soey to the
Cv Servce Commsson
3. WON the forced refund of ncentve pay s an unconsttutona
mparment of a contractua obgaton
4. WON assumng arguendo that the grant of ncentves was
nvad, the same shoud be the persona abty of offcas drecty
responsbe therefore n accordance wth secton 9 of AO 268
3ELD
1. There are generay two types of GOCCs:
1. Those ncorporated under the genera corporaton aw.
Empoyees of ths type have the rght to bargan
(coectvey), strke, and other such remedes avaabe to
workers of prvate corporatons. Functons are many
propretary.
2. Those wth speca charter (a.k.a. orgna charter), whch are
sub|ect to Cv Servce Laws, have no rght to bargan
(coectvey). Incorporated n pursuance of a State Pocy.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.((0
- Ony GOCCs ncorporated under the genera corporaton aw, and
thus performng propretary functons, are ncuded under the
coverage of RA 6791. GOCCs created n pursuance of a pocy of
the state and those whose offcers and empoyees are covered by
the Cv Servce are expressy excuded.
- The egsatve ntent to pace ony GOCCs performng propretary
functons under the coverage of RA 6971 s aso geanabe from the
other provsons of the aw makng reference to remedes avaabe
ony to aborers akn to the prvate sector.
- Aso, pursuant to EO 292 or the Admnstratve Code of 1987,
whch provdes for the estabshment of Department or Agency
Empoyee Suggestons and Incentves Award Systems for GOCCs
wth orgna charters, t s thus evdent that the PTA s aready
wthn the scope of an ncentves award system.
2. In accordance wth EO 292, the functons of the Cv Servce
Commsson have been "decentrazed to the offces and agences
where such functons can be effectvey performed;" specfcay,
the mpementaton of the Empoyee Suggestons and Incentve
Award System ahs been decentrazed to the Presdent or to the
head of each department or agency (as hs/her ater ego).
- The Presdent s the head of government. Hs/her power ncudes
contro over executve departments. Contro means "the power to
ater what a subordnate offcer had done n the performance of hs
dutes and to substtute the |udgment of the former for that of the
atter." In ssung AO 29 mtng the amount of benefts, en|onng
heads of departments from grantng benefts wthout pror approva
from hm/her, and drectng the refund of any excess over the
prescrbed amount, the Presdent was |ust exercsng hs power of
contro over executve departments. Specfcay, seeng that the
ncentves program was producng demorazaton nstead of the
orgna goa of encouragement, owng to the fact that empoyees
not recevng the ncentves fet sghted and underapprecated, the
Presdent merey exercsed hs power of contro by modfyng the
acts of the respondents who granted ncentve benefts wthout
approprate cearance from the Offce of the Presdent.
- Nether can t be sad that the Presdent encroached upon the
authorty of the Cv Servce Commsson to grant benefts to
government empoyees. AO 29 and 268 dd not revoke, but rather
ony reguated, the grant and amount of ncentves.
3. Not a contracts entered nto by the government w operate as
a waver of ts non-suabty; dstncton must be made between ts
soveregn and propretary acts. The acts nvoved n ths case are
governmenta. Besdes, ncentve pay s n the nature of a bonus,
whch s not a demandabe or enforceabe obgaton.
4. Absent a showng of bad fath, pubc offcers are not personay
abe for damages resutng form the performance of offca dutes.
0ecision In uphodng the Consttutonaty of AO 268 and 29, the
Court reterates the doctrne that n nterpretng statutes, that
whch w avod a fndng of unconsttutonaty s to be preferred.
Consderng, however, that a the partes here acted n good fath,
the Court cannot countenance the refund of the ncentves whch
amount the pettoners have aready receved, as a coroary,
further deductons from saares are thus en|oned.
C!**I..I!N !N ,-,C/I!N.
LIG& !G "G& .&&!G&2 V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
PADILLA; May 5, 1994
'&C#(
- Nature Pettons for prohbton to stop the threatened ega
transfer, dsbursement, and use of pubc funds n a manner
contrary to the Consttuton and the aw
- 18 Apr 1994: Pettoner Lga Ng Mga Barangay, an organzaton
of barangays, represented by pettoner Aex Davd (as taxpayer
and as presdent and secretary-genera of the organzaton) fed
ths petton for prohbton, wth prayer for a temporary restranng
order.
- 22 Apr 1994: Another petton rasng the same ssues were fed.
- Pettoners queston what they perceve as "the threatened ega
transfer, dsbursement, and use of pubc funds n a manner
contrary to the Consttuton and the aw" reatve to the conduct of
the forthcomng barangay eectons. They cam that n the Genera
Appropratons Act (GAA) of 1994, ony P137,878,000.00 were
approprated by the Congress for the hodng of the sad eectons.
The pettoners cam that by eary 1994, Congress tsef has made
the assessment that the money s nsuffcent to defray cost of
hodng the eectons. Pettoners aege that n order to augment
sad amount, respondents have threatened and are about to
transfer/re-aocate certan moneys to be sourced from the
executve and egsatve branches of government to COMELEC,
whch n turn w use t to fund the eectons: |a| P180M from the
appropraton of the DILG, |b| P160M from the Countrysde
Deveopment Fund; P70M from the Senate; P30M from the HReps;
and |c| P43M from the Interna Revenue Aotments (IRA) of
Provnces, Ctes and Muncpates (Note@ Ths s the scheme that s
beng assaed n the ssue of ths case)
- 21 Apr 1994: Court resoved to requre respondents to submt
comment on the petton wthn the non-exstentabe perod of 5
days
- 26 Apr 1994: Respondents through the Soctor Genera fed
ther comment. They cam that pettoners acted soey on the
bass of reports made n the newspaper ("Barangay Po Funds
Found" artce from the Mana Buetn) and dd not bother to
confrm the veracty of artce. They aso cam that sad reports
were mere unoffca proposas/suggestons made n the process of
searchng for funds. COMELEC further aeges that that t ntends to
fund the barangay eectons from the money aotted by Congress
for the purpose and from ts own savngs resutng from unused
funds. The Soctor Genera supports the stand of the respondents,
as t s accordng to Sec. 25 (5), Artce VI of the Consttuton and
Sectoons 17 (Use of Savngs) and 19 (Meanng of Savngs and
Appropratons) of the GAA for Fsca Year 1994.
- Respondents aso mantan that funds from LGUs may aso be
used to hep defray the cost of the forthcomng barangay eectons.
They cte Opnon No. 51 of the Secretary of |ustce, dated 19 Apr
1994, whch says that under Sec. 50 of the Omnbus Eecton Code,
LGUs are requred to approprate funds for barangay eectons
I((%E
WON the exstence or ack of factua bass on WON the mpeaded
pubc respondents are attemptng, or ntendng to effect the
transfer of funds whch woud be n drect contraventon of Art. VI
Sec. 25 (5) of the Consttuton
60
3ELD
Any threat or attempt to pursue a transfer of funds scheme that
exsts ony n newspaper reports s not suffcent factua bass to
render such scheme by the COMELEC unconsttutona.
easonin;
1. |a| The threat to pursue the scheme, f ever there was one,
exsted ony n newspaper reports whch coud have msed the
genera pubc, ncudng the pettoners, nto beevng that the
same emanated from mpeccabe sources. |b| Court acknowedges
pettoners have dspayed vgance and acted wth the best of
ntentons, but they shoud have frst obtaned an offca statement
or at east confrmaton from respondents as to the veracty of the
report nstead of reyng on the newspaper artce.
2. The court went further n sayng - actuay, n affrmng the
arguments of the respondents - that consstent wth Art. VI Sec. 25
(5) of the Consttuton, the foowng may be avaed by the
COMELEC to defray the cost of the forthcomng barangay eectons:
|a| Artce IV of the Omnbus Eecton Code provdes that LGUs
shoud approprate funds for the barangay eectons. COMELEC may
make arranges wth oca governments to compy wth ths artce
pursuant to ts consttutona authorty to enforce and admnster a
aws and reguatons reatve to the conduct of eectons. COMELEC
may aso ssue an approprate drectve for the provnce cty, or
muncpaty to advance eecton expenses that are chargeabe to
t. Snce the Presdent exercses genera supervson of a oca
governments, the COMELEC may course ts drectves to oca
governments through the Offce of the Presdent and to be
mpemented by DILG. (Note@ Ths s based on the Opnon No. 51,
s. 1994 of Sec. of |ustce whch was cted as authorty)
|b| Sectons 17 and 19 of GAA for FY 1994 where t was stated that
the Heads of Consttutona Commssons under Artce IX of the
60
No aw sha be passed authorzng any transfer of appropratons; however, the Presdent, the Presdent of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatves, the Chef |ustce of the Supreme Court, and the hea&s of
Const#t$t#onal Comm#ss#ons ma+, /+ la., /e a$thor#6e& to a$gment an+ #tem #n the general a))ro)r#at#ons la.
for the#r res)e%t#*e off#%es from sa*#ngs #n other #tems of the#r res)e%t#*e a))ro)r#at#ons.
Consttuton.are hereby authorzed to augment any tem n ths
Act for ther respectve offces from savngs n other tems of ther
respectve appropratons.
0ecision Pettons DISMISSED for ack of mert.
2otin; 14 concur, no dssent.
LOO!G V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
PUNO; Apr 14, 1999
'&C#(
- RA 8436 prescrbed the adopton of an automated eecton system
> Was used n the May 11, 1998 reguar eectons n the ARMM
whch ncudes Suu
> Atty. |ose Toentno was the head of the COMELEC Task Force n
Suu
- Suu votng ready peacefu except that there was a probem wth
the automated countng of votes
> Dscrepances were reported (May 12, 1998) between the
eecton returns and the votes cast for mayor n the muncpaty
of Pata (ater on confrmed when checked by Atty. Toentno)
> The automated countng of baots n Pata were suspended and
the probem was mmedatey communcated to the COMELEC
technca experts
> The probem was caused by the msagnment of the ovas
opposte the names of canddates n the oca baots but nothng
was wrong wth the machnes.
- Emergency meetng caed by Atty. Toentno partcpated n by
mtary poce offcas and oca canddates. Pettoner Loong was
among those who attended aong wth prvate respondent Tan.
> Dscussed how baots shoud be counted.
W Sh#ft to man$al %o$nt recommended by Brg. Gen. Espnosa
and Subaa, PNP Drector Ae|andrno, gubernatora candddates
Tan and Tuawe and congressna canddate Tuawe
W 0$tomate& %o$nt #ns#ste& /+ gubernatora canddates Loong
and |kr. Wrtten poston papers were requred to be submtted.
> Loca baots n fve muncpates were re|ected by automated
machnes (Tapao, Sas, Tudanan, Tapu and |oo). Baots
re|ected because of the wrong sequence code.
> COMELEC ssued Mnute Resouton 98-1747 orderng manua
recount n Pata. By 12 mdnght of May 12, Atty. Toentno had
sent an en banc report to the COMELEC reommendng manua
recount n the whoe provnce of Suu because t s possbe that
the same probem woud extend to other provnces n Suu.
> The COMELEC approved of Atty. Toentno's recommendaton
wth the foowng mpementaton procedures:
+ Countng machnes from |oo be transported to Mana n the
PICC to keep COMELEC away from boodshed between AFP
and MNLF
+ Authorze the offca trave of the board of canvassers
concerned for the conduct of the automated and manua
operatons of the countng of votes at PICC
+ To authorze the presence of ony the duy authorzed
representatve of the potca partes concerned and the
canddate watchers both outsde and nsde the permeters of
the PICC
> May 15, 1998 - COMELEC ad down rues for manua count
through Mnute Reson 98-1796
> May 18, 1998 - Loong fed ob|ecton to Mnute Resouton 98-
1796
+ Voates provsons of RA 8436 provdng for automated
countng of baots n ARMM. Automated count s mandatory
and coud not be substtuted by manua countng.
+ Baots were re|ected because baots were tampered wth
and/or the texture was dfferent from the offca baot
+ Countng machnes desgned n such a way as ony genune
offca baots coud be read by the machne
+ Other countng machnes n other muncpates were n
order.
> COMELEC st began wth the manua count on May 18.
> Loong fed petton for certorar wth Supreme Court:
+ COMELEC ssued Mnute Resoutons wthout pror notce
and hearng to hm
+ Order for manua countng voated RA 8346
+ Manua countng gave opportunty to eecton cheatng:
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(((
< Countng by human hands of fake, tampered and
counterfet baots whch machnes were programmed to
re|ect
< Opportunty to substte baots n PICC
< 22 Board of Eecton Inspectors for 1,194 precncts gves
suffcent tme to change and tamper baots
< Opportunty to deay the procamaton of wnnng
canddates through datory moves n pre-procamaton
controversy because the returns and certfcates are
aready made by man
> Tan procamed wnner n Suu. Loong garnered 3
rd
hghest
votes.
I((%E(
1. WON petton for certorar was approprate remedy to nvadate
COMELEC resoutons
2. WON COMELEC commtted grave abuse of dscreton amountng
to ack of |ursdscton n order manua count
a. Is there ega bass for manua count?
b. Are ts factua bases reasonabe?
c. Was there dena of due process when COMELEC ordered
manua count?
3. Won t s proper to ca for speca eecton for the poston of Suu
governor assumng the manua count s ega and resut s
unreabe.
3ELD
1. Certorar s the proper remedy accordng to Art. 9, Sec. 7 of the
Consttuton
- Interpretaton of RA 8436 must be made n reaton the
COMELEC's broad power n Art. 9, Secton 2(1) "to enforce and
admnster a aws and reguatons reatve to the conduct of an
eecton."
- Ad|udcatory for the pettoner, prvate respondent and ntervenor
so there are enough consderatons for the certorar |ursdcton.
2. No grave abuse of dscrecton amountng to ack of |ursdcton
because the post eecton reates show that the order for the
manua count was not arbtrary, caprcous or whmsca.
a. There was ega bass for the manua count.
- RA 8436 cannot be nssted upon after the machnes re|ected
the oca baots n fve muncpates of Suu. The errors were
not machne reated by were because of the baots.
- Congress faed to provde for remedy when the error n
countng s not machne-reated. The vacuum n the aw cannot
prevent the COMELEC from evtatng the probem. Artce 9,
Secton 2(1) of the Consttuton gves the COMELEC the broad
power "to enforce and admnster a aws and reguatons
reatve to the conduct of an eecton, pebscte, ntatve,
referendum and reca."
b. There was reasonabe factua bass.
- Automated machnes faed to read the baots correcty n
Pata. Loca baots n |oo, Sas, Tapa, Indanan and Tapao
were re|ected.
> Faws were carefuy anayzed by COMELEC experts and
found nothng wrong wth the machnes but wth the baots.
> To contnue wth the automated count woud resut n a
grossy erroneous resut.
- COMELEC had to act dersvey n order to restore peace and
order, especay snce past eecton tensons have been created
by faures n automated countng. Mtary and authortes
recommended manua countng to preserve peace and order.
c. There was no dena of due process when COMELEC ordered
the manua count.
- They were gven every opportunty to oppose the manua
count of oca baots n Suu.
> Oray heard
> Wrtten poston papers
> Representatves escorted transfer of baots and
automated machnes to Mana
> Watchers observed manua count
- The ntegrty of the oca baots was safeguarded when they
were transferred from Suu to Mana and when they were
manuay counted.
- Manua count s reabe because when the COMELEC ordered
manua count, t ssued correspondng rues and reguatons to
govern the countng and the baots were not dffcut to
understand.
3. A speca eecton for Suu governor s mproper.
- A speca eecton ony governs exceptona crcumstances. The
pea can ony be grounded on a faure of eecton.
> A faure of eecton appes when "on account of force
ma|eure, terrorsm, fraud or other anaogous causes, the
eecton n any pong pace has not been hed on the date
fxed, or had been suspended before the hour fxed by aw for
the dosng of the votng, or after the votng and durng the
preparaton and the transmsson of the eecton returns or n
the custody of canvass thereof."
> A pea for speca eecton must aso be addressed to the
COMELEC not to the SC (Secton 6 of the Omnbus Eecton
Code shoud be read n reaton to RA 7166).
> Grounds for faure of eecton nvove questns after the
fact. They can ony be determned by the COMELEC en banc
after due notce and hearng to the partes. Loong dd not do
ths n the present case. Hs pea for speca eecton was an
afterthought.
- To hod a speca eecton woud be dscrmnatory.
> A eected offcas n Suu now dschargng functons.;
> Tan's eecton cannot be snged out as nvad for akes
cannot be treated unakes.
In addition
- COMELEC was organed under Comm. Act 607 n August 1940.
The power to enforce eecton aws was orgnay vested n the
Presdent and exercsed through the Dept. of Interor.
- 1940 amendments to 1935 Consttuton transformed the
COMELEC to a consttutona body. COMELEC was granted power to
have "excusve charge of the enforcement and admnstraton of
a aws reatve to the conduct of eectons."
- 1973 Consttuton broadened powers of the COMELEC by makng
t the soe |udge of a eecton contests reatng to the eectons,
returns and quafcatons of members of the natona egsature
and eectve provnca and cty offcas. It was gven |udca power
asde from the tradtona admnstratve and executve functons.
- 1987 Consttuton added powers to the COMELEC by aowng t to
enforce and admnster a aws and reguatons reatve to the
conduct of eectons, pebsctes, ntatve, referenda and recas. It
aso ncudes contets nvovng eectve muncpa and barangay
offcas.
(&!C3E4 V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
MELENCIO-HERRERA; |une 19, 1982
'&C#(
- |an. 30, 1980 oca eectons- Sanchez and Bwang ran for Mayor
of San Fernando, Pampanga
- Bwang was procamed wnner
- Sanchez fed wth COMELEC a Petton to decare nu and vod the
oca eectons due to aeged arge scae terrorsm
- Utmatey, the COMELEC found that after the votng was over n
the oca eectons, terrorsm and rreguartes were commtted-
counters were threatened by armed goons and pocemen nto
makng spurous eecton returns n favor of Bwang.
- Thus, COMELEC ssued a resouton orderng:
1. The annument the |an. 30, 1980 eecton and the settng asde
of the procamaton of Bwang
2. To certfy to the Presdent/Prme Mnster and the Batasang
Pambansa the faure of eecton, so that remeda egsaton may
be enacted, and pendng such enactment, the Presdent/PM may
appont muncpa offcas n San Fernando
- Sanchez sought reconsderaton of the COMELEC Resouton
certfyng the faure of eecton, and prayng nstead that COMELEC
ca a speca eecton n San Fernando
- COMELEC dened reconsderaton
- Both Bwang and Sanchez fed pettons wth the SC, whch were
consodated nto the foowng ssues:
I((%E(
1. WON the COMELEC has the power to annu an entre muncpa
eecton on the ground of post-eecton terrorsm
2. WON the COMELEC has the authorty to ca for a speca eecton
3ELD
1. Bwang asserts that COMELEC acks the power to annu
eectons of muncpa offcas because, under Secton 190 of the
1978 Eecton Code, the power to try eecton contests reatve to
eectve muncpa offcas s vested n the CFI
- SC: It may be true there s no specfc provson vestng COMELEC
wth authorty to annu an eecton. Under the 1935 Consttuton,
the SC sad that COMELEC dd not have ths power, and that
nstead the power ay wth the Senate Eectora Trbuna and the
House Eectora Trbuna. Now, however, t s "the soe |udge of a
contests reatng to the eectons, returns, and quafcatons of a
members of the Batasang Pambansa and eectve provnca and
cty offcas." The COMELEC must be deemed possessed of the
authorty, n ne wth ts pentude of powers and ts functon to
protect the ntegrty of eectons.
2. COMELEC opned that t had no powers to order the hodng of a
new or speca eecton, because the actua eecton tsef took
pace, and n a proper, ordery fashon. Accordng to COMELEC, the
Batas Pambansa Bg. 52 grants COMELEC authorty to ca for a new
or speca eecton ony n a faure of eecton, but n ths case,
there was a fa#l$re to ga$ge the tr$e an& gen$#ne .#ll of the
ele%torate, as opposed to a faure of eecton (tanted castng of
baots (faure of eecton) vs. tanted countng of baots (faure to
gauge the w))
- SC: to state that ths s not the faure of eecton contempated by
Batas Pambansa Bg. 52 because eectons &#& take pace s too
tenuous a dstncton. In practca effect, no eecton has been hed;
there has been n truth and n fact, a faure to eect. Ths
nterpretaton ony hampers the effectveness of the COMELEC and
deays the opportunty to the voters to cast ther votes.
0ecision The SC uphods the power and prerogatve of the
COMELEC to annu an eecton and to ca for a speca eecton.
%!IDO V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
BARREDO; Apr 3, 1981
'&C#(
- Appea by the UNIDO (a potca org campagnng for "NO" votes
to amendments to the 1973 Const proposed by the Batasang
Pambansa), from the resoutons of COMELEC dated March 18 and
March 22, 1981.
- 5 March 1981: COMELEC ssued 3 Resoutons provdng for Rues
and Reguatons concernng the pebscte campagn:
(1) Resouton No. 1467 provdng for equa opportunty on free
pubc dscussons and debates;
(2) Resouton No.1468 provdng for equa tme on the use of the
broadcast meda (rado & TV) <equa as to duraton and quaty.
at the same rates or gven free of charge>; &
(3) Resouton No.1469 provdng for equa space on the use of
the prnt meda; but COMELEC recognzes the prncpe of sef-
reguaton & sha practce ony mnma supervson.
- 10 March 1981: UNIDO wrtes to COMELEC re: news that Pres.
Marcos w ead the campagn for "Yes" votes n hs 2-hr natonwde
"Puong-Puong sa Panguo" rado-TV program on March 12, whch
w be carred ve by 26 teevson and 248 rado statons
throughout the country. Ctng the sad COMELEC resoutons, they
demand exacty the same number of TV and rado statons a over
the country to campagn for 'No' votes.
- 17 March 1981: UNIDO wrtes a foow-up etter to COMELEC,
statng that on March 21, they w hod a pubc meetng at the
Paza Mranda, Ouapo, Mana, & requestng that t covered by
rado and teevson from 9:30 to 11:30 P.M. They expect COMELEC
to drect the rado & TV factes to compy wth ther request.
- 18 March 1981: COMELEC ssued Resouton sayng UNIDOs
request "cannot be granted and s hereby dened" & that
(1) 'Puong-Puong sa Panguo' s not a potca or partsan vehce
but an nnovatve system of partcpatory democracy where the
Presdent as eader of the naton enuncates certan programs or
poces.. Its format s ntended to resut n effectve mut-way
consutaton between the eader of the naton and the peope;
and that
(2) UNIDO, not havng the same consttutona prerogatves
vested n the Presdent/Prme Mnster, has no rght to 'demand'
equa coverage by meda accorded Presdent Marcos but s free to
enter nto approprate contracts wth the TV or rado statons
concerned. COMEMEC cannot drect these meda to grant free use
of ther factes.
- 20 March 1981: UNIDO wrtes another etter as MFR. Dened by
COMELEC for ack of mert. Hence, ths appea before SC. Pettoner
rases the foowng grounds:
(1) COMELEC resoutons n queston are contrary to the
Consttuton and the aw, for beng un|ust, unfar & nequtabe.
They voate the basc prncpes of equaty, good fath and far
pay, & are not conducve to nsure free, ordery and honest
eectons;
(2) UNIDOs request/demand for equa broadcast meda of ts
pubc meetng/ray at Paza Mranda was arbtrary dened. The
campagn for NO votes shoud be granted the same rght & equa
use of factes granted Marcos campagn for YES.
I((%E
WON COMELEC acted wth grave abuse of dscreton
3ELD
".for beng beyond what the charter, the aws and pertnent
Comeec reguatons contempate, for beng more than what the
opposton s duy entted vs-a-vs the duty, obgaton and/or
prvege nherent n the head of state to drecty daogue wth the
soveregn peope when the occason demands, for beng
mpractca under prevang crcumstances, and 9or its 9ailure to
'oin in t&e instant petition indispensable parties, t&ereb(
deprivin; t&e Court o9 'urisdiction to act, and for these aone
among other reasons whch there s hardy tme to state heren, the
prayer n the nstant petton cannot be granted. "
- The proposed changes of the Charter are of deep and
transcendenta mportance and the more the peope are
adequatey nformed about the proposed amendments, ther exact
meanng, mpcatons and nuances, the better.
- Dena of due process s consdered generay as the frst and the
most vaued rght of everyone under the B of Rghts. UNIDO
shoud have made the teevson and rado statons (who w be
drecty affected by any n|uncton of the Comeec upon SCs
orders) partes to ths case. Sad partes are ndspensabe wthout
whch the Court cannot proceed propery.
- In fact, pettoner has not shown, for apparenty they have not
done so, that they have requested any TV or rado staton to gve
them the same tme and stye of "puong-puong" as that whch
they afforded the Presdent. Aso, there are other groups and
aggrupatons not to speak of ndvduas who are smary stuated
as pettoner who woud aso want to be heard.
- The "free ordery and honest eectons" cause of the Consttuton
s appcabe aso to pebsctes, partcuary one reatve to
consttutona amendments. It s ndspensabe that they be
propery characterzed to be far submsson: the voters must of
necessty have had adequate opportunty, n the ght of
conventona wsdom, to cast ther votes wth suffcent
understandng of what they are votng on.
- Nothng can be of more transcendenta mportance than to vote n
a consttutona pebscte. It s the duty of the Comeec to see to t
that the sae of ar tme by TV and rado statons nsures that tme
equa as to duraton and quaty s avaabe to a contendng vews.
- Curtament of the freedom of speech and the press of teevson
and rado statons s permssbe for eecton purposes.
- The head of state of every country n the word must from the
very nature of hs poston, be accorded certan prveges not
equay avaabe to those who are opposed to hm. When the head
of state wants to communcate on matters of pubc concern, no
government offce or entty s obged to gve the opposton the
same factes. They have to ava themseves of ther own
resources.
- In nstances where the head of state s at the same tme the
presdent of the potca party that s n power, t does not
necessary foow that he speaks wth two voces when he
daogues wth the governed. When the Presdent spoke n "Puong-
Puong sa Panguo" he spoke as Presdent-Prme Mnster and not as
head of the KBL, the potca party now n power.
- The pettoner had not adequatey shown that COMELEC acted
wth grave abuse of dscreton. The Comeec has ndeed the power
to supervse and reguate the mass meda wth respect to the equa
opportunty provsons, but such authorty arses ony when there s
a showng that any sector or member of the meda has dened to
any party or person the rght to whch t or he s entted. Comeec
s not supposed to dctate to the meda.
- There are other potca partes smary stuated as pettoner. To
grant to pettoner what t wants, t must necessary foow that
such other partes shoud aso be granted. That woud be too much
to expect from the meda that has aso ts own rght to whch t or
he s entted. Comeec s not supposed to dctate to the meda.
0ecision Appea dsmssed.
C3&VE4 V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
BIDIN; |uy 3, 1992
'&C#(
- Petton for the ssuance of a TRO en|onng COMELEC from
procamng the 24
th
hghest senatora canddate.
- May 5, 1992 - Court ssued a Resouton of the case "Francsco
Chavez v. Comeec, et a.," dsquafyng Mechor Chavez from
runnng for Senator n the May 11, 1992 eectons. The pettoner
then fed an urgent moton wth the Comeec prayng that t (1)
dssemnate to a ts agents and the genera pubc the resouton;
and (2) order sad eecton offcas to deete the name of Mechor
Chavez as prnted n the certfed st of canddates, tay sheets,
eecton returns and Oto 0ount all votes 0ast /or t*e
+isLuali/ie+ "el0*or5 C*ave, in /avor o/ 'ran0is0o I.
C*ave, . . . .O
- May 8, 1992 - Comeec ssued a resouton whch resoved to
deete the name of Mechor Chavez from the st of quafed
canddates. However, t faed to order the credtng of a "Chavez"
votes n favor of pettoner as we as the canceaton of Mechor
Chavez name n the st of quafed canddates. On Eecton Day,
Mechor Chavez remaned undeeted n the st of quafed
canddates. Commssoner Rama ssued a drectve over the rado
and TV orderng that a "Chavez" votes be credted to the
pettoner however t dd not reach a the precncts
- Pettoner cams that the Comeec faed to perform ts mandatory
functon under Sec. 7, RA 7166 whch states that f a canddate has
been dsquafed, t sha be the duty of the Commsson to nstruct
wthout deay the deeton of the name of sad canddate.
- Confuson arose as the "Chavez" votes were ether decared stray
or nvadated by the Boards of Eecton Inspectors (BEIs).As a
resut, "Chavez" votes were not credted n favor of pettoner.
- May 12, 1992 - Comeec ssued another Resouton drectng a
muncpa and cty eecton regstrars throughout the country to
examne the mnutes of votng submtted by the BEIs and to credt
a the "Chavez" votes, whch have been decared stray or
nvadated by the BEIs, n favor of pettoner.
- Pettoner mantans that the sad resouton proved fute because
t dd not reach a the varous BEIs throughout the country on tme
for mpementaton and that the mnutes of votng dd not ndcate
the number of "Chavez" votes whch were decared stray or
nvadated.
- May 23, 1992, pettoner fed an urgent petton before the
respondent Comeec prayng the atter to (1) mpement ts May 12,
1992 resouton wth costs de offco; (2) to re-open the baot boxes
to scan for the "Chavez" votes for purposes of credtng the same n
hs favor; (3) make the approprate entres n the eecton
returns/certfcates of canvass; and (4) to suspend the procamaton
of the 24 wnnng canddates.
- Dssatsfed wth the faure of respondent Comeec to act on hs
petton, pettoner fed ths urgent petton for prohbton and
mandamus, wth prayer for the ssuance of a TRO, en|onng the
Comeec from procamng the 24th hghest senatora canddate,
wthout frst mpementng Comeec's resouton of May 12, 1992
and actng upon pettoner's etter/compant dated May 14, 1992
and urgent petton dated May 22, 1992. Pettoner aeges that
respondent Comeec acted caprcousy and whmscay and wth
- |une 8, 1992, Sen Agapto Aquno prayed for the dsmssa of the
nstant petton on the ground that the aw does not aow pre-
procamaton controversy nvovng the eecton of members of the
Senate.
I((%E
1. WON SC has |ursdcton over the case
3ELD
1. $uris+i0tion
- The aeged nacton of Comeec n orderng the deeton of
Mechor Chavez's name n the st of quafed canddates does not
ca for the exercse of the Court's functon of |udca revew. #*e
Court 0an review t*e +e0isions or or+ers o/ t*e Comele0
onl1 in 0ases o/ grave a6use o/ +is0retion 0ommitte+ 61 it in
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(('
t*e +is0*arge o/ its Luasi-<u+i0ial powers an+ not t*ose
arising /rom t*e e:er0ise o/ its a+ministrative /un0tions.
- Comeec can admnstratvey undo what t has admnstratvey
eft undone. Comeec has ordered the deeton of Mechor Chavez's
name not ony on the offca st of canddates, but aso on the
eecton returns, tay sheet and certfcate of canvass. Hence,
pettoner's aegaton that respondent Comeec faed to mpement
the resoutons does not hod water.
- Pettoner has no 0ause o/ a0tion, the controversy beng n the
nature of a pre-procamaton. Whe the Commsson has excusve
|ursdcton over pre-procamaton controverses nvovng oca
eectve offcas, such are not aowed n eectons for Presdent,
Vce-Presdent, Senator and Member of the House of
Representatves.
- Sec. 15 of Repubc Act 7166 provdes:
"Sec. 15. Pre-procamaton Cases Not Aowed n Eectons for
Presdent, Vce-Presdent, Senator, and Member of the House of
Representatves. - For purposes of the eectons for Presdent, Vce-
Presdent, Senator and Member of the House of Representatves, no
pre-procamaton cases sha be aowed on matters reatng to the
preparaton, transmsson, recept, custody and apprecaton of the
eecton returns or the certfcate of canvass, as the case may be.
However, ths does not precude the authorty of the approprate
canvassng body motu propo or upon wrtten compant of an
nterested person to correct manfest errors n the certfcate of
canvass or eecton returns before t.
xxx xxx xxx
"Any ob|ecton on the eecton returns before the cty or muncpa
board of canvassers, or on the muncpa certfcates of canvass
before the provnca boards of canvassers or dstrct board of
canvassers n Metro Mana Area, sha be specfcay noted n the
mnutes of ther respectve proceedngs."
What s aowed s the correcton of "manfest errors n the
certfcate of canvass or eecton returns." To be manfest, the
errors must appear on the face of the certfcates of canvass or
eecton returns sought to be corrected and/or ob|ectons thereto
must have been made before the board of canvassers and
specfcay noted n the mnutes of ther respectve proceedngs.
- The pettoner's prayer does not ca for the correcton of
"manfest error's n the certfcates of canvass or eecton returns"
before the Comeec but for the re-openng of the baot boxes and
apprecaton of the baots contaned theren. He has not even
ponted to any "manfest error" n the certfcates of canvass or
eecton returns he desres to be rectfed. There beng none, the
proper recourse s to fe a reguar eecton protest whch
excusvey pertans to the Senate Eectora Trbuna.
- The word "soe" underscores the excusvty of the Trbunas'
|ursdcton over eecton contests reatng to ther respectve
Members s therefore the Court has no |ursdcton to entertan the
nstant petton. It s the Senate Eectora Trbuna whch has
excusve |ursdcton to act on the compant of pettoner nvovng,
as t does, contest reatng to the eecton of a member of the
Senate. Pettoner's proper recourse s to fe a reguar eecton
protest before the Senate Eectora Trbuna after the wnnng
senatora canddates have been procamed.
- Pettoner argues that a recount before the Senate Eectora
Trbuna woud force hm to she out the expenses mposes not
ony a property requrement for the en|oyment of the rght to be
voted upon but aso a prce on the rght of suffrage whch woud
utmatey stfe the soveregn w.
- The aw s very cear on the matter and t s not rght for pettoner
to ask ths Court to abandon setted |ursprudence, engage n
|udca egsaton, amend the Consttuton and ater the Omnbus
Eecton Code. The mandatory procedures ad down by the exstng
aw n cases ke the one at bar must be fathfuy foowed. The
proper recourse s for pettoner to ask not ths Court but the
Legsature to enact remeda measures.
- San%he6 *. Comm#ss#on on Ele%t#ons: ". (1) Errors n the
apprecaton of baots by the board of nspectors are proper
sub|ect for eecton protest and not for recount or reapprecaton of
baots. (2) The apprecaton of baots s not part of the
proceedngs of the board of canvassers. The functon of baots
apprecaton s performed by the board eecton nspectors at the
precnct eve. (3) The scope of pre-procamaton controversy s
mted to the ssues enumerated under Sec. 243 OEC. The
compete eecton returns whose authentcty s not n queston,
must be prma face consdered vad for the purpose of canvassng
the same and procamaton of the wnnng canddates.
"#*e groun+ /or re0ount relie+ upon 61 (an0*e, is 0learl1
not among t*e issues t*at ma1 6e raise+ in pre-
pro0lamation 0ontrovers1. 3is allegation o/ invali+ation o/
O(an0*e,O votes inten+e+ /or *im 6ear no relation to t*e
0orre0tness an+ aut*enti0it1 o/ t*e ele0tion returns
0anvasse+. !eit*er t*e Constitution nor statute *as grante+
t*e Comele0 or t*e 6oar+ o/ 0anvassers t*e power in t*e
0anvass o/ ele0tion returns to loo9 6e1on+ t*e /a0e t*ereo/5
on0e satis/ie+ o/ t*eir aut*enti0it1 (Abes v. Comeec, 21 SCRA
1252, 1256)."
- Pettoner has not demonstrated any manfest error n the
certfcates of canvass or eecton returns before the Comeec whch
woud warrant ther correcton.
:e%#s#on Premises 0onsi+ere+5 t*e Court esolve+ to
DI("I(( t*e instant petition /or la09 o/ merit.
Narvasa, (C.|.), Guterrez, |r., Cruz, Paras, Fecano, Pada, Gro-
Aquno, Medadea, Regaado, Davde, |r., Romero, Nocon and
Beoso, ||., concur.
Notes Pre-procamaton controversy s defned as "any queston
pertanng to or affectng the proceedngs of the board of
canvassers whch may be rased by any canddate or by any
regstered potca party or coaton of potca partes before the
board or drecty wth the Commsson, or any matter rased under
Sectons 233, 234, 235 and 236 n reaton to the preparaton,
transmsson, recept, custody and apprecaton of the eecton
returns." |Sec. 241, Omnbus Eecton Code).
.%&C &!D .&%#I(#& V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!( &!D
C&2E#&!O
PUNO; |anuary 26, 2004
'&C#(
- Buac and Bautsta fed a petton for certorar and mandamus to
compe the COMELEC to take cognzance of contests nvovng the
conduct of a pebscte and the annument of ts resut.
- In Apr 1988, a pebscte was hed to ratfy the ctyhood of Tagug
(convertng Tagug nto a hghy urbanzed cty). The Pebscte
Board of Canvassers (PBOC), wthout competng the canvass of
sxty-four (64) other eecton returns, decared that the "No" votes
won, ndcatng that the peope re|ected the converson of Tagug
nto a cty. However, upon order of the COMELEC, the PBOC
reconvened and competed the canvass of the pebscte
returns, eventuay procamng that the negatve votes st
prevaed.
- Aegng that fraud and rreguartes attended the castng and
countng of votes, Buac and Bautsta fed wth the COMELEC a
petton seekng the annument of the announced resuts of the
pebscte wth a prayer for revson and recount of the baots. The
COMELEC treated the petton as an eecton protest.
- Cayetano ntervened n the case. He fed a moton to dsmss on
the ground that the COMELEC has no <uris+i0tion over an acton
nvovng the conduct of a pebscte. He aeged that a pebscte
cannot be the sub|ect of an eecton protest, and such must be
wthn the |ursdcton of the RTC.
- COMELEC ntay gave due course to the petton and rued that t
had |ursdcton over the case, but ths was overturned competey
upon the MFR of Cayetano.
I((%E
WON COMELEC has |ursdcton to decde cases regardng pebscte
contests.
3ELD
YES
atio COMELEC has |ursdcton over pebscte contest contests as
power to decde such cases s part of the power vested by the 1987
Consttuton to the COMELEC under Art. IX(C) Sec. 2(1)
61
.
easonin;: there are 7 reasons gven.
61
(e0. I. The Commsson on Eectons sha exercse the foowng powers and functons:
1. Part of |udca power s the settement of confctng rghts
as conferred by aw. Under the present case, there s no
nvovement of the voaton of any egay demandabe rght, for
t merey nvoves the ascertanment of the vote of the eectorate
of Tagug.
2. |ursdcton of RTC s ony on cv actons. A Pebscte s NOT
a cv acton but a determnaton of pubc w.
3. To grant |ursdcton to RTC woud resut to 3$m/le& 3$st#%e.
There woud be confuson f pebscte contest cases were gven to
the RTC for what f the pebscte was a natona one. Every RTC n
the Phppnes woud have |ursdcton over natonwde pebscte,
whch runs contrary to the prncpe that |ursdcton of an RTC s
mted to ther regon.
4. The Const gves |ursdcton of contests nvovng ony
eecton of offcers to the courts (part of |udca functon) or to
admnstratve trbunas (exercsng quas-|udca power). As such,
|ursdcton over pebscte contests s not vested on the courts.
5. The Consttutona mandate to COMELEC to enforce and
admnster aws and reguatons reatve to conduct of pebsctes
(among others) ncudes the power to ascertan the true resuts of
such pebscte. It ncudes the power to do a that s necessary to
acheve honest and credbe pebsctes.
*The provson grantng COMELEC |ursdcton over contests re:
eected offcas s not mtng n the sense that t ony mts
quas-|udca power of COMELEC to such cases. The power to
ascertan true resuts s mpct n ts power to enforce a aws
reatve to the conduct of pebscte.
6. COMELEC s best suted to have |ursdcton over such cases
because of ther ndsputabe expertse n eecton and reated
aws.
7. MFR of Cayetano fed out of tme (fed 10 days, not the
prescrbed 5 days, after recept of the Order or Resouton of
COMELEC).
0ecision COMELEC drected to renstate the petton to annu the
resuts and decde t wthout deay.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C&PIO-"O&LE( D+issentE
(1) En/or0e an+ a+minister all laws an+ regulations reatve to the conduct of an eecton, ple6is0ite,
ntatve, referendum, and reca.
- Ouas-|udca functon of COMELEC s mted to contests nvovng
eecton of regona, provnca, and cty offcas (mted to what the
provson n the Const sad). As such, |ursdcton must be granted
to the RTC, snce no other court or agency has |ursdcton over t.
- Present contest s based on aegatons of fraud and rreguartes,
whch nvoves a ega queston that s determnabe by a |udca or
quas-|udca body.
- There s aso the nvovement of a demandabe rght (rght to a
canvass free from fraud, anomaes, and rreguartes) whch arose
from ther rght to to vote n a pebscte.
- |ursdcton s setted upon determnng WoN there s nvovement
of a |udca controversy or a purey admnstratve functon. In ths
case, t s ceary |udca.
C!**I..I!N !N #50I/
&LLI&!CE O' GOVE!"E!# 7O)E( V "I!I(#E O'
L&.O
GUTIERREZ; August 3, 1983
'&C#(
- Pettoner Aance of Government Workers (AGW) s a regstered
abor federaton whe the other pettoners are ts affate unons
wth members from among the empoyees of the foowng offces,
schoos, or government-owned or controed corporatons: PNB,
MWSS, GSIS, SSS, PVTA, PNC, PUP. The workers n the respondent
nsttutons have not drecty pettoned the heads of ther
respectve offces or ther representatves n the Batasang
Pambansa. They have acted through a abor federaton and ts
affated unons. The workers and empoyees are takng coectve
acton through a abor federaton whch uses the barganng power
of organzed abor to secure ncreased compensaton for ts
members.
- The pettoners contend that they shoud be ncuded as recpents
of the P.D. 851 Chrstmas bonus whch states:
SECTION 1. A empoyers are hereby requred to pay a ther
empoyees recevng a basc saary of not more than
P 1000 a month, regardess of the nature of ther
empoyment, a 13
th
-month pay not ater than
December 24 of every year.
SECTION 2. Empoyers aready payng ther empoyees a 13
th
-
month pay or ts equvaent are not covered by ths
Decree.
- Secton 3 of the Rues and Reguatons Impementng PD 851
provdes:
"Secton 3. Empoyees covered. - The Decree sha appy to a
empoyers except to:
b) The Government and any of ts potca subdvsons,
ncudng government-owned and controed corporatons,
except those corporatons operatng essentay as prvate
subsdares of the Government;"
- The pettoners argue that reguatons adopted under egsatve
authorty must be n harmony wth the provsons of the aw and for
the soe purpose of carryng nto effect ts genera provsons. A
egsatve act cannot be amended by a rue and an admnstratve
offcer (Mnster of Labor) cannot change the aw.
I((%E
1. WON the Court has |ursdcton over the case;
2. WON branches, agences, subdvsons, and nstrumentates of
the Government ncuded among the "empoyers" under PD 851
are requred to pay a ther empoyees recevng a basc saary of
ess than P1000 13
th
-month pay;
3. Whether or not branches, agences, subdvsons, and
nstrumentates of the Government are aowed to coectvey
bargan for wages and benefts.
3ELD
1. #*e Court +oes not *ave <uris+i0tion over t*e petition.
easonin; The pettoners are faced wth a procedura barrer.
The petton s one for decaratory reef, an acton not embraced
wthn the orgna |ursdcton of the Supreme Court. There s no
statutory or |ursprudenta bass for pettoners statement that the
SC has orgna and excusve |ursdcton over decaratory reef
suts where ony questons of aw are concerned.
HOWEVER, the petton has far reachng mpcatons and rases
questons that shoud be resoved.
2. Government emplo1ees are not entitle+ to 1M
t*
-mont*
pa1 as provi+e+ in PD ;51.
atio Uness so specfed, the government does not fa wthn the
terms of any egsaton or decree (STATCON).
easonin; The Repubc of the Phppnes, as soveregn, cannot
be covered by a genera term ke "empoyer" uness the anguage
used n the aw s cear and specfc to that effect.
In fact, t has been expressy stated n Secton 3 of the Rues and
Reguatons Impementng PD 851 that Government subdvsons,
etc. are not covered by the Decree. The beneft s extended ony to
empoyees of prvate companes/ corporatons. In addton, Sec. 2
of PD 851 bars the pettoners from recevng the bonus, snce
government offces have nsttuted an across the board wage
ncrease.
3. Pu6li0 o//i0ers an+ emplo1ees ma1 not <oin asso0iations
w*i0* impose t*e o6ligation to engage in 0on0erte+
a0tivities in or+er to get salaries5 /ringe 6ene/its5 an+ ot*er
emoluments *ig*er t*an or +i//erent /rom t*at provi+e+ 61
law an+ regulation.
easoning Snce the terms and condtons of government
empoyment are f#,e& /+ la. government workers cannot use the
same weapons empoyed by workers n the prvate sector to secure
concessons from ther empoyers. The prncpe behnd abor
unonsm n prvate ndustry s that ndustra peace cannot be
secured through compuson by aw. Reatons between prvate
empoyers and ther empoyees rest on an essentay vountary
bass. In government empoyment, t s the egsature and the
admnstratve heads (when propery deegated the power) of
government whch fx the terms and condtons of empoyment.
- Under the present Consttuton, government-owned or controed
corporatons are specfcay mentoned as embraced by the cv
servce (Secton 1, Artce XII-B). Ths was to correct the stuaton
where more favored empoyees of the government coud en|oy the
benefts of two words. (alaries an+ /ringe 6ene/its o/ t*ose
em6ra0e+ 61 t*e 0ivil servi0e are /i:e+ 61 law. As such
pettoners have no standng to bargan coectvey (or to bargan
at a) for wages.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
'E!&!DO D0on0ur pro *a0 vi0eE
- Ths s n conformty to the prevang doctrne of statutory
constructon that uness so specfed, the government does not fa
wthn the terms of any egsaton or decree.
- ART. XIII Sec. 1: "Pubc offce s a pubc trust. Pubc offcers and
empoyees sha serve wth the hghest degree of responsbty
xxx"
> Under the Consttuton there can be no rght to strke by them
nor to take a mass eave whch s a way of dong ndrecty what s
not egay aowabe.
- Government workers cannot use the same weapons empoyed by
workers n the prvate sector to secure concessons from empoyers
(terms are fxed by aw).
"&)&(I& D+issentE
- A the "whereases" are the premses of the decree requrng a
empoyers to pay a ther empoyees recevng a basc saary of not
more than P1000 a month. A workng masses, wthout excepton
whether prvate sector or pubc, are aso sufferng from ravages of
nfaton, and are entted to propery ceebrate Chrstmas every
year.
- Both the empoyees of the respondents and the empoyees of the
prvate sector are smary stuated and have coectve barganng
agreements wth ther respectve empoyers.
!&#IO!&L (EVICE CO. V !LC
PADILLA; November 29, 1988
'&C#(
- Nature: Speca cv actons for certorar to revew the decson of
the NLRC.
- Summary: In NASECO, the Court expaned that the cv servce
under the 1987 Const does not cover empoyees from GOCCs
organzed as subsdares under the genera corporaton aw.
Accordngy, empoyees n such GOCCs are under NLRCs
|ursdcton. By further mpcaton, the audtng power of COA does
not appy over sad GOCCs.
- Eugena Credo was an empoyee of NASECO, a corporaton that
provdes manpower servces to PNB and ts agences. Because of
certan admnstratve charges aganst her such as dscourtesy and
nsubordnaton, she was dsmssed from NASECO n 1983. In the
same year Credo fed a compant for ega dsmssa, whch was
eventuay decded by the NLRC n 1984 n her favor.
- NASECO contends, among others, that the NLRC
62
has no
|ursdcton to order Credo's renstatement. NASECO cams that, as
a GOCC |by vrtue of ts beng a subsdary of the Natona
Investment and Deveopment Corporaton (NIDC), a subsdary of
the PNB, whch n turn s a GOCC|, the terms and condtons of
empoyment of ts empoyees are governed by the Cv Servce
Law, rues and reguatons. In support of ths argument, NASECO
ctes Nat#onal 8o$s#ng Cor)orat#on *s. 1$%o |134 SCRA 172 (1985)|,
where SC hed that "empoyees of GOCCs are governed by the cv
servce aw."
I((%E
For the purpose of determnng whether the case fas under the
NLRC or CSC, WON NASECO (wthout orgna charter) covered by
the cv servce as defned n the 1987 Consttuton
3ELD
- GOCCs wthout egsatve charter sha not be deemed to be
embraced by the term cv servce under the Consttuton. By
62
.2&!R($- !LC +oes not *ave <uris+i0tion over t*ose 0overe+ 61 t*e C(C. It *a+ <uris+i0tion on
la6or issues o/ private 0orporations or 6roa+l1 spea9ing5 private 6usinesses.
mpcaton, abor dsputes n sad GOCCs sha fa wthn the
|ursdcton of the NLRC. By further mpcaton, the audtng power
of COA sha not appy to them.
easonin; In the matter of coverage by the cv servce of
GOCCs, the 1987 Consttuton starky vares from the 1973
Consttuton, upon whch N8C s based. Under the 1973 Const, t
was provded that
"|t|he cv servce embraces every. nstrumentaty
of the Government, ncudng every government-
owned or controed corporaton."
- On the other hand, the 1987 Const provdes that |Art. IX-B, Sec.
2(1)|
"|t|he cv servce embraces a. nstrumentates.
of the Government, ncudng government owned or
controed corporatons wth orgna charters."
- Thus, the stuaton sought to be avoded by the 1973 Consttuton
and the N8C case regardng subsdary corporatons created under
the Corporaton Code, whose "offcas and empoyees woud be.
free from the strct accountabty requred by the Cv Servce
Decree and the reguatons of the Commsson on Audt," appear
reegated to reatve nsgnfcance by the above 1987
Consttutona provson. By cear mpcaton |of Art. IX-B, Sec.
2(1)|, the Cv Servce does not ncude GOCCs whch are organzed
as subsdares of GOCCs under the genera corporaton aw.
63
- On the premse that t s the 1987 Consttuton that governs the
nstant case because t s the Consttuton n pace at the tme of
|SCGs| decson thereof, the NLRC has |ursdcton to accord reef to
the partes. As an admtted subsdary of the NIDC, n turn a
subsdary of the PNB, the NASECO s a GOCC wthout orgna
charter.
64
N5>C &e%#s#on aff#rme&.
CI(#O.&L V "ELC3O
63
.2&!R($- & 0orporation 0an 6e 0reate+ generall1 in two wa1s- 61 incorporation under t&e
Corporation Code5 or 61 special la:. Corporations 0reate+ 61 spe0ial law are also 0alle+
0orporations wit* spe0ialCoriginal 0*arters.
64
.2&!R($- 7*at t*e Court seems to mean is t*at alt*oug* P!. *as an original 0*arter5 an+ *en0e
0overe+ 61 0ivil servi0e law5 !&(ECO (as P!.As su6-su6si+iar1) was organi,e+ un+er t*e
Corporation Co+e. 3en0e5 !&(ECO is un+er !LCAs <uris+i0tion.
MUNOZ-PALMA; |uy 29, 1977
'&C#(
- |ose Crstoba was formery empoyed as a prvate secretary n the
Presdent's Prvate Offce n Maacaan, havng been apponted to
that poston on |uy 1, 1961 wth a saary of P4,188.00 per annum.
On the second week of |anuary, 1962, the then Executve Secretary
Ameto Mutuc, thru a etter, nformed the pantff that hs servces
as prvate secretary n the Presdent's Prvate Offce were
termnated effectve |anuary 1, 1962. A smar etter was
addressed by Sec. Mutuc to some other empoyees n the Offce of
the Presdent (OP). The dsmssed empoyees appeaed to the
Presdent by means of etters dated |anuary 3, 1962 and |anuary
26, 1962 for a reconsderaton of ther separaton from the servce.
In a etter dated February 21, 1962, ther request for
reconsderaton was dened by Secretary Mutuc, actng 'by
authorty of the Presdent'.
- On March 24, 1962, fve of the empoyees who were separated
(excudng Crstoba) fed a cv acton before the CFI of Mana
aganst Secretary Mutuc and the Cash Dsbursng Offcer of the OP
prayng for renstatement and the payment of ther saares
effectve as of |anuary 1, 1962. From a |udgment dsmssng ther
compant, the sad empoyees appeaed to the Supreme Court
whch rendered a decson promugated on November 29, 1968
reversng the dsmssa of ther compant and decarng ther
remova from offce as ega and contrary to aw, and orderng
ther renstatement and the payment of ther saares from |anuary
1, 1962 up to the date of ther actua renstatement.
- Sometme n May, 1962, when the cv acton fed by Rau Inges,
et a was st pendng n the CFI of Mana, the dsmssed
empoyees who fed sad acton were recaed to ther postons n
the OP, wthout pre|udce to the contnuaton of ther cv acton.
Wth respect to the other empoyees who were not renstated -
Crstoba ncuded, efforts were exerted by Sec. Mutuc to ook for
pacements outsde of Maacaan so that they may be reempoyed.
Crstoba wated for Sec. Mutuc to make good hs assurance that he
woud be recaed to the servce, unt the atter was repaced by
other executve secretares who kewse assured the pantff of
assstance to be reempoyed at the opportune tme.
- After the decson of the SC promugated on November 29, 1968,
the pantff addressed a etter to the OP dated |anuary 19, 1969,
requestng renstatement to hs former poston and the payment of
saary from |anuary 1, 1962 up to the tme of actua renstatement,
supposedy n accordance wth sad decson. Ths request was
dened repeatedy by the OP n successve etters addressed to the
pantff dated September 1, 1969, |anuary 19, 1970, Apr 23, 1970,
May 23, 1970, and May 19, 1971, the ast of whch decared the
matter 'defntey cosed',
- Consequenty, Crstoba fed on August 10, 1971, wth the CFI of
Mana a compant aganst then Exec. Sec. Ae|andro Mechor and
Federco Arcaa, Cash Dsbursng Offcer of the OP, and prayng for
the foowng: 1. Decarng hs dsmssa as ega and contrary to
aw; 2. Orderng Sec. Mechor to certfy hs name n the payro of
the OP, to be retroactve as of |anuary 1, 1962, the effectve date
that he was egay dsmssed from the servce; 3. Orderng Arcaa
to pay a the emouments and/or saary to whch the pantff s
entted effectve as of |anuary 1, 1962; and 4. Orderng them to
aow hm to contnue wth the performance of hs dutes n the
Secretary Offce Staff, Offce of the Presdent of the Phppnes.
- The defendants, represented by the Soctor Genera aeged that
Crstoba had no cause of acton as he s deemed to have
abandoned hs offce for faure to nsttute the proper proceedngs
to assert hs rght wthn one year from the date of separaton
pursuant to Sec. 16, Rue 66 of the Rues of Court, he havng come
to court ony after the apse of more than nne years, thereby n
effect acquescng to hs separaton, and therefore he s not entted
to any saary from termnaton of hs empoyment.
- On May 18, 1972, the tra court rendered ts decson dsmssng
the compant reasonng that: Secton 16 of Rue 66 of the Rues of
Court expressy provdes that an acton aganst a pubc offce or
empoyee may not be fed for the pantffs ouster from offce
uness the same s commenced wthn one year after the cause of
the ouster, or the rght of the pantff to hod much offce or
poston arose. Ths perod of one year s a condton precedent for
the exstence of the cause of acton for quo warranto. The ratonae
of ths doctrne s that the Government must be mmedatey
nformed or advsed f any person cams to be entted to an offce
or poston n the cv servce, as aganst another actuay hodng-
t, so that the Government may not be faced wth the predcament
of havng to pay two saares, one for the person actuay hodng
the offce athough egay, and another for one not actuay
renderng servce athough entted to do so. The fact that the
pettoner sought to pursue admnstratve remedes to secure hs
renstatement does not excuse the faure to fe the acton wthn
the one year perod.
I((%E
WON Crstoba has abandoned hs rght to seek |udca reef for not
havng fed hs compant wthn the one-year perod provded for n
Secton 16, Rue 66 of the Rues of Court
3ELD
NO. The Court agrees that n actons of quo warranto nvovng rght
to an offce, the acton must be nsttuted wthn the perod of one
year from the tme the cause of acton arose; Persons camng a
rght to an offce of whch they are egay dspossessed shoud
mmedatey take steps to recover sad offce and that f they do
not do so wthn a perod of one year, they sha be consdered as
havng ost ther rght thereto by abandonment. 8o.e*er, ths
doctrne of la0*es (la%hes #s fa#l$re or negle%t, for an $nreasona/le
an& $ne,)la#ne& length of t#me, to &o that .h#%h, /+ e,er%#s#ng &$e
&#l#gen%e, %o$l& or sho$l& ha*e /een &one earl#erK #t #s negl#gen%e
or om#ss#on to assert a r#ght .#th#n a reasona/le t#me, .arrant#ng a
)res$m)t#on that the )art+ ent#tle& to assert #t e#ther has
a/an&one& #t or &e%l#ne& to assert #t) whch s nvoked to defeat
Crstoba's sut, s not appcabe n ths case. There are certan
exceptona crcumstances attendng whch take ths case out of
the rue.
easonin;
1. There was no acquescence to or nacton on the part of |ose
Crstoba amountng to abandonment of hs rght to renstatement
n offce.
> Upon recept of the etter or |anuary 1, 1962 advsng hm of hs
separaton from the servce, Crstoba, wth the other dsmssed
empoyees, sought reconsderaton n a etter dated |anuary 3,
1962, cang nter aa the attenton of then Sec. Mutuc that he
was a cv egbe empoyee wth eght years of servce n the
government and consequenty entted to securty of tenure under
the Consttuton. Ths was foowed by another etter of |anuary 26,
1962. Reconsderaton havng been dened, a compant was fed
on March 24, 1962, wth the CFI of Mana entted Inges vs. Mutuc,
whch prayed for renstatement and payment of saares as of
|anuary 1, 1962, wheren the SC hed that the remova of the
pantff-empoyees was ega and contrary to aw and that they
were entted to be renstated wth payment of ther saares from
|anuary 1, 1962 up to the date of ther actua renstatement.
> Crstoba was not one of the pantffs n the cv case, t s true,
but hs non-partcpaton s not fata to hs cause of acton. Durng
the pendency of the cv case, Crstoba contnued to press hs
request for renstatement together wth the other empoyees who
had fed the compant and was n fact promsed renstatement as
w be shown more n deta ater. More mportanty, Crstoba coud
be expected - wthout necessary spendng tme and money by
gong to court - to rec upon the outcome of the case fed by hs
co-empoyees to protect hs nterests consderng the smarty of
hs stuaton to that of the pantffs theren and the dentfca reef
beng sought.
2. It was an act of the government through ts responsbe offcas
more partcuary then Sec. Mutuc and hs successors whch
contrbuted to the aeged deay n the fng of Crstoba's present
compant for renstatement.
> After the Inges sut was fed n court, the dsmssed empoyees,
Crstoba ncuded, contnued to seek reconsderaton of ther
dsmssa. It was then that Sec. Mutuc assured the empoyees that
wthout pre|udce to the contnuaton of the cv acton, he woud
work for ther renstatement. Accordngy, some of the dsmssed
empoyees were recaed to ther respectve postons n the OP
among whom were the pantffs n the cv case and severa others
who were not partes theren. Sec. Mutuc even tred to pace the
others outsde of the Maacaan Offce. In the meantme, however,
Sec. Mutuc was repaced by other Exec. Secretares to whom
Crstoba over and over agan presented hs request for
renstatement and who gave the same assurance that Crstoba
woud be recaed and re-empoyed at "the opportune tme".
> It was ths contnued promse of the government offcas
concerned whch ed Crstoba to bde hs tme and wat for the
Offce of the Presdent to compy wth ts commtment.
Furthermore, he had behnd hm the decson of the Supreme Court
n Inges vs. Mutuc whch he beeved shoud be apped n hs favor.
But when Crstoba, n answer to hs varous etters, receved the
etter of May 19, 1971 from the Offce of the Presdent denyng hs
renstatement and decarng the matter "defntey cosed" because
of hs faure to fe an acton n court wthn one year from hs
separaton, t was ony then that he saw the necessty of seekng
redress from the courts.
> Surey, t woud now be the heght of nequty and n|ustce, f
after Crstoba reed and reposed hs fath and trust on the word
and promses of the former Executve Secretares who deat wth
hm and who preceded the heren respondent Sec. Mechor, that
the court hod that he ost hs rght to seek reef because of apse
of tme.
3. The dsmssa of appeant Crstoba was contrary to aw on the
strength of the Supreme Court's decson n Inges vs. Mutuc.
> In Inges, the defendants mantaned that the prncpa ssue n
the case was whether or not the empoyees were occupyng
postons prmary confdenta n nature and therefore sub|ect to
remova at the peasure of the appontng power, and that ths
ssue was to be resoved n the affrmatve. The Court hed: that
one *ol+ing in t*e government a primaril1 0on/i+ential
position is Oin t*e Civil (ervi0eO an+ t*at Oo//i0ers or
emplo1ees in t*e un0lassi/ie+O as well as Ot*ose in t*e
0lassi/ie+ servi0eO are prote0te+ 61 t*e provision in t*e
organi0 law t*at Ono o//i0er or emplo1ee in t*e Civil (ervi0e
s*all 6e remove+ or suspen+e+ e:0ept /or 0ause as
provi+e+ 61 lawO (Secton 4, Artce XII, 1935 Consttuton); that
whe t*e in0um6ent o/ a primaril1 0on/i+ential position
*ol+s o//i0e at t*e pleasure onl1 o/ t*e appointing power
an+ su0* pleasure turns into +ispleasure5 t*e in0um6ent is
not Oremove+O or O+ismisse+O 6ut t*at *is term merel1
Oe:piresO; that there was no evdence to ndcate that the
respectve postons of the dsmssed empoyees were "prmary
confdenta" n nature and on the contrary the compensaton
attached and the desgnaton gven thereto suggest the purey or
at east many cerca nature of ther work; and consequenty,
consderng that the dsmssed empoyees were admttedy cv
servce egbes wth severa years of servce n the Government,
ther remova from offce was "ega and contrary to aw".
> No evdence was adduced by the government to show that
Crstoba's poston was "prmary confdenta". On the contrary as
stated by ths Court n Inges vs. Mutuc, the compensaton attached
to hs tem and the desgnaton of the poston ndcate the purey
cerca nature of hs functons. In fact, none of the etters sent to
hm from the OP ever ndcated that he was hodng hs poston at
the peasure of the appontng power or that hs servces were
termnated because hs term of offce had "expred". The ony
reason gven - and ths appears n the etter of September 1, 1969
from the OP - was that he faed to nsttute the proper proceedng
to assert hs rght, f any, to the poston wthn the perod of one
year from the date of termnaton and under setted |ursprudence
he s deemed to have abandoned hs rght to sad offce or
acquesced n hs remova.
> In grantng reef to the Crstoba on the matter of back saares,
however, there s no proof to show that from |anuary 1, 1962 up to
the promugaton of ths decson, Crstoba at no tme worked or
was empoyed at some other offce. The court cannot gnore the
probabty of Crstoba's havng sought empoyment esewhere
durng that perod to support hmsef and hs famy. Consderng
the apse of amost nne years before he fed ths sut, the resoved
to grant back saares at the rate ast receved by hm ony for a
perod of fve (5) years wthout quafcaton and deducton.
> The Pubc Offcas concerned are drected to renstate |ose
Crstoba, ether n the OP or n some other government offce, to
any poston for whch he s quafed by reason of hs cv servce
egbty, sub|ect to present requrements of age and physca
ftness; and to pay hm back saares for a perod of 5 years at the
rate of P4,188.00 per annum wthout quafcaton and deducton.
0ecision Decson set asde.
&COLOL& V #&!#%ICO
SANTOS; |une 27, 1978
'&C#(
< Nature ORIGINAL PETITION for certorar, mandamus wth
premnary n|uncton.
- Pettoner Arturo A. Acooa was assgned as Provnca Audtor of
Capz on Apr 16, 1972. Sometme before December 12, 1972, an
admnstratve compant was fed aganst hm chargng hm wth
various irre;ularities in connection :it& t&e disc&ar;e o9
&is duties. The compant was subsequenty dsmssed.
- On December 27, 1974 he was agan admnstratvey charged
wth offenses rangng from "misconduct, ne;lect o9 dut( to
incompetence in t&e per9ormance o9 o99icial duties," whch
charges were kewse dsmssed.
- On December 3, 1976, whe pettoner was assgned as &0ting
3ig*wa1 Engineering Distri0t &u+itor o/ om6lon, prvate
respondent 3ora0io &. "artine,, a contractor of Pubc Works
Pro|ect n the provnce of Rombon, fed another compant aganst
pettoner chargng hm, ths tme, wth
(1) Deayng acton on payment of vouchers.
(2) Deayng acton on request for nspecton of accompshed
work:
(3) Refusa to assgn an audtor's representatve to check
deveres of materas at |ob stes at the tme of deveres;
(4) Pecemea suspenson of vouchers:
(5) Demandng free transportaton and meas when on nspecton
of materas devered or work accompshed, and
(6) Demandng P24,000 cost of pane fare for hs twn daughter's
trp to the Unted States.
- Upon the recommendaton of the Cv Securty Offce of the
Commsson on Audt, an entrapment scheme was devsed and
executed on December 15, 1976. Pettoner was apprehended by
the PC Provnca Command n the act of recevng from
companant Horaco A. Martnez, the amount of P2,000.00 n
marked P20 bs as brbe money, whe he was about to enter hs
room at the Seasde Hote.
- On |anuary 12, 1977, a 9ormal administrative c&ar;e was
preferred aganst hm. At the same tme the preventive
suspension of pettoner was ordered by the respondent pursuant
to .ection =1, +residential 0ecree No. %A7. Respondent, now
pettoner, answered the charge.
- On May 12, 1977, pettoner was summaril( dismissed 9rom
t&e service, pursuant to +residential 0ecree No. %A7, dated
October 6, 1975. Pettoner's moton for reconsderaton prayng for
a forma nvestgaton dened, appeas to Court, seekng: (1) the
revew and reversa of the order of May 27, 1977 of the Actng
Charman Cormnsson on Audt, (Hon. Francsco S. Tantuco |r.)
summary dsmssng hm from the servce, on the grounds that
respondent acted wthout or n excess of hs |ursdcton and wth
grave abuse of dscreton and the sad order s voatve of hs
consttutona rghts; and (2) hs renstatement to hs former
poston. Petton was gven due course, respondents requred to fe
ther comments, TRO ssued.
- On March 18, 1978, the Soctor Genera for and n behaf of
respondent Tantuco, Charman of COA, fed the requred comment
and prayed that the petton be dsmssed for ack of mert.
Pettoner fed hs re|onder (shoud be repy) to the sad comment
on Apr 20, 1978.
I((%E
WON the respondent Charman of the Commsson on Audt, coud
summary dsmss pettoner pursuant to Presdenta Decree No.
807.
3ELD
atio Yes, the respondent Charman of COA coud summary
dsmss pettoner Pursuant to PD 807.
Secton 40 of Presdenta Decree No. 807 specfcay provdes:
"SEC. 40. Summary Proceedngs.-No forma nvestgaton s
necessary and the respondent may be mmedatey removed or
dsmssed f any of the foowng crcumstances s present:
(a) When the charge s serous and the evdence of gut s strong.
(b) When the respondent s a recdvst or has been repeatedy
charged and there s reasonabe ground to beeve that he s
guty of the present charge.
(c) When the respondent s notorousy undesrabe.
- Resort to summary proceedngs by dscpnng authorty sha be
done wth utmost ob|ectvty and mpartaty to the end that no
n|ustce s commtted: Provded, That remova or dsmssa except
those by the Presdent, hmsef, or upon hs order, may be appeaed
to the Commsson."
- Pettoner was caught red-handed by agents of the Phppne
Constabuary n the entrapment operatons, and the evdence
aganst hm was over whemng whch warranted hs summary
dsmssa from the servce under PD 807. The serousness of the
offense charged, the crcumstances surroundng ts commsson
and the evdence of gut, beng overwhemng and ndubtaby
strong, the nterest of the pubc servce demanded the drastc
remedy of summary dsmssa, whch respondent Charman of the
Commsson -on Audt |udcousy took aganst pettoner.
0ecision Petton DISMISSEd for ack of mert. TRO LIFTED and SET
ASIDE.
2otin; 4 concur: Fernando (Charman), Barredo, Antono, and
Aquno
1 on offca eave: Concepcon |r.
.#N0I4#N"#8#N
!%!E4 V (&!DIG&!.&2&!
FERNANDO; |anuary 30, 1982
'&C#(
- Pettoner Rufno Nuez was accused before the Sandganbayan of
estafa through fasfcaton of pubc and commerca documents
commtted n connvance wth hs other co-accused, a pubc
offcas
- Informatons were fed on February 21 and March 26, 1979
- On May 15, pettoner fed a moton to quash on consttutona
and |ursdctona grounds
- Respondent court dened the moton, as we as the MFR
- Pettoner fed a petton for certorar and prohbton wth the SC,
assang the vadty of PD 1486, as amended by PD 1606, creatng
the Sandganbayan
I((%E
WON Presdenta Decree No. 1486, as amended, s voatve of the
due process, equa protecton, and ex post facto causes of the
Consttuton
3ELD
Petton dsmssed. Pettoner has been unabe to make a case
cang for the decaraton of unconsttutonaty of Presdenta
Decree No. 1486, as amended by Presdenta Decree No. 1606.
atio
2n the e4$al )rote%t#on %la$se of the Const#t$t#onI
- Pettoners premse s that the Sandganbayan proceedngs
voates pettoners rght to equa protecton because:
> Appea, as a matter of rght, became mnmzed nto a matter of
dscreton
> Appea was mted to questons of aw, excudng a revew of
facts and tra evdence
> There s ony one chance to appea convcton, by certorar to
the SC, nstead of the tradtona two chances
whe a other estafa ndctees are entted to appea as a matter
of rght coverng questons of aw and of facts, and to two
appeate courts (CA and SC)
- Cassfcaton satsfes the test announced by ths court n Peope
v. Vera
> Must be based on substanta dstncton
> Must be germane to the purposes of the aw
> Must not be mted to exstng condtons ony and must appy
equay to each member of the cass
- The Consttuton specfcay makes menton of the creaton of a
speca court, n response to probem, namey, the dshonesty n the
pubc servce.
- Pettoners, shoud therefore have antcpated that a dfferent
procedure that woud be prescrbed for that trbuna woud not be
voatve of the equa protecton cause
- The genera guarantees of the B of Rghts must gve way to
specfc provsons of the Consttuton, for the promoton of the
genera wefare, whch s the end of the aw
2n the e, )ost fa%to )ro*#s#on of the Const#t$t#onI
- Pettoners contenton that the chaenged Presdenta Decree s
contrary to the ex post facto aw s premsed on the aegaton that
"pettoners rght of appea s beng duted or eroded effcacy wse.
- |ustce Makasar, n the Kay Vegas Kam decson, defned an ex
post facto aw as one whch:
> makes crmna an act done before the passage of the aw and
whch was nnocent when done, and punshes such an act
> aggravates a crme, or makes t greater than t was when
commtted
> changes the punshment and nfcts a greater punshment than
the aw annexed to the crme when commtted
> aters the ega rues on evdence, and authorzes convcton
upon ess or dfferent testmony than the aw requred at the tme
of the commsson of the offense
> assumng to reguate cv rghts and remedes ony, n effect
mposes penaty or deprvaton of a rght for somethng whch
when done was awfu
> deprves a person accused of a crme of some awfu protecton
to whch he has become entted, such as the protecton of a
former convcton or acqutta, or a procamaton of amnesty
- the "awfu protecton" to whch an accused "has become
entted" s quafed, not gven a broad scope
- the mode of procedure provded for n the statutory rght to
appea can hardy be argued to be embraced theren
- the test to whether the ex post facto aw s dsregarded, n the
anguage of |ustce Haran n Thompson v. Utah, s "takng from an
accused any rght that was regarded, at the tme of the adopton of
the consttuton as vital /or t*e prote0tion o/ li/e an+ li6ert1,
and whch he en|oyed at the tme of the commsson of the offense
charged aganst hm"
- the omsson of the CA as an ntermedate trbuna does not
deprve the pettoner of a rght vta to the protecton of hs berty
- hs nnocence or gut s passed upon by a three-|udge court,
where a unanmous vote s requred
- f convcted, the SC has the duty to see whether any error of aw
was commtted
- the SC n determnng whether to gve due course to the petton
for revew must be convnced that the consttutona presumpton
of nnocence has been overcome
- SC carefuy scrutnzes whether the quantum of evdence
requred for a fndng of gut has been satsfed
- It s farfetched and hghy unreastc to concude that the
omsson of the CA as a revewng authorty resuts n the oss of
"vta protecton of berty."
2n the &$e )ro%ess %la$se of the Const#t$t#onI
- Pettoner aeges ack of farness
- In Arnaut v. Pecson, the court decared that what s requred for
compance wth the due process mandate n crmna proceedngs
s "a far and mparta tra and reasonabe opportunty for the
preparaton of defense
- In crmna proceedngs then, due process s satsfed f the
accused s "nformed as to why he s proceeded aganst and what
charge he has to meet, wth hs convcton beng made to rest on
evdence that s not tanted wth fasty after fu opportunty for
hm to rebut t and the sentence beng mposed n accordance wth
a vad aw."
- If an accused has been heard n a court of competent |ursdcton,
and proceeded aganst under the ordery process of aw, and ony
punshed after nqury and nvestgaton, upon notce to hm, wth
an opportunty to be heard, and a |udgment awarded wthn the
authorty of a consttutona aw, then he has had due process of
aw.
4&LDIV& V (&!DIG&!.&2&!
PER CURIAM; May 19, 1988
'&C#(
9> Nos. 79690-707
- Pettoner Enrque A. Zadvar (Antque Governor) sought to
restran the Sandganbayan and Tanodbayan Rau Gonzaes from
proceedng wth the prosecuton and hearng of Crmna cases Nos.
12159 - 12161 and 12163-12177
- Pettoner aeged that sad cases were fed by Tanodbayan
wthout ega and consttutona authorty snce the 1987
Consttuton conferred upon the Ombudsman (not the present
Tanodbayan) the authorty to fe cases wth the Sandganbayan
9> No. '07'
- Pettoner Enrque Zadvar, on substantay the same grounds as
frst petton, sought to restran Tanodbayan Gonzaes from
conductng premnary nvestgatons and fng smar cases wth
the Sandganbayan
I((%E(
1, WON the Tanodbayan, under the 1987 Consttuton, have the
authorty to conduct premnary nvestgatons and drect the fng
of cases wth the Sandganbayan
3ELD
NO. The ncumbent Tanodbayan, under the 1987 Consttuton s
wthout authorty to conduct premnary nvestgatons and to
drect the fng of crmna cases wth the Sandganbayan
- The Tanodbayan, under the 1987 Consttuton, has been
transformed nto the Offce of the Speca Prosecutor whch sha
contnue to functon and exercse ts powers provded by aw,
EXCEPT those conferred on the Offce of the Ombudsman created
under the sam Consttuton (1987).
- The 1987 Consttuton provdes that the Om6u+sman as
+istinguis*e+ /rom t*e in0um6ent #ano+6a1an has the duty
to nvestgate on ts own, or on compant by any person, any act or
omsson of any pubc offca, empoyee, offce or agency, when
such act or omsson appears to be ega, un|ust, mproper, or
neffcent.
- The Speca Prosecutor (Rau Gonzaes) s thus a subordnate of
the Tanodbayan(Ombudsman) and can nvestgate and prosecute
cases ony upon the atters authorty or orders.
!biter Rau Gonzaes does not reman as Ombudsman n as much
as he has not been repaced because he has never been the
Ombudsman. The Offce of the Ombudsman s a new creaton
under Artce XI of the 1987 consttuton dfferent from the Offce of
the Tanodbayan created under PD 1607.
C!**I..I!N !N H5*#N I4H/.
EBPO# POCE(I!G 4O!E &%#3OI#2 V CO""I((IO! O!
3%"&! IG3#(
GRINO-AOUINO; Apr 14, 1992
'&C#(
< Nature Speca Cv Acton for certorar and prohbton to
revew the orders of the Commsson on Human Rghts
- P.D. 1980 was ssued reservng and desgnatng certan parces of
and n Rosaro and Genera Tras, Cavte, as the "Cavte Export
Processng Zone" (CEPZ). The area was dvded nto four four
Phases and Phase IV was bought by Fo and was ater sod to
EPZA.
- Before EPZA coud take possesson of the area, severa
ndvduas, had entered the premses and panted agrcutura
products theren wthout permsson from EPZA or Fo. To
convnce the ntruders to depart peacefuy, EPZA pad a P10K-
fnanca assstance to those who accepted the same and sgned
qutcams. Among them were Teresta Vaes and Afredo Aeda,
the father of the respondent Loreto Aeda.
- Ten years ater, the prvate respondents fed n CHR a |ont
compant prayng for "|ustce and other reefs and remedes". The
CHR conducted an nvestgaton.
- Accordng to CHR, EPZA, together wth hep of PNP, budozed and
eve the area, despte the fact that the occupants presented a
etter from the Offce of the Presdent of the Ph orderng
postponement of budozng.
- Because of ths, the CHR ssued an Order of n|uncton to desst
from commttng further acts of demoton, terrorsm and
harassment unt further orders from the CHR and to appear before
the Commsson for a daogue.
- However, the same group agan budozed the area and aegedy
handcuffed prvate respondent Vaes, ponted ther frearms at
others and fred a shot n the ar.
- The CHR ssued another n|uncton Order reteratng the same
order.
- +rocedure
1. EPZA fed n CHR a moton to ft the Order of n|uncton for
ack of authorty to ssue n|unctve wrts and temporary
restranng orders but ths was dened.
2. EPZA fed a speca cv acton of certorar and prohbton wth
a prayer for ssuance of restranng order and/or premnary
n|uncton. It was granted by the Court.
3. CHR fed a Moton to ft the restranng order contendng that
CHR has the power not ony to nvestgate but aso to )ro*#&e for
)re*ent#*e meas$res an& legal a#& ser*#%es to the $n&er
)r#*#lege& whose human rghts have been voated or need
protecton (Art. 13 Sec. 18, 1987 Const)
I((%E
WON the CHR have |ursdcton to ssue a wrt of n|uncton or
restranng order aganst supposed voators of human rghts, to
compe them to cease and desst from contnung the acts
companed of
3ELD
NO. Not beng a court of |ustce nor even a quas-|udca body, the
CHR tsef has no |ursdcton to ssue a wrt of premnary
n|uncton, for t may ony be ssued by the |udge of any court n
whch the acton s pendng (wthn hs dstrct), or by a |ustce of
the Court of Appeas, or of the Supreme Court or by the |udge of
the Regona Tra Court.
easonin;
1. adherence to precedent
- In Hon. Isdro Carno vs. CHR the Court hed that the CHR s not a
court of |ustce nor even a quas-|udca body. Fact-fndng functon
s dfferent from ad|udcaton and cannot be kened to a |udca
functon.
2, textua nterpretaton of the text - pan meanng
- The Consttutona provson drectng the CHR to ")ro*#&e for
)re*ent#*e meas$res an& legal a#& ser*#%es to the $n&er )r#*#lege&
whose human rghts have been voated or need protecton" may
not be construed to confer |ursdcton on the Commsson to ssue
a restranng order or wrt of n|uncton for, f that were the
ntenton, the Consttuton woud have expressy sad so.
"|ursdcton s conferred ony by the Consttuton or by a." It s
never derved by mpcaton.
- "preventve measures and ega ad servces" refer t extra|udca
and |udca remedes whch the CHR may seek from the proper
courts on behaf of the vctms.
0ecision The petton for certorar and prohbton s GRANTED.
Orders of n|uncton of CHR are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. TRO
whch the Court ssued s made PERMANENT.
#/ 1II: N#/I!N#- ,C!N!*8 #N0 +#/I*!N8
)IVE!)O V DIEC#O O' L&!D(
MORAN; November 15, 1947
"&!IL& PI!CE 3O#EL V G(I(
BELLOSILLO; February 3, 1997
'&C#(
- Respondent GSIS, pursuant to the prvatzaton program of the
Phppne Government under Procamaton No. 50 dated 8
December 1986, decded to se through pubc bddng 30% to 51%
of the ssued and outstandng shares of respondent MHC whch
owns the hstorc Mana Hote. In a cosed bddng hed on 18
September 1995 ony two (2) bdders partcpated: pettoner
Mana Prnce Hote Corporaton, a Fpno corporaton, whch
offered to buy 51 % of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per
share, and Renong Berhad, a Maaysan frm, wth ITT Sheraton as
ts hote operator, whch bd for the same number of shares at
P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bd of pettoner.
- Pendng the decaraton of Renong Berhard as the wnnng bdder
and the executon of the necessary contracts, pettoner n a etter
to respondent GSIS dated 28 September 1995 matched the bd
prce of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad. In a
subsequent etter dated 10 October 1995 pettoner sent a
manager's check ssued by Phtrust Bank for Thrty-three Mon
Pesos (P33-000,000.00) as Bd Securty to match the bd of the
Maaysan Group, Messrs. Renong Berhad whch respondent GSIS
refused to accept.
- On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensve that respondent GSIS
has dsregarded the tender of the matchng bd and that the sae of
51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent GSIS and
consummated wth Renong Berhad, pettoner came to ths Court
on prohbton and mandamus. On 18 October 1995 the Court
ssued a temporary restranng order en|onng respondents from
perfectng and consummatng the sae to the Maaysan frm. On 10
September 1996 the nstant case was accepted by the Court En
Banc after t was referred to t by the Frst Dvson.
- The pettoner argues the foowng:
1. Pettoner nvokes Sec. 10, second Par., Art. XII, of the 1987
Consttuton and submts that the Mana Hote has been
dentfed wth the Fpno naton and has practcay become a
hstorca monument whch refects the vbrancy of Phppnes
hertage and cuture. To a ntents and purpose, t has become a
part of the natona patrmony.
2. Pettoner aso argues that snce 51% of the shares of the MHC
carres wth t the ownershp of the busness of the hote whch s
owned by respondent GSIS, the hote busness of respondent GSIS
beng a part of the toursm ndustry s unquestonaby a part of
the natona economy. Thus, any transacton nvovng 51% of the
shares of stock of the MHC s ceary covered by the term natona
economy, to whch Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, 1987
Consttuton, appes.
3. It s aso the thess of pettoner that snce Mana Hote s part
of the natona patrmony and ts busness aso unquestonaby
part of the natona economy pettoner shoud be preferred after
t has matched the bd offer of the Maaysan frm. For the bddng
rues mandate that f for any reason, the Hghest Bdder cannot
be awarded the Bock of Shares, GSIS may offer ths to the other
Ouafed Bdders that have vady submtted bds provded that
these Ouafed Bdders are wng to match the hghest bd n
terms of prce per share.
- Respondents mantan that:
1. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Consttuton s merey
a statement of prncpe and pocy snce t s not a sef-executng
provson and requres mpementng egsaton(s). Thus, for the
sad provson to operate, there must be exstng aws "to ay
down condtons under whch busness may be done."
2. Grantng that ths provson s sef-executng, Mana Hote does
not fa under the term natona patrmony whch ony refers to
ands of the pubc doman, waters, mneras, coa, petroeum and
other mnera os, a forces of potenta energy, fsheres, forests
or tmber, wdfe, fora and fauna and a marne weath n ts
terrtora sea, and excusve marne zone as cted n the frst and
second paragraphs of Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Consttuton. Whe
pettoner speaks of the guests who have sept n the hote and
the events that have transpred theren whch make the hote
hstorc, these aone do not make the hote fa under the
patrmony of the naton. What s more, the mandate of the
Consttuton s addressed to the State, not to respondent GSIS
whch possesses a personaty of ts own separate and dstnct
from the Phppnes as a State.
3. Grantng that the Mana Hote forms part of the natona
patrmony, the consttutona provson nvoked s st nappcabe
snce what s beng sod s ony 51% of the outstandng shares of
the corporaton, not the hote budng nor the and upon whch
the budng stands. Certany, 51% of the equty of the MHC
cannot be consdered part of the natona patrmony. Moreover, f
the dsposton of the shares of the MHC s reay contrary to the
Consttuton, pettoner shoud have questoned t rght from the
begnnng and not after t had ost n the bddng.
4. The reance by pettoner on par. V., subpar. |. I., of the bddng
rues whch provdes that f for any reason, the Hghest Bdder
cannot be awarded the Bock of Shares, GSIS may offer ths to the
other Ouafed Bdders that have vady submtted bds provded
that these Ouafed Bdders are wng to match the hghest bd
n terms of prce per share, s mspaced. Respondents postuate
that the prvege of submttng a matchng bd has not yet arsen
snce t ony takes pace f for any reason, the Hghest Bdder
cannot be awarded the Bock of Shares.
5. The prayer for prohbton grounded on grave abuse of
dscreton shoud fa snce respondent GSIS dd not exercse ts
dscreton n a caprcous, whmsca manner, and f ever t dd
abuse ts dscreton t was not so patent and gross as to amount
to an evason of a postve duty or a vrtua refusa to perform a
duty en|oned by aw. Smary, the petton for mandamus shoud
fa as pettoner has no cear ega rght to what t demands and
respondents do not have an mperatve duty to perform the act
requred of them by pettoner.
I((%E(
1. WON Sec. 10, 2nd par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Consttuton s non-
sef-executng
2. WON the Mana Hote fas under the term natona patrmony
3. WON 51% of the equty of MHC can be consdered part of
natona patrmony
4. WON pettoner shoud be aowed to match the hghest bd
5. WON GSIS commtted grave abuse of dscreton
3ELD
1. NO. A provson whch s compete n tsef and becomes
operatve wthout the ad of suppementary or enabng egsaton,
or that whch suppes suffcent rue by means of whch the rght t
grants may be en|oyed or protected, s sef-executng. Uness the
contrary s ceary ntended, the provsons of the Consttuton
shoud be consdered sef-executng, as a contrary rue woud gve
the egsature dscreton to determne when, or whether, they sha
be effectve. Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII s couched n such a
way as not to make t appear that t s non-sef-executng but
smpy for purposes of stye. The argument of respondents that the
non-sef-executng nature of Sec. 10, second par. of Art. XII s
mped from the tenor of the frst and thrd paragraphs of the same
secton whch undoubtedy are not sef-executng s fawed. If the
frst and thrd paragraphs are not sef-executng because Congress
s st to enact measures to encourage the formaton and operaton
of enterprses fuy owned by Fpnos, as n the frst paragraph,
and the State st needs egsaton to reguate and exercse
authorty over foregn nvestments wthn ts natona |ursdcton,
as n the thrd paragraph, then a fort#or#, by the same ogc, the
second paragraph can ony be sef-executng as t does not by ts
anguage requre any egsaton n order to gve preference to
quafed Fpnos n the grant of rghts, prveges and concessons
coverng the natona economy and patrmony. A consttutona
provson may be sef-executng n one part and non-sef-executng
n another. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Consttuton s
a mandatory, postve command whch s compete n tsef and
whch needs no further gudenes or mpementng aws or rues for
ts enforcement. From ts very words the provson does not requre
any egsaton to put t n operaton. It s per se |udcay
enforceabe.
2. YES. In ts pan and ordnary meanng, the term patrmony
pertans to hertage. When the Consttuton speaks of natona
patrmony, t refers not ony to the natura resources of the
Phppnes, as the Consttuton coud have very we used the term
natura resources, but aso to the cutura hertage of the Fpnos.
Mana Hote has become a andmark - a vng testmona of
Phppne hertage. Its exstence s mpressed wth pubc nterest;
ts own hstorcty assocated wth our strugge for soveregnty,
ndependence and natonhood. Very, Mana Hote has become
part of our natona economy and patrmony.
3. YES. 51% of the equty of the MHC comes wthn the purvew of
the consttutona sheter for t comprses the ma|orty and
controng stock, so that anyone who acqures or owns the 51% w
have actua contro and management of the hote. In ths nstance,
51% of the MHC cannot be dsassocated from the hote and the
and on whch the hote edfce stands. Respondents further argue
that the consttutona provson s addressed to the State, not to
respondent GSIS whch by tsef possesses a separate and dstnct
personaty. In consttutona |ursprudence, the acts of persons
dstnct from the government are consdered "state acton" covered
by the Consttuton (1) when the actvty t engages n s a "pubc
functon"; (2) when the government s so sgnfcanty nvoved wth
the prvate actor as to make the government responsbe for hs
acton; and, (3) when the government has approved or authorzed
the acton. It s evdent that the act of respondent GSIS n seng
51% of ts share n respondent MHC comes under the second and
thrd categores of "state acton." Therefore the transacton,
athough entered nto by respondent GSIS, s n fact a transacton of
the State and therefore sub|ect to the consttutona command.
4. YES. It shoud be stressed that whe the Maaysan frm offered
the hgher bd t s not yet the wnnng bdder. The bddng rues
expressy provde that the hghest bdder sha ony be decared the
wnnng bdder after t has negotated and executed the necessary
contracts, and secured the requste approvas. Snce the Fpno
Frst Pocy provson of the Consttuton bestows preference on
quafed Fpnos the mere tendng of the hghest bd s not an
assurance that the hghest bdder w be decared the wnnng
bdder. Resutanty, respondents are not bound to make the award
yet, nor are they under obgaton to enter nto one wth the hghest
bdder. For n choosng the awardee respondents are mandated to
abde by the dctates of the 1987 Consttuton the provsons of
whch are presumed to be known to a the bdders and other
nterested partes. Paragraph V. |. I of the bddng rues provdes
that ||f for any reason the Hghest Bdder cannot be awarded the
Bock of Shares, GSIS may offer ths to other Ouafed Bdders that
have vady submtted bds provded that these Ouafed Bdders
are wng to match the hghest bd n terms of prce per share. The
consttutona mandate tsef s reason enough not to award the
bock of shares mmedatey to the foregn bdder notwthstandng
ts submsson of a hgher, or even the hghest, bd. Where a foregn
frm submts the hghest bd n a pubc bddng concernng the
grant of rghts, prveges and concessons coverng the natona
economy and patrmony, thereby exceedng the bd of a Fpno,
there s no queston that the Fpno w have to be aowed to
match the bd of the foregn entty. And f the Fpno matches the
bd of a foregn frm the award shoud go to the Fpno. It must be
so f we are to gve fe and meanng to the Fpno Frst Pocy
provson of the 1987 Consttuton. The argument of respondents
that pettoner s now estopped from questonng the sae to
Renong Berhad snce pettoner was we aware from the begnnng
that a foregner coud partcpate n the bddng s mertess.
Undoubtedy, Fpnos and foregners ake were nvted to the
bddng. But foregners may be awarded the sae ony f no Fpno
quafes, or f the quafed Fpno fas to match the hghest bd
tendered by the foregn entty. In the case before us, whe
pettoner was aready preferred at the ncepton of the bddng
because of the consttutona mandate, pettoner had not yet
matched the bd offered by Renong Berhad. Ony after t had
matched the bd of the foregn frm and the apparent dsregard by
respondent GSIS of pettoner's matchng bd dd the atter have a
cause of acton.
5. YES. Snce pettoner has aready matched the bd prce tendered
by Renong Berhad pursuant to the bddng rues, respondent GSIS
s eft wth no aternatve but to award to pettoner the bock of
shares of MHC and to execute the necessary agreements and
documents to effect the sae n accordance not ony wth the
bddng gudenes and procedures but wth the Consttuton as we.
The refusa of respondent GSIS to execute the correspondng
documents wth pettoner as provded n the bddng rues after the
atter has matched the bd of the Maaysan frm ceary consttutes
2otin; Regaado, Davde, |r., Romero, Kapunan, Francsco, and
Hermossma, |r., ||., concur wth the man opnon.
Narvasa, C.|, |ons |ustce Puno n hs dssent.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P&DILL& D0on0urE
- Under the 1987 Consttuton, "natona patrmony" conssts of the
natura resources provded by Amghty God (Preambe) n our
terrtory (Artce 1) consstng of and, sea, and ar. The concept of
natona patrmony has been vewed as referrng not ony to our
rch natura resources but aso to the cutura hertage of our race.
The Mana Hote s very much a part of our natona patrmony and,
as such, deserves consttutona protecton as to who sha own t
and beneft from ts operaton. Ths nsttuton has payed an
mportant roe n our naton's hstory, havng been the venue of
many a hstorca event, and servng as t dd, and as t does, as the
Phppne Guest House for vstng foregn heads of state,
dgntares, ceebrtes, and others.
- "Preference to quafed Fpnos," to be meanngfu, must refer
not ony to thngs that are perphera, coatera, or tangenta. It
must touch and affect the very "heart of the exstng order." In the
fed of pubc bddng n the acquston of thngs that pertan to the
natona patrmony, preference to quafed Fpnos must aow a
quafed Fpno to match or equa the hgher bd of a non-Fpno;
the preference sha not operate ony when the bds of the quafed
Fpno and the non-Fpno are equa n whch case, the award
shoud undsputedy be made to the quafed Fpno. The
Consttutona preference shoud gve the quafed Fpno an
opportunty to match or equa the hgher bd of the non-Fpno
bdder f the preference of the quafed Fpno bdder s to be
sgnfcant at a.
VI#%G DseparateE
- The provson n our fundamenta aw whch provdes that "()n the
grant of rghts, prveges, and concessons coverng the natona
economy and patrmony, the State sha gve preference to quafed
Fpnos" s sef-executory. The provson does not need, athough t
can obvousy be ampfed or reguated by, an enabng aw or a set
of rues.
- The term "patrmony" does not merey refer to the country's
natura resources but aso to ts cutura hertage. A "hstorca
andmark", Mana Hote has now ndeed become part of Phppne
hertage.
- The act of the GSIS, a government entty whch derves ts
authorty from the State, n seng 51% of ts share n MHC shoud
be consdered an act of the State sub|ect to the Consttutona
mandate.
- On the pvota ssue of the degree of "preference to quafed
Fpnos," the ony meanngfu preference woud reay be to aow
the quafed Fpno to match the foregn bd. The magntude of the
bds s such that t becomes hardy possbe for the competng bds
to stand exacty "equa" whch aone, under the dssentng vew,
coud trgger the rght of preference.
"E!DO4& Dseparate opinion in t*e <u+gmentE
- The ony way to enforce the consttutona mandate that "||n the
grant of rghts, prveges and concessons coverng the natona
patrmony the State sha gve preference to quafed Fpnos" s to
aow pettoner Phppne corporaton to equa the bd of the
Maaysan frm Renong Berhad for the purchase of the controng
shares of stocks n the Mana Hote Corporaton.
- We are deang here not wth common trades or common means
of vehood whch are open to aens n our mdst, but wth the sae
of government property, whch s ke the grant of government
argess or benefts. Therefore no one shoud begrudge us f we gve
preferenta treatment to our ctzens.
- Nor s there any bass for the suggeston that to aow a Fpno
bdder to match the hghest bd of an aen coud encourage
specuaton, snce a the Fpno entty woud then do woud be not
to make a bd or make ony a token one and, after t s known that
a foregn bdder has submtted the hghest bd, make an offer
matchng that of the foregn frm. Ths s not possbe under the
rues on pubc bddng of the GSIS. Under these rues there s a
mnmum bd requred. If the Fpno entty, after passng the
prequafcaton process, does not submt a bd, he w not be
aowed to match the hghest bd of the foregn frm because ths s
a prvege aowed ony to those who have "vady submtted bds."
#OE( DseparateE
- Hstory, cuture, hertage, and tradton are not egsated and s
the product of events, customs, usages and practces. It s actuay
a product of growth and acceptance by the coectve mores of a
race. It s the sprt and sou of a peope. The Mana Hote s part of
our hstory, cuture and hertage. The Mana Hote s wtness to
hstorc events whch shaped our hstory for amost 84 years. The
hstory of the Mana Hote shoud not be paced n the aucton bock
of a purey busness transacton, where proft subverts the
chershed hstorca vaues of our peope.
P%!O D+issentE
- The vta ssues can be summed up as foows:
1. Whether Sec. 10, Par. 2 of Art. XII of the Consttuton s a
sef-executng provson and does not need mpementng
egsaton to carry t nto effect;
2. Assumng Sec. 10, Par. 2 of Art. XII s sef executng,
whether the controng shares of the Mana Hote
Corporaton form part of our patrmony as a naton;
3. Whether GSIS s ncuded n the term "State," hence,
mandated to mpement Sec. 10, Par. 2 of Art. XII of the
Consttuton;
4. Assumng GSIS s part of the State, whether t faed to gve
preference to pettoner, a quafed Fpno corporaton,
over and above Renong Berhad, a foregn corporaton, n the
sae of the controng shares of the Mana Hote
Corporaton;
5. Whether pettoner s estopped from questonng the sae of
the shares to Renong Berhad, a foregn corporaton.
- 1
st
ssue: courts as a rue consder the provsons of the
Consttuton as sef executng, rather than as requrng future
egsaton for ther enforcement. If they are not treated as sef-
executng, the mandate of the fundamenta aw ratfed by the
soveregn peope can be easy gnored and nufed by Congress.
Case aw aso ays down the rue that a consttutona provson s
not sef-executng where t merey announces a pocy and ts
anguage empowers the Legsature to prescrbe the means by
whch the pocy sha be carred nto effect. The frst paragraph of
Secton 10 s not sef-executng. By ts express text, there s a
categorca command for Congress to enact aws restrctng foregn
ownershp n certan areas of nvestments n the country and to
encourage the formaton and operaton of whoy-owned Fpno
enterprses. The second and thrd paragraphs of Secton 10 are
dfferent. They are drected to the State and not to Congress aone
whch s but one of the three great branches of our government.
Ther coverage s aso broader for they cover "the natona economy
and patrmony" and "foregn nvestments wthn |the| natona
|ursdcton" and not merey "certan areas of nvestments." Ther
anguage does not suggest that any of the State agency or
nstrumentaty has the prvege to hedge or to refuse ts
mpementaton for any reason whatsoever. Ther duty to
mpement s uncondtona and t s now.
- The second ssue s whether the sae of a ma|orty of the stocks of
the Mana Hote Corporaton nvoves the dsposton of part of our
natona patrmony. The records of the Consttutona Commsson
show that the Commssoners entertaned the same vew as to ts
meanng. Accordng to Commssoner Noedo, "patrmony" refers
not ony to our rch natura resources but aso to the cutura
hertage of our race. The unque vaue of the Mana Hote to our
hstory and cuture cannot be vewed wth a myopc eye. The vaue
of the hote goes beyond pesos and centavos. The Hote may not,
as yet, have been decared a natona cutura treasure pursuant to
Repubc Act No. 4846 but that does not excude t from our
natona patrmony.
- The thrd ssue s whether the consttutona command to the
State ncudes the respondent GSIS. The GSIS s not a pure prvate
corporaton. It s essentay a pubc corporaton created by
Congress and granted an orgna charter to serve a pubc purpose.
As a state-owned and controed corporaton, t s skn-bound to
adhere to the poces speed out n the Consttuton especay
those desgned to promote the genera wefare of the peope. One
of these poces s the Fpno Frst pocy whch the peope
eevated as a consttutona command.
- To date, Congress has not enacted a aw defnng the degree of
the preferenta rght. Consequenty, we must turn to the rues and
reguatons of respondents Commttee on Prvatzaton and GSIS to
determne the degree of preference that pettoner s entted to as
a quafed Fpno n the sub|ect sae. A ook at the rues and
reguatons w show that they are sent on the degree of
preferenta rght to be accorded a quafed Fpno bdder.
However, they cannot be read to mean that they do not grant any
degree of preference to pettoner for Par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. XII of the
Consttuton s deemed part of sad rues and reguatons. I submt
that the rght of preference of pettoner arses ony f t ted the bd
of Renong Berhad. In that nstance, a thngs stand equa, and
pettoner, as a quafed Fpno bdder shoud be preferred. Under
the rues, the rght to match the hghest bd arses ony "f for any
reason, the hghest bdder cannot be awarded the bock of shares"
No reason has arsen that w prevent the award to Renong Berhad.
It quafed as a bdder. It comped wth the procedure of bddng. It
was decared as the hghest bdder by the GSIS and the rues say
ths decson s fna. It deserves the award as a matter of rght for
the rues ceary dd not gve to the pettoner as a quafed Fpno
the prvege to match the hgher bd of a foregner. What the rues
dd not grant, pettoner cannot demand.
- Pettoner s estopped from assang the wnnng bd of Renong
Berhad. It knew that the rues and reguatons do not provde that
quafed Fpno bdder can match the wnnng bd after submttng
an nferor bd. It knew that the bd was open to foregners and that
foregners quafed even durng the frst bddng. Pettoner cannot
be aowed to obey the rues when t wns and dsregard them when
t oses.
P&!G&!I.&! D+issentE
- The ma|orty contends the Consttuton shoud be nterpreted to
mean that, after a bddng process s concuded, the osng Fpno
bdder shoud be gven the rght to equa the hghest foregn bd,
and thus to wn. No statute empowers a osng Fpno bdder to
ncrease hs bd and equa that of the wnnng foregner. In the
absence of such empowerng aw, the ma|orty's straned
nterpretaton, I respectfuy submt, consttutes unaduterated
|udca egsaton, whch makes bddng a rdcuous sham where
no Fpno can ose and where no foregner can wn.
- Asde from beng prohbted by the Consttuton, such |udca
egsaton s short-sghted and, vewed propery, gravey pre|udca
to ong-term Fpno nterests. It encourages other countres - n the
guse of reverse comty or worse, unabashed retaaton - to
dscrmnate aganst us n ther own |ursdctons by authorzng
ther own natonas to smary equa and defeat the hgher bds of
Fpno enterprses soey, whe on the other hand, aowng smar
bds of other foregners to reman unchaenged by ther natonas.
- In the absence of a aw specfyng the degree or extent of the
"Fpno Frst" pocy of the Consttuton, the consttutona
preference for the "quafed Fpnos" may be aowed ony where
a the bds are equa. The Consttuton mandates a vctory for the
quafed Fpno ony when the scores are ted. But not when the
bagame s over and the foregner ceary posted the hghest score.
"I!E&L &((OCI&#IO! O' #3E P3ILIPPI!E( V (ECE#&2
ROMERO; |anuary 16, 1995
'&C#(
- Controversy s due to the change ntroduced by Art XII, Secton 2
of the 1987 Consttuton on the system of exporaton, deveopment
and utzaton of the countrys natura resources. Utzaton of
naenabe ands of pubc doman through l#%ense, %on%ess#on or
lease s no onger aowed n the present Const.
- Wth the state n fu contro and supervson, the ony optons for
mnera exporaton deveopment and utzaton s ony through
&#re%t $n&erta=#ng or /+ enter#ng #nto %o-)ro&$%t#on, 3o#nt *ent$re,
or )ro&$%t#on-shar#ng agreements, or /+ enter#ng #nto agreement
.#th fore#gn-o.ne& %or)orat#ons for large-s%ale e,)lorat#on,
&e*elo)ment an& $t#l#6at#on.
- The Presdent may enter nto agreements wth foregn-owned
corporatons nvovng ether technca or fnanca assstance for
arge-scae exporaton, deveopment and utzaton of mneras,
petroeum and other mnera os.
- In vew of these provsons, the Presdent ssued Executve Order
No. 211 and No. 279. The former prescrbes nterm procedures n
the processng and approva of appcatons for the exporaton,
deveopment and utzaton of mneras pursuant to the 1987
Const. The atter authorzes the DENR secretary to negotate and
concude |ont venture, co-producton or producton-sharng
agreements, and prescrbed gudenes for these agreements and
those wth foregn-owned corporatons
- To mpement the egsatve acts, the DENR Secretary
promugated AO Nos 57 and 82. The former converts a exstng
mnng eases or agreements pror to the 1987 Const nto
producton-sharng agreements except sma-scae mnng eases
and those pertanng to sand, grave and quarry resources cover an
area of 20 hectares or ess. The atter ad down the Procedura
Gudenes on the Award of Mnera Producton Sharng Agreement
Through Negotaton (MPSA).
- It s for these AOs that the MAP, Inc. fed the petton
- #*e1 0onten+ t*at-
o The ssuance of the AOs was n excess of hs rue-makng
power under EO279
o The AOs voate the non-mparment of contract provson
under Art 3, Sec 10 of the 1987 Const as
AO57 unduy pre-termnates exstng mnng
eases and other mnng agreements and converts t nto
producton-sharng agreements wthn a year of ts
effectvty and
AO82 decares that faure to submt Letter of
Intent and MPSA wthn 2 years of effectvty of gudenes
sha cause the abandonment of ther mnng, quarry and
grave permts
o AOs have the effect of repeang or abrogatng exstng mnng
aws whch are not nconsstent wth the provsons of EO279
as the Eos merey reterated the acceptance and regstraton
of decaratons of ocaton and a other knds of mnng
appcatons by the Bureau of Mnes and Geo-Scences under
PD 463, as amended, unt Congress opts to modfy the same
- A TRO was gven en|onng the mpementaton of the AOs. The
Contnenta Marbe Corp. aso ntervened as ts DENR refused to
renew ts mnng permt
I((%E(
1. WON DENR Sec commtted grave abuse of dscreton n
promugatng AOs 57 and 82
2. WON PD 463 contnues to subsst nsofar as t aows censes,
concessons and eases for the exporaton, utzaton and
deveopment of mnera resources
3. WON AO 57 and 82 mpars vested frghts as to voate the non-
mparment of contract doctrne as guaranteed by Art 3,
Secton 10 of the Const
4. WON AO 57 and 82 authorzes automatc converson of mnng
eases and agreements granted after the effectvty of the 1987
Const nto producton sharng agreements
3ELD
- There s no cear showng that the DENR Sec has transcended the
bounds demarcated by EO279 for the exercse of hs rue-makng
power tantamount to grave abuse of dscreton
o The power of admnstratve offcas to promugate
rues and reguatons n the mpementaton of a statute s
necessary mted ony to carryng nto effect what s
provded n the egsatve enactment
o By such reguatons, the aw cannot be extended. So
ong as the reate soey to carryng nto effect the provson of
aw, they are vad
o The rue-makng power must be confned to detas
for reguatng the mode or proceedng to carry nto effect the
aw as t has been enacted
o In case of dscrepancy between the basc aw and a
rue ssued to mpement sad aw, the basc aw prevas as
rue or reguaton cannot go beyond the terms and provsons
of the basc aw
o Sec 6 of EO269 specfcay authorzed the sad
offca to promugate such suppementary rues and
reguatons as may be necessary to effectvey mpement the
provsons of the aw. More so, the sub|ect sought to be
governed and reguated s germane to the ob|ects and
purposes of EO279, specfcay ssued to carry out the
mandate of the 1987 Const
- PD 463 s not the governng aw anymore as t pertaned to the od
system of exporaton, deveopment and utzaton of natura
resources through cense, concesson or ease whch has been
dsaowed by Artce XII, Secton 2 the 1987 Const., except those
provson n PD463 that are not nconsstent wth the provsons of
EO279
o To contnue the censes, concessons or ease woud be
nconsstent wtht rason detre of EO279 and contravenng
the express mandate of the Artce XII, Secton 2 the 1987
Const.
o The Const ony orders that the State have fu contro and
supervson of the mnera resources and the ony mode for ts
exporaton, utzaton and deveopment s through a drect
act, or may enter nto co-producton, |ont venture, producton
sharng agreements or nto agreement wth foregn-owned
corporatons nvovng technca or fnanca assstance for
arge-scae exporaton, deveopment and utzaton of
mneras, petroeum, and other mnera os accordng to the
genera terms and condtons provded by aw, based on rea
contrbutons to the economc growth and genera wefare of
the country.
- The AOs do not unduy pretermnate exstng mnng eases n
genera as t does not appy retroactvey to cense, concesson of
ease granted by government under the 1973 Const or before the
effectvty of the 1987 Const but to those granted after the
effectvty of the 1987 Const and sha be sub|ect to modfcatons
and ateratons whch Congress may adopt
o As such, by ssung EO279, the Presdent vady modfed or
atered the prveges granted as we as the terms and
condtons of mnng eases under EO211
o Moreover, even f there were contracts, eases or agreements
granted by the State such as those granted by EO211, these
are st sub|ect to ateratons through a reasonabe exercse of
the poce power of the State and even the court recognzes
the superorty of poce power over the sanctty of the
contract especay when such power s exercsed to preserve
the securty of the state and the means adopted are
reasonaby adapted to the accompshment of that end and
are, therefore, not arbtrary or oppressve.
o The State may not be precuded by the consttutona
restrcton on non-mparment of contract from aterng,
modfyng and amendng the mnng eases or agreements
granted under PD 463 or EO211
o The ob|ect of ths poce power s cear - the exporaton,
deveopment and utzaton of mnera resources are matters
vta to the pubc nterest and the genera wefare of the
peope
- There s not provson n AO57 that eads to the concuson of an
authorzaton of automatc converson of mnng eases and
agreements granted after the effectvty of the 1987 Const
pursuant to EO211, nto producton-sharng agreements
o The use of the term producton-sharng agreement mpes
negotaton and cannot be presumed as a unatera
decaraton on the part of government
o The MPSA requres a meetng of the mnds of the partes after
negotatons are arrved at n good fath and n accordance
wth procedure as ad out n AO 82
0ecision AO 57 and 82 are vad and consttutona
EP%.LIC V CO%# O' &PPE&L( &!D DEL& O(&
CRUZ; Apr 15, 1988
'&C#(
- |ose dea Rosa fed an appcaton for regstraton of a parce of
and dvded nto 9 ots n Tudng, Itogon, Benguet Provnce on
February 11, 1965 on hs own behaf and on behaf of hs chdren.
Accordng to the appcaton, Lots 1-5 were sod to |ose dea Rosa
and Lots 6-9 to hs chdren by Mamaya Babao and |ame Aberto,
respectvey n 1964. Babao and Aberto testfed that they had
acqured the sub|ect and by vrtue of prescrpton.
- It was opposed by Benguet Consodated, Inc. as to Lots 1-5, Atok
Bg Wedge Corporaton as to portons of Lots 1-5 and a of Lots 6-9,
and by the Repubc through the Bureau of Forestry Deveopment
as to Lots 1-9. Benguet opposed on the ground that |une Bug
mnera cam coverng Lots 1-5 was sod to t on September 22,
1934 by the successors-n-nterest of |ames Key who ocated the
cam n September 1909 and recorded t on October 14, 1909.
Atok aeged that a porton of Lots 1-5 and a of Lots 6-9 were
covered by the Emma and Freda mnera cams ocated by
Harrson and Reynods on December 25, 1930 and recorded on
|anuary 2, 1931 n the Offce of the mnng recorder of Baguo. The
ocatons of the mnera cams were made n accordance wth
Secton 21 of the Phppne B of 1902.
- The Bureau of Forestry Deveopment argued that the and sought
to be regstered was covered by the Centra Cordera Forest
Reserve under Procamaton No. 217 dated February 16, 1929. By
reason of ts nature, t was not sub|ect to aenaton under the
Consttutons of 1935 and 1973.
I((%E
WON the Benguet and Atok Mnng Companes have excusve
rghts to the property n queston.
3ELD
YES. Though the property was consdered forest and and ncuded
n the Centra Cordera Forest Reserve, ths dd not mpar the
rghts aready vested n Benguet and Atok at that tme. The
perfecton of the mnng cam converted the property nto mnera
and and under the aws then n force removed t from the pubc
doman. By such act, the ocators acqured excusve rghts over
the and, aganst even the government, wthout need of any further
act such as the purchase of the and or the obtenton of a patent
over t. As the and became the prvate property of the ocators,
they had the rght to transfer the same, as they dd, to Benguet and
Atok.
- There was nsuffcent evdence of open, contnuous, adverse and
excusve possesson submtted by the appcants to support ther
cam of ownershp. They acqured the and ony n 1964 and
apped for ts regstraton n 1965.
- Ths s an appcaton of the Regaan doctrne whch s ntended
for the beneft of the State, not of prvate persons. The rue
reserves to the State a mneras that may be found n pubc and
even prvate and. Thus, f a person s the owner of agrcutura
and n whch mnera s dscovered, hs ownershp of such and
does not gve hm the rght to extract or utze the sad mneras
wthout the permsson of the State to whch such mneras beong.
- Benguet and Atok have excusve rghts to the property n
queston by vrtue of ther respectve mnng cams whch they
vady acqured before the Consttuton of 1935 prohbted the
aenaton of a ands of the pubc doman except agrcutura
ands, sub|ect to vested rghts exstng at the tme of ts adopton.
The and was not and coud not have been transferred to the
prvate respondents by vrtue of acqustve prescrpton, nor coud
ts use coud be shared smutaneousy by them and the mnng
companes for agrcutura and mnera purposes.
2otin; "eehan=ee (C.1.!, Nar*asa, 9an%a+%o an& 9r#Mo-04$#no,
%on%$r.
&#O) .IG 7EDGE "I!I!G V CO%# O' &PPE&L(
PARAS; |anuary 18, 1991
'&C#(
- Freda Mnera cam was ocated n Itogon, Benguet by A. I.
Reynods n 1930. The mnera cam was duy recorded n the
Offce of the Mnng Recorder. In 1931, the mnera cam was sod
by A.I. Reynods to pettoner. Snce then pettoner has been n
contnuous and excusve ownershp and possesson of sad cam.
- In 1964, respondent Lwan Cons constructed a house n the and
where the cam was ocated. It was ony n 1984 when he was tod
that sad ot beonged to Atok. Respondent contends that he had
been payng taxes on sad and whch hs father had occuped
before hm. Atok fed a compant for forcbe entry. The MTC
dsmssed the case. The RTC decded n favor of Atok. Upon
appea by Cons, the CA dsmssed the forcbe entry acton rung
that both Cons and Atok are hoders of possessory ttes, the
former through ong term occupancy, and the atter by vrtue of ts
beng the cam ocator.
I((%E
WON an ndvduas ong term occupaton of and of the pubc
doman vests hm wth such rghts over the same as to defeat the
rghts of the owner of that cam
3ELD
NO. The perfecton of the mnng cam converted the property to
mnera and and under the aws then n force removed t from the
pubc doman. As the and had become prvate property of the
ocators (A.I.) they had the rght to se t to Atok. I&ere t&ere is
a valid location o9 minin; claim, t&e area becomes
se;re;ated 9rom t&e public and t&e propert( o9 t&e locator.
(Note however that the sae n the case took pace n 1931) Atok
then have excusve rghts to the property n queston by vrtue of
ther respectve mnng cams whch they vady acqured before
the 1935 Consttuton prohbted aenaton of a ands of the pubc
doman except agrcutura ands, sub|ect to vested rghts exstng
at the tme of ts adopton.
- Nether coud Cons argue ong term possesson. Hs possesson
was not n the concept of owner of the mnng cam but of the
property as agrcutura and. Snce the sub|ect ot s a mnera
and, prvate respondents possesson dd not confer upon hm
possessory rghts,
DIEC#O O' L&!D( V )&L&3I I!VE(#"E!#(
MADIALDEA; |anuary 31, 1989
'&C#(
- On December 12, 1963, Kaah Investment Inc., moved for an
advanced hearng of Lot No. 1851-B, Fordabanca Cadastre.
Evdence was presented and Kaahs tte was to be regstered
under the provsons of Act 496.
- It was ater on found out that ths ot was a vast and of mountan
ranges coverng an area no ess than 886,021,588 square meters.
Ths ot contans the aeged 123 mnera cams of Kaah. It was
aso found out that the sad ot was abeed as tmber and under RA
3092. n the and cassfcaton of the provnce of Pampanga and
Zambaes, these ands were aso consdered part of the Pro|ect No.
11, Tmber Land.
- The Bureau of Forestrys opposton on the regstraton of the ot s
based on the ground that these ands are part of the vast pubc
forest known as TIMBER LAND. These ots are not yet reeased as
aenabe agrcutura ands and were even decared by the
Presdent of the Phppnes under Procamaton No. 82 as part of
the Mt. Dorst Forest Reserve.
- Kaah thus abandoned ts former cam over Lot No. 1851-B. t
mted ts cam to two and whch when combned, cover an area
of 1,730 hectares. Ths and contaned the 123 mnng cams of
Kaah and where the aeged 500,000 coffee pants were panted.
Kaah camed and presented evdence that t had ocated n 1934
and pror thereto 123 mnera cams n Fordabanca Mountans;
made annua assessments work thereto; made decaraton of
ocaton and pad annua assessment work from 1965-1966;
constructed roads traversng the mountans and hs and panted
500,00 coffee trees. These however were not consdered by the
court as bass suffcent n aw and n fact for the regstraton of tte
under act 496.
- Kaah thus contended that these mnera ands were now
segregated from government ands and ts mnng cams thereon
deemed property rghts. These were based on an opnon of the
Secretary of |ustce dated August 31, 1956 whch stated that "the
ega effect of a vad ocaton of a mnng cam s not ony to
segregate the area from the pubc doman, but to grant the ocator
the benefca ownershp of the cam and the rght to a patent
therefore upon compance wth the terms and condtons
prescrbed by aw. the area s segregated and becomes the
property of the ocator."
- Ctng the San Maurco doctrne
"Under the Act of Congress of 1902 (Phppne B), a rght or rghts
acqured by a hoder of unpatented but vad and exstng cam
ocated and regstered under ts provsons becomes the property
of the ocator. the rght of the ocator to en|oy the surface ground
and the mneras wthn the mts of hs cam becomes excusve as
aganst the whoe word, mted ony by extraatera rghts of
ad|onng ocators. He s not requred to purchase the cam or
secure a patent and as ong as he coud compy wth the mnng
aws, hs possessory rghts of ownershp are as good as though
secured by patent."
- It aso cams regstraton of tte based on ts actua, open, pubc,
peacefu, contnuous, adverse possesson n the concept of an
owner for more than 30 years or confrmaton of mperfect tte
under Sec. 48 (b) CA141 as amended by RA No. 1942.
- In ts decson, the court a quo dened the cam for regstraton
rung that a) the 123 mnng cams are governed by mnng aw;
hence under the |ursdcton of the Bureau of Mnes whch s the
proper agency to enforce the cams and to ad|udcate the rghts of
the camants, whch n fact Kaah recognzed when t fed an
appcaton for ease wth sad Bureau, and b) that the cam for
confrmaton of mperfect tte based on the evdence of Pubc Land
Law provsons:
- The ands n the pubc doman are cassfed under three man
categores: Mnera, Forest and Agrcutura ands n the pubc
doman that tte coud be ssued. the Pubc Law never governs
prvate ands.
- The Pubc Land Law s not appcabe to forest ands nor to
mnera ands. The confrmaton of mperfect and tte can not be
bass for regstraton of ttes over forest and/or mnera ands.
- On appea Kaah assgned as errors the foowng:
1)the ower court erred n not consderng the bass for the
regstraton of and n queston suffcent n aw and n fact.
2)the ower court erred n decarng that the doctrne of the
Supreme Court and the opnon of the Secretary of |ustce never
contempate of a procedure that w entte the camants to the
regstraton of the ands n queston.
3)the ower court erred n denyng the cam for regstraton of the
camants tte over the and n queston at ast a porton thereof
covered by the mnng cams and ther gaps.
- On the other hand the Drector of Lands contended:
"Kaah admtted that the and n queston s a mnng property
consstng of mnng cams ocated and regstered under the
provsons of the Act of the US Congress of |uy 1, 1902. and as
such, sad Act requres Kaah as hoder of mnng cams to do no
other act except to proceed wth the acquston of mnng patent n
the Bureau of Mnes. The Act prescrbes an expct and defnte
procedure by whch mnng patents are to be secured
admnstratvey."
- CA thus certfed the foowng questons (ssues) for SC resouton:
I((%E(
1. WON mnng cams acqured, regstered perfected and
patentabe under the Od Mnng Law matured to prvate ownershp
woud entte camant-appeant to the ownershp thereof
2. who has the authorty to examne process and fnd out WON the
requrements of the Act of Congress of 1902 have been comped
by appcant- the Court or the Bureau of Mnes
3ELD
1. NO. In the recent case of Santa Rosa Mnng Co. v Hon Mnster
of Natura Resources |ose Ledo |r. and Drector of Mnes |uanto
Fernandez the SC rued that whe t recognzed that the rght of a
ocator of a mnng cam s a property rght, t*is rig*t is not
a6solute. It is merel1 a possessor1 rig*t more so w*en
petitionerAs 0laims are still unpatente+. "Mere ocaton does
not mean absoute ownershp over the ocated cam. It merey
segregates the ocated and or area from the pubc doman by
barrng other woud-be ocators from ocatng the same and
appropratng for themseves the mneras found theren. the
ntenton of the awmaker s that the ocator shoud fathfuy and
consstenty compy wth the requrements for annua work and
mprovements n the ocated mnng cams." Ths case modfes the
San Maurco doctrne n that whe a perfected ocaton of a mnng
cam has the effect of segregatng sad and from the body of
pubc doman, the area covered does not thereby become the
prvate property of the ocator.
- Concurrng opnon of |ustce Laure n God Creek Mnng Corp. v
Rodrguez and Abada: ". my opnon s that whe the ocator,
under the crcumstances, secures the benefca ownershp or the
&om#n$m $t#le, the government retans the bare ownershp or the
&om#n#$m &#re%t$m, unt the ocators cam rpens nto fu
ownershp upon fu compance wth a requrements of the aw for
the ssuance of a patent."
- Dssentng opnon of |ustce Concepcon n the God Creek Mnng
Corp. case: "To gve a broader meanng and gve a greater effect to
the ocaton of a mnng cam s to contend that ocaton s a that
s necessary to acqure absoute ownershp over a ocated mnng
cam. Ths s not the aw. Locaton wthout more,confers ony the
rght of possesson. I mantan that n prohbtng the aenaton of
natura resources, save any exstng rght, the Consttuton does not
refer to the rght of ocaton or the nherent rght of possesson, or
any nchoate or contngent rght whch are ony means to brng
about another rght; t refers ony to the rght to obtan a patent."
- It s not cear f Kaah has fuy comped wth the requrements of
Act of Congress of 1902. ths s a factua ssue whch s beyond the
ssue of the Court. Nonetheess, even assumng camant to be a
hoder of a subsstng and vad patentabe mnng ca8m, we hod
that t can no onger proceed wth the acquston of a mnng
patent n vew of PD No. 1214 ssued n October 14, 1977, drectng
"hoders of subsstng an vad patentabe mnng cams ocated
under the provsons of the Act of Congress of 1902 to fe a mnng
ease appcaton wthn one year of the approva of the Decree.
non-fng of the appcaton wthn the perod prescrbed sha cause
the forfeture of a hs rghts to the cam.
- Records show that camant has aready fed a mnng ease
appcaton.
2. Havng fed a mnng ease appcaton, ts mnng cams
therefore, are deemed covered by PD 1214 and the Bureau of
Mnes may accordngy process the same as a ease appcaton, n
accordance wth PD 463, pursuant to PD 1214. As to whether or not
the Bureau of Mnes s quafed to rue on whether there has been
fu and fathfu compance wth the requrements of Phppne B
of 1902, SC rued that the Bureau s empowered as a coroary
functon n the processng of mnng ease appcatons.
0ecision The decson of the CFI of Pampanga s affrmed, wth the
modfcaton that Kaahs mnng cams may be processed as a
mnng ease appcaton by the Bureau of Mnes.
#&! V DIEC#O O' 'OE(#2
MAKASIAR; October 27,1983
'&C#(
- Pettoner-appeant: Wencesao Vnzons Tan
- Respondents-appeees: Sec. of Agr. And Nat. Resources (DANR)
|ose Fecano, Drector of Bureau of Forestry (BOF) Apoono Rvera
- Intervenors: Ravago Commerca Co., |orge Lao Happck, Atanaco
Maar
- Apr 1961 - the Bureau of Forestry ssued a notce advertsng for
pubc bddng a tract of pubc forest and (6,420 hectares) n
Oongapo, Zambaes. It was ocated wthn the former US Nava
Reservaton.
- May 5, 1962 - pettoner Wencesao Tan submtted hs appcaton
pus nne other appcants
- Thereafter, questons arose as to the wsdom of havng the are
decared as a forest reserve or aow the same to be awarded to the
most quafed bdder
- |une 7, 1961 - then Pres. Caros Garca ssued a drectve to the
Dr. Of Bureau of Forestry to prepare a draft procamng the sad
and as a watershed forest reserve for Oongapo and to re|ect the
bds they have receved
- Sec. Fortch (DANR) however sustaned the recommendatons of
the drector of BOF who concuded that t woud be benefca to the
pubc nterest of the are s made avaabe for expotaton. The
Drector sad that to the decare the forest are as a forest reserve
rather than to open t for tmber expotaton under cense and
reguaton woud do more harm than good to the pubc nterest
snce t mght |ust become a "Free Zone and Loggng Paradse" to
the probem oggers of Dnauphan, Bataan - an open target for
tmber smuggers and kangneros; aso, re|ectng the receved bds
woud cause the department huge embarrassment
- The area was then awarded to Wencesao Tan by the BOF aganst
the other bdders, Rovago Commerca Company and |orge :Lao
Happck
- May 30, 1963 - D&! (e0. Go,on (w*o su00ee+e+ t*en (e0.
'orti0*) ssued a memorandum authorzng the grant of new
ordnary tmber cense for areas not more than 3,000 hectares
each and the extenson of ordnary tmber censes for areas not
exceedng 5000 hectares
- Dec. 19, 1963- Gozon was then repaced by actng (e0. $ose
'eli0iano, who upon assumpton of offce he revoked the
memorandum.
- But that same day, the cense of Wencesao Tan was sgned by
actng Drector of (BOF), Estansao Berna, wthout the approva of
the Secretary of DANR
- Ravago Commerca Company and |orge Lao Happck then wrote a
etter to the Sec. of DANR prayng that the cense ssued to Tan be
canceed on the ground that t was rreguar, anomaous and
contrary to exstng forestry aws, rues and reguatons
- The cense was decared vod ab nto
- Pettoner Tan cams that respondents unawfuy, egay,
whmscay, caprcousy and arbtrary acted w/o or n excess of ts
|ursdcton and wth grave abuse of dscreton by revokng a vad
and exstng tmber cense wthout |ust cause, by denyng
pettoner Tan of the equa protecton of the aws and by deprvng
hm of hs consttutona rght to property w/o due process of aw by
mparng the obgaton of contracts
- 3is petition was +ismisse+ 6e0ause it +i+ not state a
su//i0ient 0ause o/ a0tion
I((%E
WON the facts n the petton consttute a suffcent cause of acton
3ELD
cause of acton - 3 essenta eements
1. ega rght of the pantff
2. correatve obgaton of the defendants
3. the act or omsson of the defendant n voaton of that
rght
NO.
- the petton was dsmssed by the tra court for faure to state a
cam upon whch reef coud be granted; the tmber cense reed
upon by the pettoner was vod ab nto
- aso, court takes |udca notve that the are has been decared a
forest reserve on Apr 39, 1964
- what s mportant for the vadty of a tmber cense s the date of
reease of the cense and n the sate of sgnng. Before the reease,
not tght s acqured by the censee. Tans cense was sgned Dec.
9, 1963 and was reeased |an. 6, 1964 - by |anuary 6, the Drector
of Forestry no onger had any authorty to reease the cense
- the pettoner had not acqured any ega rght under such vod
cense
- the pettoner aso faed to exhaust a admnstratve remedes.
He shoud have appeaed the order of the DANR Secretary to the
Presdent, who has the power to revew on appea the orders/acts
of the sad secretary - where admnstratve appea s avaabe,
speca cv acton of certorar cannot be avaed
- moreover, not ony dd the pettoner fa to exhaust hs
admnstratve remedes, he aso faed to note that hs acton s a
sut aganst the state whch under the doctrne of mmunty from
sut, cannot prosper uness the state gves t consent to be dued
- Next, grantng that the cense granted to hm was vad, st the
respondents can vady revoke ths cense
EP%.LIC V @%&(3&
REYES; August 17, 1972
'&C#(
- "he %ase #n*ol*es a 3$&#%#al &eterm#nat#on of the s%o)e an&
&$rat#on of the r#ghts a%4$#re& /+ 0mer#%an %#t#6ens an&
%or)orat#ons %ontrolle& /+ them $n&er the Par#t+ 0men&ment
a))en&e& to the Const#t$t#on as of Se)t. 1', 1946
- 7illiam @uas*a s an Amercan ctzen who purchased a and n
Forbes Park on Nov.26,1954. He fed a petton on March 1968
where he averred the acquston of the sad and; that the RP
camed that upon expraton of the Party Amendment (PA) on |uy
3, 1974, rghts acqured by US ctzens sha cease; that ths cam
affects hs rght and nterest and that the uncertanty as to the
status of hs property after the PA ends reduces the propertys
vaue and precudes hm from havng mprovements made on t;
and so *e 0onten+s t*at t*e owners*ip o/ properties +uring
t*e e//e0tivit1 o/ t*e P& 0ontinues +espite its termination
- (ol.Gen. &ntonio .arre+o- and acqured by Ouasha s prvate
agr. and and that the acquston voated (e0.5 &rt.BIII of the
Consttuton whch )roh#/#ts the transfer of )r#*ate agr#%$lt$ral lan&
to non-;#l#)#nos e,%e)t /+ here&#tar+ s$%%ess#on; and assumng
vadty of acquston, hs rghts acqured through the PA w expre
on |uy 3, 1974
- CFI: rendered decson n favor of pantff, hodng that acquston
was vad and he has a rght to contnue n ownershp of property
even beyond |uy 1974.
Thus, ths appea.
I((%E(
1. WON by vrtue of the so-caed PA to the Phppne Consttuton
Ouasha coud vady acqure ownershp of the prvate resdenta
and whch s concededy cassfed prvate agrcutura and
2. On the assumpton that Ouashas purchase of the prvate
agrcutura and s vad and consttutona, WON hs rghts w
expre on |uy 3, 1974
3ELD
1. NO. The Party Amendment gves Amercans no rght to vady
acqure ownershp of prvate agrcutura and n the Phppnes.
-examnaton of the PA reveas that t ony estabshes an express
excepton to 2 provsons-Secton 1 Artce XIII (dsposton,
expotaton, etc. of pubc ands) and Secton 8 Artce XIV
(operaton of pubc uttes)
> no other provson was referred to, not Sectons 2 & 5 of Art.XIII
-Ouasha argues that snce PA permtted US ctzens/enttes to
acqure agrcutura ands of the pubc doman, then such
ctzens/enttes became entted to acqure prvate agrcutura
and n the Phs., even wthout heredtary successon
> t*is argument +oes not rest upon t*e te:t o/ t*e P& 6ut
upon a mere in/eren0eP i/ it was ever inten+e+ to 0reate
an e:0eption to (e0.55 it woul+ *ave 6ee mentione+ <ust
as (e0.1 an+ ; were mentione+
-whether from the Ph. Or the Amercan sde, the intention was
to se0ure parit1 /or %( 0iti,ens onl1 in- 1)e:ploitation5
+evelopment an+ utili,ation o/ pu6li0 lan+s an+ ot*er
natural resour0es5 an+ I) t*e operation o/ pu6li0 utilities
-Ouasha further contends that when the Consttuton was adopted
n 1935, US ctzens were aready quafed to acqure pubc agr
and, so even wthout heredtary successon transfer of prvate
agr ands to Amercans s permtted
> su0* 0apa0it1 0oul+ e:ist onl1 +uring t*e &meri0an
sovereignt1 over t*e Islan+s (6e/ore t*e P is esta6lis*e+)
2. Hs rghts w expre. A the exceptona rghts conferred upon
US ctzens and busness enttes owned or controed by them,
under the Party Amendment, are to ast durng the effectvty of
the agreement entered nto on |uy 4, 1946, but n no case to
extend beyond |uy 3, 1974.
-text of PA: "n no case to extend beyond |uy 3, 1974"-n
conformty wth Artce X, Secton 2 "ths agreement sha have no
effect after |uy 3, 1974. It may be termnated be ether the US or
the Phs at any tme..."
-Ouasha argues that the mtatve perod shoud not be
appcabe because under Art.428 of the Cv Code, "the owner
has the rght to en|oy and dspose of a thng, wthout other
mtatons than those estabshed by aw"
> ths mtaton aready exsted when he purchased the and
> The cant compan of deprvaton of due process because PA s
part of Const, the hghest aw of the and
> f the Phppne Government can not dspose of ts aenabe
pubc agrcutura ands beyond that date under PA, then,
ogcay, the Consttuton, as modfed by PA, ony authorzes
ether of two thngs: a) aenaton or transfer of rghts ess than
ownershp or b) a resoube ownershp that w be extngushed
not ater than the specfed perod.
0iscussion
3istori0al .a09groun+
Artce XIII Conservaton and Utzaton of Natura Resources
Se%.1 A agrcutura, tmber, and mnera ands of the pubc
doman...beong to the State, and ther dsposton, expotaton,
deveopment, or utzaton sha be mted to ctzens of the
Phppnes, or to corps. At east 60% of the capta of whch s
owned by such ctzens...
Se%.2 No prvate corporaton...may acqure, ease, or hod pubc
agrcutura ands n excess of 1,024 hectares...
Se%. Save n cases of heredtary successon, no prvate
agrcutura and sha be transferred or assgned except to
ndvduas, corporatons, or assocatons quafed to acqure or
hod ands of the pubc doman n the Phppnes.
Artce XIV Genera Provsons
Se%.' No franchse...for the operaton of a pubc utty sha be
granted except to ctzens of the Phppnes or to corporatons
organzed under the aws of the Phppnes, 60% of the capta of
whch s owned by ctzens of the Phppnes...
natonastc sprt are sef-evdent n these provsons
1945 Report of the Commttee on Terrtores and Insuar Affars:
when the Phppnes do become ndependent next |uy, they w
start on the road to ndependence wth a country whose commerce,
trade and potca nsttutons have been very damaged; nterna
revenue have been greaty dmnshed by war.
n 1946, US enacted Phppne Trade Act authorzng the
Presdent of the US to enter nto an Exec. Agreement wth the
Presdent of the Phppnes, whch shoud contan a provson that
-"the dsposton, expotaton, deveopment, or utzaton...be
open to ctzens of the US and to a forms of busness enterprse
owned or controed, drecty or ndrecty, by US ctzens."; and that
"the govt of the Ph. W take such steps as are necessary to
secure the amendment of the Consttuton so as to permt the
takng effect as aws of the Phs. Of such part of the provsons
Commonweath Act No.733- authorzed the Presdent of the Phs.
To enter nto the Executve Agreement
proposed amendment was submtted to a pebscte and was
ratfed n Nov. 1946
\ Parit1 &men+ment- "Notwthstandng the provson of se0tion
15 &rti0le 1M5 an+ se0tion ;5 &rti0le 1G, of the foregong
Consttuton, durng the effectvty of the Executve Agreement
entered nto...on |uy 4, 1946...but n no case to extend beyond |uy
3, 1974, the +isposition5 e:ploitation5 +evelopment5 or
utili,ation...6e open to 0iti,ens o/ t*e %( and to a forms of
busness enterprse owned or controed, drecty or ndrecty, by
US ctzens n the same manner as to, and under the same
condtons mposed upon, ctzens of the Phppnes or corporatons
or assocatons owned or controed by ctzens of the Phppnes."
\ Laurel-Langle1 &greement (revson of PA enacted n |une
1955): estabshes some sort of recprocty rghts between US and
Phs.
--no drect appcaton to the case at bar, snce the purchase by
Ouasha of the property n queston was made n 1954, pror to the
effectvty of ths agreement
L&%EL V G&CI&
GUTIERREZ; |uy 25, 1990
'&C#(
- The sub|ect property n ths case (Roppong) s one of the four (4)
propertes n |apan acqured by the Phppne government under
the Reparatons Agreement entered nto wth |apan n 1956, the
other ots beng: Nampeda Property , Kobe Commerca Property,
and Kobe Resdenta Property. The propertes are part of the
ndemnfcaton to the Fpno peope for ther osses n fe and
property and ther sufferng durng Word War II.
- The Reparatons Agreement provdes that reparatons vaued at
$550 mon woud be payabe n twenty (20) years n accordance
wth annua schedues of procurements to be fxed by the Phppne
and |apanese governments. Rep. Act No. 1789, the Reparatons
Law, prescrbes the natona pocy on procurement and utzaton
of reparatons and deveopment oans. The Roppong property was
acqured from the |apanese government under the Second Year
Schedue.
- On August 1986, Presdent Aquno created a commttee to study
the dsposton/utzaton of Phppne government propertes n
Tokyo and Kobe, |apan.
- On |uy 1987, the Presdent ssued Executve Order No. 296
enttng non-Fpno ctzens or enttes to ava of reparatons'
capta goods and servces n the event of sae, ease or dsposton.
Amdst opposton by varous sectors, the Executve has been
pushng ts decson to se the reparatons propertes startng wth
the Roppong ot. Pettoners have fed two pettons to stop the
sae of the Roppong property.
I((%E(
1. WON the Roppong property and others of ts knd can be
aenated by the Phppne Government
2. WON Executve Order No. 296, whch enttes non-Fpno
ctzens or enttes to ava of reparatons' capta goods and
servces, s consttutona. WON EO 296 voate the foowng
consttutona provsons:
a. consttutona mandate to conserve and deveop the natona
patrmony stated n the Preambe of the 1987 Consttuton
b. reservaton of the ownershp and acquston of aenabe ands
of the pubc doman to Fpno ctzens
c. there s preference for Fpno ctzens n the grant of rghts,
prveges and concessons coverng the natona economy and
patrmony
d. WON there s protecton gven to Fpno enterprses aganst
unfar competton and trade practces
e. WON there s guarantee of the rght of the peope to
nformaton on a matters of pubc concern
f. WON there s decaraton of the state pocy of fu pubc
dscosure of a transactons nvovng pubc nterest
3ELD
1. NO, the Ropongg property s pubc doman. As property of
pubc domnon, the Roppong ot s outsde the commerce of man.
It cannot be aenated. Its ownershp s a speca coectve
ownershp for genera use and en|oyment, an appcaton to the
satsfacton of coectve needs, and resdes n the soca group.
2. The Court does not ordnary pass upon consttutona questons
uness these questons are propery rased n approprate cases and
ther resouton s necessary for the determnaton of the case. The
Court w not pass upon a consttutona queston athough propery
presented by the record f the case can be dsposed of on some
other ground such as the appcaton of a statute or genera aw.
0ecision Pettons are GRANTED. A wrt of prohbton s ssued
en|onng the respondents from proceedng wth the sae of the
Roppong property n Tokyo, |apan.

&"IE4 V VD&. DE &"IE4
ABAD-SANTOS; February 15, 1982
'&C#(
- APPEAL for the parttonng of testate estate of |ose Eugeno
Ramrez (a Fpno natona, ded n Span on December 11, 1964)
among prncpa benefcares:
*arcelle 0emoron de amireJ
- wdow
- French who ves n Pars
- receved (as spouse) and usufructuary rghts over 1/3 of the
free porton
oberto and Jor;e amireJ
- two grandnephews
- ves n Maate
- receved the (free porton)
Ianda de Irobles@i
- companon
- Austran who ves n Span
- receved usufructuary rghts of 2/3 of the free porton
- vugar substtuton n favor of |uan Pabo |ankowsk and Horaco
Ramrez
- Mara Lusa Paacos - admnstratx
- |orge and Roberto Ramrez opposed because
a. vugar substtuton n favor of Wanda wrt wdows usufruct and n
favor of |uan Pabo |ankowsk and Horaco Ramrez, wrt to Wandas
usufruct s INVALID because frst hers (Marcee and Wanda)
survved the testator
b. fdecommssary substtutons are INVALID because frst hers not
reated to the second hers or substtutes wthn the frst degree as
provded n Art 863 CC
c. grant of usufruct of rea property n favor of an aen, Wanda,
voated Art XIII Sec 5
d. proposed partton of the testators nterest n the Santa Cruz
Budng between wdow and appeants voates testators express
w to gve ths property to them
- LC: approved partton
I((%E
WON the partton s vad nsofar as
a. wdows egtme
b. substtutons
c. usufruct of Wanda
3ELD
a. YES, appeants do not queston because Marcee s the
wdow
65
and over whch he coud mpose no burden, encumbrance,
condton or substtuton of any knd whatsoever
66
- the proposed creaton by the admnnstratx n favor of the
testators wdow of a usufruct over 1/3 of the free porton of the
testators estate cannot be made where t w run counter to the
testators express w. The Court erred for Marcee who s entted
to of the estate "en peno domno" as her egtme and whch s
more than what she s gven under the w s not entted to have
65
Art 900 CC: If the ony survvor s the wdow or wdower, she or he sha be entted to of the heredtary
estate
66
Art 904 (2) CC
any addtona share n the estate. To gve Marcee more than her
egtme w run counter to the testators ntenton for as stated
above hs dsposton even mpared her egtme and tended to
favor Wanda.
b. Vugar substtutons are vad because dyng before the testator
s not the ony case where a vugar substtuton can be made. Aso,
accordng to Art 859 CC, cases aso ncude refusa or ncapacty to
accept nhertance therefore t s VALID.
BUT fdecommssary substtutons are VOID because |uan Pabo
|ankowsk and Horace Ramrez are not reated to Wande and
accordng to Art 863 CC, t vadates a fdecommssary substtuton
provded that such substtuton does not ;o be(ond one de;ree
from the her orgnay nsttuted. Another s that there s no
absoute duty mposed on Wanda to transmt the usufructuary to
the substtutes and n fact the apeee agrees that the testator
contradcts the estabshment of the fdecommssary substtuton
when he permts the propertes be sub|ect to usufruct to be sod
upon mutua agreement of the usufructuares and naked owners.
c. YES, usufruct of Wanda s VALID
- Art XIII
67
Sec 5 (1935): Save n cases of heredtary successon, no
prvate agrcutura and sha be transferred or assgned except to
ndvduas, corporatons, or assocatons quafed to acqure or
hod and of the pubc doman n the Phppnes.
68
The ower court uphed the usufruct thnkng that the Consttuton
covers not ony successon by operaton of aw but aso
testamentary successon BUT SC s of the opnon that ths
provson does not appy to testamentary successon for otherwse
the prohbton w be for naught and meanngess. Any aen woud
crcumvent the prohbton by payng money to a Phppne
andowner n exchange for a devse of a pece of and BUT an aen
may be bestowed USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS over a parce of and n
the Phppnes. Therefore, the usufruct n favor of Wanda, athough
a rea rght, s uphed because t does not vest tte to the and n
6<
Art XIII (1935): Conservaton and Utzaton of Natura Resources
68
Art XII Sec 7 (1987): Save n cases of heredtary successon, no prvate |removed agr#%$lt$ral| ands sha be
transferred or conveyed |1935: ass#gne&| except to ndvduas, corporatons, or assocatons quafed to acqure
or hod ands of the pubc doman |removed #n the Ph#l#))#nes|.
the usufructuary (Wanda) and t s the *est#ng of t#tle to lan& #n
fa*or of al#ens .h#%h #s )ros%r#/e& /+ the Const#t$t#on.
0ecision: Marcee (as egtme), |orge and Roberto Ramrez
(free porton) n naked ownershp and the usufruct to Wanda de
Wrobesk wth smpe substtuton n favor of |uan Pabo |ankowsk
and Horace Ramrez
C%4 V !CIP
PER CURIAM; December 20, 2000
L& .%G&L #I.&L &((OCI&#IO! V 7E(#E! "I!I!G
COPO&#IO! P3ILIPPI!E(
CARPIO-MORALES; |anuary 29, 2004
'&C#(
- Marvc M.V.F. Leonen, et. a for pettoners
- SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION n Supreme Court. Mandamus and
Prohbton.
- Assaed s the consttutonaty of RA 7942, otherwse known as
the PHILIPPINE MINING ACT OF 1995, aong wth the Impementng
Rues and Reguatons ssued pursuant thereto, Department of
Envronment and Natura Resources (DENR) Admnstratve Order
96-40, and of the Fnanca and Technca Assstance Agreement
(FTAA) entered nto on March 30, 1995 by the Repubc of the
Phppnes and Western Mnng Corporaton (Phppnes), Inc.
(WMCP), a corporaton organzed under Phppne aws.
- |uy 25, 1987 -Presdent Aquno ssued EO 279 authorzng the
DENR Secretary to accept, consder and evauate proposas from
foregn-owned corporatons or foregn nvestors for contracts of
agreements nvovng ether technca or fnanca assstance for
arge-scae exporaton, deveopment, and utzaton of mneras,
whch, upon approprate recommendaton of the Secretary, the
Presdent may execute wth the foregn proponent. In enterng nto
such proposas, the Presdent sha consder the rea contrbutons
to the economc growth and genera wefare of the country that w
be reazed, as we as the deveopment and use of oca scentfc
and technca resources that w be promoted by the proposed
contract or agreement. Unt Congress sha determne otherwse,
arge-scae mnng, for purpose of ths Secton, sha mean those
proposas for contracts or agreements for mnera resources
exporaton, deveopment, and utzaton nvovng a commtted
capta n a snge mnng unt pro|ect of at east Ffty Mon Doars
n Unted States currency (US $50,000,000.00).
- March 3, 1995 -Presdent Ramos approved 7942 to govern the
exporaton, deveopment, utzaton and processng of a mnera
resources. RA 7942 defnes modes of mnera agreements for
mnng operatons, outnes the procedure for fng and approva,
assgnment/transfer, and wthdrawa, and fxes ther terms. These
aso appy to FTAAs.
- The aw aso prescrbes the contractors quafcatons, grants
certan rghts such as tmber, water, easement rghts and rght to
possess exposves. Surface owners or occupants are forbdden
from preventng hoders of mnng rghts from enterng prvate
ands and concesson areas. A procedure for settement of confcts
s aso provded for.
- The Act restrcts condtons for exporaton, quarry and other
permts. It reguates the transport, sae and processng of mneras,
and promotes the deveopment of mnng communtes, scence
and mnng technoogy, and safety and envronmenta protecton.
- The governments share n the agreements s speed out and
aocated, taxes and fees are mposed, ncentves granted. Asde
from penazng certan acts, the aw kewse specfes grounds for
the canceaton, revocaton and termnaton of agreements and
permts.
- Apr 9, 1995 -RA 7942 took effect.
- March 30, 1995 -Shorty before RA 7942 took effect, the Presdent
entered nto and FTAA wth WMCP coverng 99,387 hectares of and
n South Cotabato, Sutan Kudarat, Davao de Sur and North
Cotabato.
- August 15, 1995 -DENR Secretary Ramos ssued DENR
Admnstratve Order (DAO) 95-23, s. 1995, otherwse known as the
Impementng Rues and Reguatons of RA 7942. Ths was ater
repeaed by DAO 96-40, s. 1996 whch was adopted on December
20, 1996.
- |anuary 10, 1997 -Counses for pettoners sent etter to DENR
Secretary demandng that they stop the mpementaton of RA
7942 and DAO 96-40, gvng them 15 days from recept to act
thereon. DENR has yet to respond or act on pettoners etter.
- Hence, ths petton for prohbton and mandamus, wth a prayer
for a temporary restranng order.
- Pettoners cam that the DENR Secretary wthout or n excess of
|ursdcton:
1) In sgnng and promugatng DAO 96-40
mpementng RA 7942, the atter beng unconsttutona n
that:
It aows fuy foregn owned corporatons to
expore, deveop, utze and expot mnera resources n a
manner contrary to Art. XII, sec. 2, par. 4, 1987 Consttuton
It aows the takng of prvate property wthout
the determnaton of pubc use and for |ust compensaton
It voates Art. III, sec. 1
It aows en|oyment by foregn ctzens as we
as fuy foregn owned corporatons of the natons marne
weath contrary to Art. XII, sec. 2, par. 2
It aows prorty to foregn and fuy foregn
owned corporatons n the exporaton, deveopment and
utzaton of mnera resources contrary to Art. XII
2) In recommendng approva of and
mpementng the FTAA between the Presdent and WMCP
because the same s ega and consttutona
- They pray that the Court ssue an order permanenty en|onng the
respondents from actng on any appcaton for an FTAA; decarng
RA 7942, DAO 96-40 and a other smar admnstratve ssuances
as unconsttutona and nu and vod; and, canceng the FTAA
ssued to WMCP as unconsttutona, ega and nu and vod.
- Respondents, asde from meetng pettoners contentons, argue
that the requstes for |udca nqury have not been met, the
petton does not compy wth the crtera for prohbton and
mandamus, and there has been a voaton of the rue on herarchy
of courts.
- WMCP subsequenty fed a Manfestaton dated September 25,
2002 aegng that on |anuary 23, 2001 WMC sod a ts shares n
WMCP to Sagttarus Mnes, Inc. (Sagttarus), a corporaton
organzed under Phppne aws, 60% of the equty of whch s
owned by Fpnos and/or Fpno-owned corporatons whe about
40% s owned by Indoph Resources NL, an Austraan company.
- Because of ths, the DENR Secretary, by Order of December 18,
2001, approved the transfer and regstraton of the sub|ect FTAA
from WMCP to Sagttarus. Sad Order, however, was appeaed by
Lepanto Consodated Mnng Co. (Lepanto). Because there s no
fna |udgment yet, the case cannot be consdered moot.
I((%E(
1. WON case s |ustcabe
2. WON EO 279 took effect
3. WON the WMCP FTAA s consttutona
4. WON RA 7942 s consttutona
3ELD
1. Case s |ustcabe.
atio In cases nvovng consttutona questons, the Court s not
concerned wth whether pettoners are rea partes n nterest, but
wth whether they have ega standng.
- Pettoners traverse a wde range of sectors. Among them are La
Buga BLaan Trba Assocaton, Inc., a farmers and ndgenous
peopes cooperatve organzed under Phppne aws representng
a communty actuay affected by the mnng actvtes of WMCP,
members of sad cooperatve, as we as other resdents of areas
aso affected by the mnng actvtes of WMCP. Even f they are not
the actua partes n the contract, they cam that they w suffer
"rremedabe dspacement" as a resut of the FTAA aowng WMCP
to conduct mnng actvtes n ther area of resdence.
- And athough RA 7942 and DAO 96-40 were not n force when the
sub|ect FTAA was entered nto, the queston as to ther vadty s
rpe for ad|udcaton. RA 7942 expcty makes certan provsons
appy to pre-exstng arrangements. The WMCP FTAA aso provdes
that any term and condton favorabe to FTAA contractors resutng
from a aw or reguaton sha be consdered part of the agreement.
- The petton for prohbton and mandamus s aso the approprate
remedy. Pubc respondents, n behaf of the Government, have
obgatons to fuf under sad contract. Pettoners seek to prevent
them from fufng such obgatons on the theory that the contract
s unconsttutona and, therefore, vod.
- The contenton that the fng of the petton voates the rue on
herarchy of courts does not kewse e. The repercussons of the
ssues n ths case on the Phppne mnng ndustry, f not the
natona economy, as we as the novety thereof, consttute
exceptona and compeng crcumstances to |ustfy resort to ths
Court n the frst nstance. Indeed, when the ssues rased are of
paramount mportance to the pubc, ths Court may brush asde
techncates of procedure.
2. YES.
atio When the ssues rased are of paramount mportance to the
pubc, the Court may brush asde techncates of procedure.
- Pettoners contend that EO 279 dd not take effect because ts
supposed date of effectvty came after Presdent Aquno had
aready ost her egsatve powers under the Provsona
Consttuton. But t was expaned that the convenng of the frst
Congress merey precuded the exercse of egsatve powers by
the Presdent -t dd not prevent the effectvty of aws she had
prevousy enacted.
3. NO.
atio The convenng of the frst Congress merey precuded the
exercse of egsatve powers by the Presdent and dd not prevent
the effectvty of aws she had prevousy enacted.
In accordance wth Art. XII, sec. 2 of the consttuton, FTAAs shoud
be mted to "technca or fnanca assstance" ony. However,
contrary to the anguage of the Consttuton, the WMCP FTAA aows
WMCP, a fuy foregn-owned mnng corporaton, to extend more
than mere fnanca or technca assstance to the State, for t
permts WMCP to manage and operate every aspect of the mnng
actvty.
- WMCP nevertheess submts that the word "technca"
encompasses a broad number of possbe servces, perhaps,
scentfc and/or technoogca n bass. It thus posts that t may
we ncude the area of management and operatons. The Court s
not persuaded. Cas$s om#s$s )ro om#sso ha/en&$s est -a person,
ob|ect or thng omtted from an enumeraton must be hed to have
been omtted ntentonay. Moreover, the management or
operaton of mnng actvtes by foregn contractors, whch s the
prmary feature of servce contracts, was precsey the ev that the
drafters of the 1987 Consttuton sought to eradcate.
- Respondents nsst that "agreements nvovng technca or
fnanca assstance" s |ust another term for servce contracts. The
proceedngs of the CONCOM ndcate that the members used the
terms nterchangeaby. The Court s kewse not persuaded. Whe
certan commssoners may have mentoned the term "servce
contracts", they may have been usng the term oosey and not n
the context of the 1973 Consttuton. Aso, the phrase "servce
contracts" has been deeted n the 1987 Consttutons Artce on
Natona Economy and Patrmony. If the CONCOM ntended to retan
the concept of servce contracts under the 1973 Consttuton, t
coud have smpy adapted the od termnoogy nstead of
empoyng new and unfamar terms ("agreements. nvovng
ether technca or fnanca assstance").
- The UP Law Draft and Artce XII, as adopted, uses the same
termnooges. And the UP Law draft proponents vewed servce
contracts under the 1973 Consttuton as grants of benefca
ownershp of the countrys natura resources to foregn owned
corporatons. Whe, n theory, the State owns these natura
resources -and Fpno ctzens, ther benefcares -servce
contracts actuay vested foregners wth the rght to dspose,
expore for, deveop, expot, and utze the same. Ths
arrangement s ceary ncompatbe wth the consttutona dea of
natonazaton of natura resources. But the proponents
nevertheess acknowedged the need for capta and technca
know-how n the arge-scae expotaton, deveopment and
utzaton of natura resources. Hence, they proposed a
compromse -technca or fnanca agreements.
4. NO, nsofar as sad Act authorzes servce contracts.
atio Fnanca or technca agreements as contempated n Art.
XII, sec. 2 sha refer to fnanca agreements and/or technca
agreements ony and not to servce contracts.
- Athough the statute empoys the phrase "fnanca and technca
agreements", t actuay treats these agreements as servce
contracts that grant benefca ownershp to foregn contractors
contrary to fundamenta aw.
0ecision WHEREFORE, the petton s granted. The Court hereby
decares unconsttutona and vod:
1) The foowng provson of RA 7942
a) The provso n Secton 3 (aq)
b) Secton 23,
c) Secton 33 to 41,
d) Secton 56,
e) The second and thrd paragraphs of Secton 81,
and
f) Secton 90.
2) A provsons of DAO 96-40, s. 1996 whch are
not n conformty wth ths Decson, and
3) The FTAA between the Government of the
Repubc of the Phppnes and WMC Phppnes, Inc.
2otin; 8 concur -ncudng ponente, 5 dssent, 1 took no part
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
VI#%G
- It coud not have been the ob|ect of the framers of the Charter to
mt the contracts whch the Presdent may enter nto, to mere
"agreements for fnanca and technca assstance; The
Consttuton has not prohbted the State from tsef exporng,
deveopng, or utzng the countrys natura resources, and, for ths
purpose, t may, enter nto the necessary agreements wth
ndvduas or enttes n the pursut of a feasbe operaton."
P&!G&!I.&!
- The petton shoud be dsmssed on the ground of mootness. The
dspute camng the rght to purchase the foregn shares n WMCP
s between two Fpno companes (Sagttarus and Lepanto). So
regardess of whch sde wns, the FTAA woud st be n the hands
of a quafed Fpno company.
- The word "nvovng" sgnfes the possbty of ncuson of other
actvtes. If the ntenton of the drafters were strcty to confne
foregn corporatons to fnanca or technca assstance and nothng
more, ther anguage woud have been unmstakaby restrctve and
strngent.
- The present Consttuton st recognzes and aows servce
contracts (and has not rendered them taboo), abet sub|ect to
severa restrctons and modfcatons amed at avodng ptfas of
the past.
- In the mnds of the commssoners, the concept of technca and
fnanca assstance agreements dd not exst at a apart from the
concept of servce contracts duy modfed to prevent abuses
-"technca and fnanca agreements" were understood by the
deegates to ncude servce contracts duy modfed to prevent
abuses.
- Current busness practces often requre borrowers seekng huge
oans to aow credtors access to fnanca records and other data,
and probaby a seat or two on the formers board of drectors, or at
east some partcpaton n certan management decsons that may
have an mpact on the fnanca heath or the ong-term vabty of
the debtor, whch of course w drecty affect the atters capacty
to repay ts oans.
- If the Supreme Court coses ts doors to nternatona reates and
unateray sets up ts own concepts of strct technca and fnanca
assstance, then t may unwttngy make the country a vrtua
hermt -an economc soatonst -n the rea word of fnance.
- The commssoners fuy reazed that ther work woud have to
wthstand the test of tme, that the Charter, though crafted wth the
wsdom born of past experences and essons panfuy earned,
woud have to be a vng document that woud answer the needs of
the naton we nto the future.
E(OL%#IO!
PANGANIBAN; December 1, 2004
'&C#(
- Marvc M.V.F. Leonen, et. a for pettoners
- SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION n Supreme Court. Mandamus and
Prohbton
- Ponente: Panganban, |. (take note: ma|or dssenter n part1)
- A mnera resources are owned by the State. Ther exporaton,
deveopment and utzaton (EDU) must aways be sub|ect to the
fu contro and supervson of the State. More specfcay, gven the
nadequacy of Fpno capta and technoogy n arge-scae EDU
actvtes, the State may secure the hep of foregn companes n a
reevant matters -especay fnanca and technca assstance -
provded that, at a tmes, the State mantans ts rght of fu
contro. The foregn assstor or contractor assumes a fnanca,
technca and entrepreneura rsks n the EDU actvtes; hence t
may be gven reasonabe management, operatona, marketng,
audt and other prerogatves to protect ts nvestments and enabe
the busness to succeed.
- The Consttuton shoud be read n broad, fe-gvng strokes. It
shoud not be used to stranguate economc growth or to serve
narrow, parocha nterests. Rather, t shoud be construed to grant
the Presdent and Congress suffcent dscreton and reasonabe
eeway to enabe them to attract foregn nvestments and
expertse, as we as to secure for our peope and our posterty the
bessngs of prosperty and peace.
- On the bass of ths contro standard, ths Court uphods the
consttutonaty of the Phppne Mnng Law, ts Impementng
Rues and Reguatons -nsofar as they reate to fnanca and
technca agreements -as we as the sub|ect Fnanca and
Technca Assstance Agreement (FTAA).
I((%E(
1. WON the case been rendered moot by the sae of the WMC
shares n WMCP to Sagttarus and by the subsequent transfer and
regstraton of the FTAA from WMCP to Sagttarus
2. Assumng that the case has been rendered moot, WON t woud
st be proper to resove the consttutonaty of the assaed
provsons of the Mnng Law, DAO 96-40 and the WMCP FTAA
3. What s the proper nterpretaton of the phrase Agreements
Invovng Ether Technca or Fnanca Assstance contaned n
paragraph 4 of Secton 2 of Artce XII of the Consttuton?
3ELD
1. YES.
atio The courts w decde a queston -otherwse moot and
academc -f t s capabe of repetton, yet evadng revew.
- The dspute camng the rght to purchase the foregn shares n
WMCP s between two Fpno companes (Sagttarus and Lepanto).
So regardess of whch sde wns, the FTAA woud st be n the
hands of a quafed Fpno company. The pea to nufy the Mnng
Law has become a vrtua petton for decaratory reef, over whch
ths Court has no orgna |ursdcton.
- Pettoners argue that the sae of shares and transfer of the FTAA
s nvad. Government cannot enter nto FTAA wth Fpnos.
- It does not take deep knowedge of aw and ogc to understand
that what the Consttuton grants to foregners shoud be equay
avaabe to Fpnos.
2. atio FTAAs are servce contracts. But unke those of the 1973
varety, the grant thereof s sub|ect to severa safeguards.
- Pettoners stress the foowng ponts. Frst, whe a case becomes
moot and academc when there s no more actua controversy
between the partes or no usefu purpose can be served n passng
upon the merts, what s at ssue s not ony the vadty of the
WMCP FTAA but aso the consttutonaty of RA 7942 and ts
Impementng Rues and Reguatons. Second, the acts of prvate
respondent cannot operate to cure the aw of ts aeged
unconsttutonaty or to dvest ths Court of ts |ursdcton to
decde. Thrd, the Consttuton mposes upon the Supreme Court
the duty to decare nvad any aw that offends the Consttuton.
- But of equa f not greater sgnfcance s the coud of uncertanty
hangng over the mnng ndustry, whch s even now scarng away
foregn nvestments. It s evdent that strong reasons of pubc
pocy demand that the consttutonaty ssue be resoved now. And
ctng Acop v. Gungona, the courts w decde a queston -
otherwse moot and academc -f t s "capabe of repetton, yet
evadng revew."
3. Ctng Francsco v. House of Representatves, the ponenca
reterated the we setted prncpes of consttutona constructon:
Ver/a leg#s, that s, wherever possbe, the words
used n the Consttuton must be gven ther ordnary meanng
except where technca terms are empoyed.
Where there s ambguty, rat#o leg#s est an#ma. The
words of the Consttuton shoud be nterpreted n accordance
wth the ntent of ts framers.
Et mag#s *aleat 4$am )ereat. The Consttuton s to
be nterpreted as a whoe.
- Pettoners cam that the phrase "agreements. nvovng ether
technca or fnanca assstance" smpy means technca
assstance or fnanca assstance agreements, nothng more and
nothng ese.
- But f that was the ntenton, then what s the pont of requrng
that they be based on rea contrbutons to the economc growth
and genera wefare of the country?
- It s aso uncear how a verba egs approach eads to the
concuson that "the management or operaton of mnng actvtes
by foregn contractors, whch s the prmary feature of servce
contracts, was precsey the ev that the drafters of the 1987
Consttuton sought to eradcate. If the framers had ntended to put
an end to servce contracts, they woud have at east eft some
transtory gudenes.
- The drafters w have to be credted wth enough pragmatsm and
savvy to know that these foregn enttes w not enter nto such
"agreements nvovng assstance" wthout requrng arrangements
for the protecton of ther nvestments, gans and benefts.
- Usng rato egs est anma, we may now examne the CONCOM
deberatons. It may be observed that the members use the terms
"fnanca and technca assstance agreements" and "servce
contracts" nterchangeaby. From ther statements, t may be
concuded that FTAAs are servce contracts. But unke those of the
1973 varety, the grant thereof s sub|ect to severa safeguards (n
accordance wth aw, Presdent as sgnatory, reportng to
Congress.)
- Wth ut mags vaeat quam pereat, we may notce a contradcton
between the States fu contro and supervson and the
safeguarded servce contracts wth foregn contractors. It must be
ponted out that the fu contro and supervson cannot be taken
teray to mean that the State contros and supervses everythng
nvoved, down to the mnutest detas, and makes a decsons
requred n the mnng operatons. Contro by State may be on the
macro eve -estabshment of poces, gudenes, reguatons,
ndustry standards, etc.
- To further dsabuse the noton of these "new servce contracts",
the governments share n these operatons w not be mted to
taxes, dutes and fees to be mposed. Those ony consst of the
basc government share. The aw provdes for an addtona
government share to be determned usng formuas presented n
DAO 96-40, ether of whch resuts to at east 50% of the net
benefts from the mnng.
0ecision WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT the
respondents and the ntervenors Motons for Reconsderaton; to
REVERSE and SET ASIDE ths Courts |anuary 27, 2004 Decson; to
DISMISS the Petton; and to ssue ths new |udgment decarng
CONSTITUTIONAL 1) RA 7942 (Ph. Mnng Law), 2) ts
Impementng Rues and Reguatons contaned n DAO 96-40 -
nsofar as they reate to fnanca and technca assstance
agreements referred to n par. 4 of Secton 2 of Art. XII of the
Consttuton; and 3) the FTAA dated March 30, 1995 executed by
the government and WMCP, except Sectons 7.8 and 7.9 of the
sub|ect FTAA whch are hereby INVALIDATED for beng contrary to
pubc pocy and for beng grossy dsadvantageous to the
government.
2otin; 10 concur -ncudng ponente, 4 dssent, 1 took no part
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C&PIO
- Provsons of RA 7942 abdcate the States consttutona duty to
contro and supervse fuy the expotaton of mnera resources.
- The change n anguage n the Consttuton was a cear re|ecton
of the od system of "cense, concesson or ease."
- The State as owner of the natura resources must receve ncome
from ts expotaton -taxes, fees and charges cannot substtute.
- State must receve at east 60% of the net proceeds n FTAAs,
whch share s equvaent to the Fpno equty requrement.
- The ma|orty opnon refused to accept that the State s entted to
what the entre mnng ndustry s wng to pay the State.
C&PIO-"O&LE( Dpart 1 ponenteE
- The phrase "natura resources are owned by the State"
smutaneousy vests the ega tte to the natons natura resources
to the Government, and the benefca ownershp of these
resources n the soveregn Fpno peope.
- In the EDU of natura resources, Government acts as trustee. So t
cannot, wthout voatng ts sacred trust, enter nto any agreement
or arrangement whch effectvey deprves the Fpno peope of
ther benefca ownershp of these resources.
- Art. XII, sec. 2 n mentonng "based on rea contrbutons to the
economc growth and genera wefare of the country artcuates the
vaue whch the Consttuton paces on natura resources, and
recognzes ther potenta benefts.
- Rea benefts are ntergeneratona benefts because the
motherands natura resources are the brthrght not ony of the
present generaton of Fpnos but of future generatons as we.
- "Invovng" as the ma|orty construes t runs counter to the
restrctve sprt of the provson.
- "Ether" refers to one of two tems and "any" s requred when
more than two tems are nvoved.
- "Ether" s not merey descrptve but restrctve.
- Cas$s om#s$s )ro om#sso ha/en&$s est -a person, ob|ect or thng
omtted from an enumeraton must be hed to have been omtted
ntentonay.
- It s understandabe, however regrettabe, that a government,
strapped for cash and n the mdst of a sef procamed fsca crss,
woud be ncned to turn a bnd eye to the consequences of
unconsttutona egsaton n the hope, however fase or empty, of
obtanng fabuous amounts of hard currency; As aways, the one
overrdng the consderaton of ths Court shoud be w of the
soveregn Fpno peope as emboded n ther Consttuton.
- The task of recamng Fpno contro over Phppne natura
resources now beongs to another generaton.
'EEDO" 'O" DE.# CO&LI#IO! V EC &!D "E&LCO
TINGA; |anuary 15, 2004
'&C#(
- Pettoners fed a Pet#t#on for Cert#orar#, Proh#/#t#on, an& 7n3$n%t#on
.#th Pra+er for the 7ss$an%e of a "em)orar+ >estra#n#ng 2r&er or a
Stat$s <$o 2r&er assang the 2r&er dated November 27, 2003 of
respondent Energy Reguatory Commsson (ERC), provsonay
authorzng respondent Mana Eectrc Company (MERALCO) to
ncrease ts rates by an average amount of 12 centavos per
kowatt hour. Freedom from Debt Coaton (FDC) argues that the
sad 2r&er of the ERC s vod for havng been ssued wthout ega
bass or statutory authorty. It aso contends that Rue 3, Sec. 4 of
the Impementng Rues of the "Eectrc Power Industry Reform Act
of 2001" (EPIRA) s unconsttutona for beng an undue deegaton
of egsatve power. FDC further asserts that the 2r&er s vod for
havng been ssued by the ERC wth grave abuse of dscreton and
manfest bas. In support of ts prayer for the ssuance of n|unctve
reef, FDC cams that the mpementaton by MERALCO of the
provsona rate ncrease w resut n rreparabe pre|udce to the
FDC and others smary stuated uness the court restrans such
mpementaton.
- On Dec. 29, 2003, FDC fed wth the Court an Ergent Mot#on to
9rant >estra#n#ng or Stat$s <$o 2r&er. On |an. 9, 2004, the ERC
ssued an 2r&er carfyng that the provsona rate ncrease granted
to MERALCO n ts Nov. 27, 2003 2r&er shoud be apped begnnng
|an. 1, 2004. The Court En -an% ssued on |an. 13, 2004, a
>esol$t#on orderng ERC and MERALCO to fe ther respectve
Comments on the Pet#t#on. The Court aso en|oned ERC and
MERALCO to observe the stat$s 4$o prevang before the fng of
the Pet#t#on and set the case for ora arguments on |an. 27, 2004.
On |an. 26, 2004, ERC, MERALCO, and the Offce of the Soctor
Genera (OSG) fed ther respectve Comments on the Pet#t#on.
- In ts Comment, the ERC concurred wth the arguments of the
OSG and nssts that t s authorzed to ssue provsona orders
under the aw. ERC argues that t must not have been the ntenton
of Congress to expand the functons of the ERC, as the successor of
the Energy Reguatory Board (ERB), and cp ts powers at the same
tme. The ERC aso asserts that t s authorzed to ssue provsona
rate ncreases e, )arte, and that t may base ts provsona order
on the verfed appcaton and supportng documents submtted by
the appcaton, and t s not requred to wat for the comments of
consumers or oca government unts (LGUs) concerned before
ssung a provsona order. The ERC aso denes that the Nov. 27,
2003 2r&er was ssued wth grave abuse of dscreton. On the
contrary, t cams that the 2r&er s supported by substanta
evdence. Fnay, ERC contends that the fng of the nstant
Pet#t#on s premature because t was dened the opportunty to
have a fu determnaton of the 0))l#%at#on after tra on the merts,
and s voatve of the doctrne of prmary |ursdcton.
- For ts part, MERALCO asserts that the 2r&er s vad, because t
was ssued by the ERC pursuant to Sec. 44 of the EPIRA whch
aows the transfer of powers (not nconsstent wth the EPIRA) of
the od ERB to ERC. It aso denes that the assaed 2r&er was
ssued by the ERC wth grave abuse of dscreton, assertng that on
the contrary, the ssuance thereof was based on the 0))l#%at#on,
affdavts and other supportng documents whch t submtted
earer.
I((%E
1. WON ERC has ega authorty to grant provsona rate
ad|ustments under RA No. 9136, otherwse known as the "Eectrc
Power Industry Reform Act of 2001" (EPIRA)
2. Assumng that the ERC has the authorty to grant provsona
orders, WON the grant by the ERC of the provsona rate
ad|ustment n queston consttutes grave abuse of dscreton
amountng to ack of |ursdcton
3ELD
1. Yes. The ERC s endowed wth statutory authorty to approve
provsona rate ad|ustments under the aegs of Sectons 44 and 80
of the EPIRA. The sectons read, thus:
Sec. 44. "ransfer of Po.ers an& ;$n%t#ons. - The )o.ers an&
f$n%t#ons of the Energ+ >eg$lator+ -oar& not #n%ons#stent .#th
the )ro*#s#ons of th#s 0%t are here/+ transferre& to the E>C. The
foregong transfer of powers and functons sha ncude a
appcabe funds and appropratons, records, equpment,
property and personne as may be necessary.
Sec. 80. 0))l#%a/#l#t+ an& >e)eal#ng Cla$se Q The appcabty
)ro*#s#ons of Common.ealth 0%t No. 146, as amen&e&, other.#se
=no.n as the HP$/l#% Ser*#%es 0%t,J Repubc Act 6395, as
amended, revsng the charter of NPC; Presdenta Decree 269, as
amended, referred to as the Natona Eectrfcaton Decree;
Repubc Act 7638, otherwse known as the "Department of
Energy Act;" E,e%$t#*e 2r&er 172, as amen&e&, %reat#ng the E>-K
Repubc Act 7832 otherwse known as the "Ant-Eectrcty and
Eectrc Transmsson Lnes/Materas Pferage Act of 1004;" sha
contnue to have fu force and effect except nsofar as they are
nconsstent wth ths Act. The provsons wth respect to eectrc
power of Secton 11(c) of Repubc Act 7916, as amended, and
Secton 5(f) of Repubc Act 7277 are hereby repeaed or modfed
accordngy.
- Presdenta Decree No. 40 and a aws, decrees, rues and
reguatons, or portons thereof, nconsstent wth ths Act are
hereby repeaed or modfed accordngy. (Emphass supped)
The prncpa powers of the ERB reatve to eectrc pubc uttes
transferred to the ERC are the foowng:
1. To reguate and fx the power rates to be charged by eectrc
companes;
2. To ssue certfcates of pubc convenence for the operaton of
eectrc power uttes;
3. To grant or approve provsona eectrc rates.
- It bears stressng that the conferment upon the ERC of the power
to grant provsona rate ad|ustments s not nconsstent wth any
provson of the EPIRA. The powers of the ERB transferred to the
ERC under Secton 44 are n addton to the ne. powers conferred
upon the ERC under Secton 43.
Secton 80 of the EPIRA compements Secton 44, as t mandates
the contnued effcacy of the a))l#%a/le )ro*#s#ons of the aws
referred to theren. The matera provsons of the Pubc Servce
Act whch contnue to be n fu force and effect are contaned n
Secton 16(c), whch states thus:
Secton 16. Pro%ee&#ngs of the Comm#ss#on, $)on not#%e an&
hear#ng.
The Commsson sha have power, upon proper notce and
hearng n accordance wth the rues and provsons of ths Act,
sub|ect to the mtatons and exceptons mentoned and savng
provsons to the contrary:
xxx xxx xxx
c) To fx and determne ndvdua or |ont rates, to charges,
cassfcatons, or schedues thereof, as we as commutaton,
meage, kometrage, and other speca rates whch sha be
mposed, observed, and foowed thereafter by any pubc servce:
Pro*#&e&, That the Commsson may, n ts dscreton, approve
rates proposed by pubc servces provsonay and wthout
necessty of any hearng; but t sha ca a hearng thereon wthn
thrty days thereafter, upon pubcaton and notce to the
concerned partes operatng n the terrtory affected: Pro*#&e&,
f$rther, That n case pubc servce equpment of an operator s
used prncpay or secondary for the promoton of a prvate
busness, the net profts of sad prvate busness sha be
consdered n reaton wth the pubc servce of such operator for
the purposes of fxng the rates.
- Smary, Sectons 8 and 14 of EO No. 172 or the ERB Charter
contnue to be n fu force by vrtue of Sectons 44 and 80 of the
EPIRA. Sad provsons of the ERB Charter read:
SEC. 8. 0$thor#t+ to 9rant Pro*#s#onal >el#ef. Q The Board may,
upon the fng of an appcaton, petton or compant or at any
stage thereafter and wthout pror hearng, on the bass of the
supportng papers duy verfed or authentcated, grant
provsona reef on moton of a party n the case or on ts own
ntatve, wthout pre|udce to a fna decson after hearng,
shoud the Board fnd that the peadngs, together wth such
affdavts, documents and other evdence whch may be
submtted n support of the moton, substantay support of the
provsona order; Pro*#&e&, That the Board sha mmedatey
schedue and conduct a hearng thereon wthn thrty (30) days
thereafter, upon pubcaton and notce to a affected partes.
SEC. 14. 0))l#%a/#l#t+ Cla$se Q The appcabty (appcabe)
provsons of Commonweath Act No. 146, as amended, otherwse
known as the "Pubc Servce Act;" Repubc Act No. 6173, as
amended, otherwse known as the "O Industry Commsson Act;"
Repubc Act No. 6395, as amended, revsng the charter of the
Natona Power Corporaton under CA 120; Presdenta Decree
No. 269, as amended, aso referred to as the "Natona
Eectrfcaton Admnstraton Decree," and Presdenta Decree
No. 1206, as amended, creatng the Department of Energy, sha
contnue to have fu force and effect, except nsofar as
nconsstent wth ths order. (Words n parenthess supped).
- Furthermore, under Sec. 80, ony three specfc aws were
expressy repeaed or modfed. Sec. 8 of EO No. 172 and Secton
16(c) of CA No. 146 whch both grant the reguatory body
concerned the authorty to approve provsona rate ncreases are
not among the provsons expressy repeaed or modfed. Ths
ceary ndcates the aws ntent to transfer the power to ERC.
- Be t noted that mped repeas are not favored n our |ursdcton.
Thus, a statute w not be deemed to have been mpedy repeaed
by another enacted subsequent thereto uness there s a showng
that a pan, unavodabe, and rreconcabe repugnancy exsts
between the two.
- Lkewse, t may not be asserted wth success that the power to
grant provsona rate ad|ustments runs counter to the statutory
constructon gude provded n Sec. 75 of the aw. Ths secton
ordans that the EPIRA sha be construed n favor of market
competton and peope power empowerment, thereby ensurng the
wdest partcpaton of the peope. To the Court, the goas of market
competton and peope empowerment are not negated by the
ERCs exercse of authorty to approve provsona rate
ad|ustments. The concerns are taken care of by Sec. 43 of the
EPIRA and ts IRR. Agan for one, even f there s a ground to grant
the provsona rate ncrease, the ERC may do so ony after the
pubcaton requrement s met and the consumers affected are
gven the opportunty to present ther sde. For another, the rate
ncrease s provsona n character and therefore may be modfed
or even recaed anytme. Fnay, the ERC s mandated to prescrbe
a rate-settng methodoogy "n the pubc nterest" and "to promote
effcency." For that matter, there s a pethora of provsons n Sec.
43 and reated sectons whch seek to promote pubc nterest,
market competton, and consumer protecton.
- A the foregong undenaby ead to the concuson that the ERC,
under Sectons 43(u), 44, and 80 of the EPIRA, n reaton to Sec.
16(c) of the Pubc Servce Act and Sec. 8 of EO. No. 172, possesses
the power to grant provsona rate ad|ustments sub|ect to the
procedure ad down n these aws as we as n the IRR.
2. Yes. It s setted that there s grave abuse of dscreton when an
act s done
contrary to the Consttuton, the aw, or |ursprudence, or when
executed whmscay, caprcousy, or arbtrary out of mace,
w, or persona bas. What makes the chaenged 2r&er partcuary
repugnant s that t nvoves a batant and nexcusabe breach of
the very rue whch the ERC s mandated to observe and
mpement. The voated provson whch s Sec. 4(e), Rue 3 of the
IRR specfes how the ERC shoud exercse ts power to ssue
provsona orders pursuant to Sec. 44 n reaton to Sec. 80 of the
EPIRA. ;#rst, the appcaton for rate ncrease must be pubshed n a
newspaper of genera crcuaton n the ocaty where the appcant
operates; se%on&, ERC must consder the comments or peadngs of
the customers and LGU concerned n ts acton on the appcaton or
moton for provsona rate ad|ustment. Snce the IRR was ssued
pursuant to the EPIRA, Sec. 4(e) of Rue 3 as part of the IRR has the
force and effect of aw and thus shoud have been comped wth.
- In vew of the nfrmtes whch attended the November 27, 2003
2r&er, partcuary: 1) the faure of MERALCO to pubsh ts
0))l#%at#on or at east a summary thereof; 2) the faure of ERC to
resove the Mot#ons for Pro&$%t#on of :o%$ments fed by the
oppostors to MERALCOs 0))l#%at#on before actng on the moton
for provsona rate ad|ustment; and 3) the faure of the ERC to
consder the arguments rased by the oppostors n ther respectve
peadngs pror to the ssuance of the assaed 2r&er, the Court
decares vod the November 27, 2003 2r&er of the ERC for havng
been ssued wth grave abuse of dscreton.
EP%.LIC O' #3E P3ILIPPI!E( V O(E"OO "I!I!G &!D
DEVELOP"E!# COPO&#IO!
PANGANIBAN; March 30, 2004
'&C#(
- The pettoners, after havng been granted permsson to prospect
for marbe deposts n the mountans of Bak-na-Bato, succeeded n
dscoverng marbe deposts n Mount Mabo, whch forms part of
Bak-na-bato mountan range. The pettoners then apped wth the
Bureau of Mnes for the ssuance of the correspondng cense to
expot sad marbe deposts. Lcense No. 33 was granted to them.
Shorty after respondent Ernesto Maceda was apponted Mnster of
the Department of Energy, he canceed the pettoners cense
through hs etter to Rosemoor Mnng and Deveopment
Corporaton dated Semptember 6, 1986. Because of the
canceaton, the orgna petton was fed on August 21, 1991.
- The tra court granted the petton and sad that the prvege
granted under the cense had aready rpened nto a property rght,
thus the canceaton of the cense wthout notce or hearng was
aganst the Consttutona rght of the pettoners aganst
deprvaton of ther property rghts. It was un|ustfed because that
coud be covered by four separate appcaton s 400 hectares.
Fnay, they rued that Procamaton No. 84, whch confrmed the
canceaton of the cense, was an ex post facto aw. Thus, they
were aowed to contnue ther operatons unt the expraton of
ther cense.
- On appea, the CA hed that the grant of quary cense coverng
330.3062 hectares to the respondents was vad because t was
covered by four separate appcatons, each for an area of 81
hectares. Moreover, t hed that the mtaton under PD 463 - that
any quarry cense shoud not cover not more than 100 hectares n
any gven provnce - was suppanted by RA 7942, whch ncreased
the mnng areas aowed under PD 463,
I((%E(
1. WON the case s moot and academc
2. WON the cense s vad
3. WON Procamaton No. 84 s vad
3ELD
1. No. Wth the shft of consttutona pocy (Art 12 Sec 2) toward
fu contro and supervson of the State over natura resources the
Court n Mners Assocaton of the Phppnes vs Factoran decared
the provsons of PD 463 as contrary to the Consttuton.
- RA 7942 or the Phppne Mnng Act of 1995 embodes the new
consttutona
mandate. It has repeaed a aws that are nconsstent wth any of
ts provsons. However, t does not appy retroactvey to a cense
granted by the government under the 1973 Consttuton. The Court
therefore needs to determne WON the cense of the respondents
fas wthn the type of censes wheren the new aw cannot be
apped.
2. No. The cense granted to the pettoners s sub|ect to the terms
and condtons of PD 463. Procamaton No. 2202, whch awarded
the cense to Rosemoor, expressy states that the grant s sub|ect
to "exstng poces, aws, rues and reguatons". The cense s
thus sub|ect to Secton 69 of PD 463, whch states that a cense
cannot cover more than 100 hectares n any one provnce. The aw
does not provde any excepton to the number of appcatons for a
cense. Moreover, the cense was ssued soey n the name of
Rosemoore Mnng and Deveopment Corporaton, rather than the
four ndvdua stockhoders.
3. Yes. Ctng Southeast Mndanao God Mnng Corporaton vs.
Bate Porta Mnng Cooperatve, Tan vs. Drector of Forestry and
Ysmae vs. Executve Secretary, the Court rued that censes may
be revoked by executve acton when natona nterest so requres,
because t s not a contract, property or a property rght protected
by the due process cause. The cense merey evdences the
prvege granted by the state and does not vest any permanent or
rrevocabe rght. The cense kewse contans a provson whch
says that the cense "may be revoked or canceed at any tme by
the Drector of Mnes and Geo-Scences when n hs opnon, pubc
nterest so requre". As to the exercse of prerogatve by Maceda,
suffce to say that whe the canceaton or revocaton of the
cense s vested n the sad drector, the atter s sub|ect to the
department head.
- Moreover, grantng that the cense s vad, t may aso by
revoked by the State n the exercse of poce power. The exercse
of power through Procamaton No. 84 s ceary n accord wth |ura
regaa, whch reserves to the State ownershp of a natura
resources.
- Proc No. 84 s aso not a b of attander snce the decaraton of
the cense as a nuty s not a decaraton of gut. Nether s the
canceaton a punshment wthn the purvew of the consttutona
proscrpton aganst bs of attander.
- Procamaton No. 84 s aso not an ex post facto aw. It does not
fa under the sx recognzed nstances when a aw s consdered as
such. Aso, an ex post facto aw s mted n ts scope ony to
matters crmna n nature.
0ecision Petton granted
DIDIPIO E&#3(&VE( &((OCI&#IO! V (ECE#&2
CHICO-NAZARIO; March 30,2006
'&C#(
< Nature Pro*i6ition an+ man+amus
- Assas the consttutonaty of Repubc Act No. 7942 otherwse
known as the Phppne Mnng Act of 1995, together wth the
Impementng Rues and Reguatons ssued pursuant thereto,
Department of Envronment and Natura Resources (DENR)
Admnstratve Order No. 96-40, s. 1996.
- 25 |uy 1987 - Presdent Aquno promugated EO No. 279 whch
authorzed the DENR Secretary to accept, consder and evauate
proposas from foregn-owned corporatons or foregn nvestors for
contracts of agreements nvovng ether technca or fnanca
assstance for arge-scae exporaton, deveopment, and utzaton
of mneras, whch, upon approprate recommendaton of the
Secretary, the Presdent may execute wth the foregn proponent.
- 3 March 1995 - Presdent Ramos sgned nto aw Rep. Act No.
7942 entted, "An Act Insttutng A New System of Mnera
Resources Exporaton, Deveopment, Utzaton and Conservaton,"
otherwse known as the Phppne Mnng Act of 1995.
- 15 August 1995 - DENR Secretary Vctor O. Ramos ssued DENR
Admnstratve Order (DAO) No. 23, Seres of 1995, contanng the
mpementng gudenes of Rep. Act No. 7942.
- 23 |anuary 1997 - DAO No. 96-40, s. 1996, whch took effect on
after due pubcaton superseded DAO No. 23, s.1995.
- Prevousy, however, or specfcay on 20 |une 1994, Presdent
Ramos executed an FTAA wth AMC over a tota and area of 37,000
hectares coverng the provnces of Nueva Vzcaya and Ourno.
Incuded n ths area s Barangay Dpdo, Kasbu, Nueva Vzcaya.
- Subsequenty, AMC consodated wth Cmax Mnng Lmted to
form a snge company that now goes under the new name of
Cmax-Armco Mnng Corporaton (CAMC), the controng 99% of
stockhoders of whch are Austraan natonas.
- 7 September 2001 - counses for pettoners fed a demand etter
addressed to then DENR Secretary Heherson Avarez, for the
canceaton of the CAMC FTAA for the prmary reason that Rep. Act
No. 7942 and ts Impementng Rues and Reguatons DAO 96-40
are unconsttutona.
- The Offce of the Executve Secretary was aso furnshed a copy of
the sad etter.
- There beng no response to both etters, another etter of the
same content dated 17 |une 2002 was sent to Presdent Gora
Macapaga Arroyo.
- Ths etter was ndorsed to the DENR Secretary and eventuay
referred to the Pane of Arbtrators of the Mnes and Geoscences
Bureau (MGB), Regona Offce No. 02, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, for
further acton.
- 12 November 2002 - counses for pettoners receved a etter
from the Pane of Arbtrators of the MGB requrng the pettoners to
compy wth the Rues of the Pane of Arbtrators before the etter
may be acted upon.
- Yet agan, counses for pettoners sent Presdent Arroyo another
demand etter dated 8 November 2002. Sad etter was agan
forwarded to the DENR Secretary who referred the same to the
MGB, Ouezon Cty.
- In a etter dated 19 February 2003, the MGB re|ected the demand
of counses for pettoners for the canceaton of the CAMC FTAA.
- Petitioners t*us /ile+ t*e present petition /or pro*i6ition
an+ man+amus5 wit* a pra1er /or a temporar1 restraining
or+er. #*e1 pra1 t*at t*e Court issue an or+er-
1. en|onng pubc respondents from actng on
any appcaton for FTAA;
2. decarng unconsttutona the Phppne
Mnng Act of 1995 and ts Impementng Rues and
Reguatons;
3. canceng the FTAA ssued to CAMC.
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON the pettoners' emnent doman cam s a |ustcabe ssue.
S$/stant#*e
2. WON RA 7942 and the CAMC FTAA are vod becausethey aow
the un|ust and unawfu takng of property wthout payment of |ust
compensaton, n voaton of Art III Sec 9 of the Consttuton
3. WON the mnng act and ts mpementng rues and reguatons
are vod and unconsttutona for sanctonng an unconsttutona
admnstratve process of determnng |ust compensaton
4. WON the state, through RA 7942 and the CAMC FTAA, abdcated
ts prmary responsbty to the fu contro and supervson over
natura resources
5. WON the respondents nterpretaton of the roe of the whoy
foregn and foregn-owned corporatons n ther nvovement n
mnng enterprses, voates Art XII Sec 2 (4) of the Consttuton
6. WON the 1987 Consttuton prohbts servce contracts
3ELD
1. YES. It s a |ustcabe ssue. Based on the foowng
consderatons:
a. Locus Stand- In the case, there s a cash of ega
rghts as Rep. Act No. 7942 has been enacted, DAO 96-40 has
been approved and an FTAAs have been entered nto.
Pettoners embrace varous segments of the socety, ke
DESAMA representng a communty actuay affected by the
mnng actvtes of CAMC, as we as other resdents of areas
affected by the mnng actvtes of CAMC. These pettoners
have the standng to rase the consttutonaty of the
questoned FTAA as they aege a persona and substanta
n|ury. They are under mmnent threat of beng dspaced
from ther andhodngs as a resut of the mpementaton of
the questoned FTAA.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.('0
b. Rpeness- By the mere enactment of the questoned
aw or the approva of the chaenged act, the dspute s sad
to have rpened nto a |udca controversy even wthout any
other overt act. Indeed, even a snguar voaton of the
Consttuton and/or the aw s enough to awaken |udca duty.
c. The transcendenta mportance of the ssues rased and
the magntude of the pubc nterest nvoved w have a
bearng on the countrys economy, whch s to a greater
extent dependent upon the mnng ndustry. Aso affected by
the resouton of ths case are the propretary rghts of
numerous resdents n the mnng contract areas as we as
the soca exstence of ndgenous peopes, whch are
threatened.
2. On the Vadty of Secton 76 of Rep. Act No. 7942 and DAO 96-
40
- PETITIONERS contend that Sec. 76 of RA No. 7942 and Sec. 107 of
DAO 96-40 aow the "unawfu and un|ust "TAKING" of prvate
property for )r#*ate )$r)ose n contradcton wth Sec. 9, Art. III of
the 1987 Consttuton mandatng that prvate property sha not be
taken except for pubc use and the correspondng payment of |ust
compensaton."
- They assert that pubc respondent DENR, through the Mnng Act
and ts Impementng Rues and Reguatons, cannot, on ts own,
permt entry nto a prvate property and aow takng of and
wthout payment of |ust compensaton.
- They cted the case of >e)$/l#% *. V&a. &e Castell*# to ustrate
the concept of takng of property for purposes of emnent doman
to wt:
> "Hta=#ngJ $n&er the %on%e)t of em#nent &oma#n as enter#ng
$)on )r#*ate )ro)ert+ for more than a momentar+ )er#o&, an&,
$n&er the .arrant or %olor of legal a$thor#t+, &e*ot#ng #t to a
)$/l#% $se, or other.#se #nformall+ a))ro)r#at#ng or #n3$r#o$sl+
affe%t#ng #t #n s$%h a .a+ as to s$/stant#all+ o$st the o.ner an&
&e)r#*e h#m of all /enef#%#al en3o+ment thereof."
- Pettoners qucky add that even assumng arguendo that there s
no absoute, physca takng, at the very east, Secton 76
estabshes a ega easement upon the surface owners, occupants
and concessonares of a mnng contract area suffcent to deprve
them of en|oyment and use of the property and that such burden
mposed by the ega easement fas wthn the purvew of emnent
doman.
(NOTE: An easement s defned to be a berty prvege or
advantage, whch one man may have n the ands of another,
wthout proft; t may arse by deed or prescrpton)
- PUBLIC RESPONDENTS argue that Secton 76 s NOT A TAKING
provson but a VALID EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER and by
vrtue of whch, the state may prescrbe reguatons to promote the
heath, moras, peace, educaton, good order, safety and genera
wefare of the peope. Ths government reguaton nvoves the
ad|ustment of rghts for the pubc good and that ths ad|ustment
curtas some potenta for the use or economc expotaton of
prvate property.
- Pubc respondents concuded that "to requre compensaton n a
such crcumstances woud compe the government to reguate by
purchase."
- Pubc respondents are ncned to beeve that by enterng prvate
ands and concesson areas, FTAA hoders do not oust the owners
thereof nor deprve them of a benefca en|oyment of ther
propertes as the sad entry merey estabshes a ega easement
upon surface owners, occupants and concessonares of a mnng
contract area.
- Hence the dstnctons beow:
1. Takng n Emnent Doman Dstngushed from Reguaton n
Poce Power
The power of emnent doman s the nherent rght of the state
(and of those enttes to whch the power has been awfuy
deegated) to condemn prvate property to pubc use upon
payment of |ust compensaton.
On the other hand, poce power s the power of the state to
promote pubc wefare by restranng and reguatng the use of
berty and property.
Athough both poce power and the power of emnent doman
have the genera wefare for ther ob|ect, and recent trends
show a mngng of the two wth the atter beng used as an
mpement of the former, there are st tradtona dstnctons
between the two.
Property condemned under poce power s usuay noxous or
ntended for a noxous purpose; hence, no compensaton sha
be pad. (NOTE: noxous= harmfu)
|ursprudence shows: WHERE A PROPERTY INTEREST IS MERELY
RESTRICTED BECAUSE THE CONTINUED USE THEREOF WOULD
BE IN|URIOUS TO PUBLIC WELFARE, OR WHERE PROPERTY IS
DESTROYED BECAUSE ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE WOULD BE
IN|URIOUS TO PUBLIC INTEREST, THERE IS NO COMPENSABLE
TAKING. However, WHEN A PROPERTY INTEREST IS
APPROPRIATED AND APPLIED TO SOME PUBLIC PURPOSE,
THERE IS COMPENSABLE TAKING.
In the exercse of ts poce power reguaton, the state restrcts
the use of prvate property, but none of the property nterests n
the bunde of rghts, whch consttute ownershp, s
approprated for use by or for the beneft of the pubc. (-
Bernas)
TAKING MAY INCLUDE TRESPASS WITHOUT ACTUAL EVICTION
OF THE OWNER, MATERIAL IMPAIRMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY OR PREVENTION OF THE ORDINARY USES FOR
WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS INTENDED SUCH AS THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EASEMENT.
In >e)$/l#% *. Castell*#, the Court had the occason to spe out
the requstes of takng n emnent doman, to wt:
1. the exproprator must enter a prvate
property;
2. the entry must be for more than a
momentary perod.
3. the entry must be under warrant or coor of
ega authorty;
G. t*e propert1 must 6e +evote+ to pu6li0
use or ot*erwise in/ormall1 appropriate+ or in<uriousl1
a//e0te+P
5. the utzaton of the property for pubc use
must be n such a way as to oust the owner and deprve hm of
benefca en|oyment of the property.
Normay, of course, the power of emnent doman resuts n the
takng or appropraton of tte to, and possesson of, the
exproprated property; but no cogent reason appears why sad
power may not be avaed of to mpose ony a burden upon the
owner of the condemned property, wthout oss of tte and
possesson. It s unquestonabe that rea property may,
through expropraton, be sub|ected to an easement rght of
way.
THE ENTRY REFERRED TO IN SECTION 76 IS NOT |UST A SIMPLE
RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH IS ORDINARILY ALLOWED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL CODE. Here, the hoders of mnng rghts
enter prvate ands for purposes of conductng mnng actvtes
such as exporaton, extracton and processng of mneras. Mnng
rght hoders bud mne nfrastructure, dg mne shafts and
connectng tunnes, prepare tang ponds, storage areas and
vehce depots, nsta ther machnery, equpment and sewer
systems. On top of ths, under Secton 75, easement rghts are
accorded to them where they may bud warehouses, port factes,
eectrc transmsson, raroads and other nfrastructures necessary
for mnng operatons. A these w defntey oust the owners or
occupants of the affected areas the benefca ownershp of ther
ands. WITHOUT A DOUBT, TAKING OCCURS ONCE MINING
OPERATIONS COMMENCE.
1. On Secton 76 of RA No. 7942 as a Takng Provson
Bref Hstory of Mnng Laws:
Frst found n Secton 27 of Commonweath Act No. 137
A smar one was found n a provson of Presdenta
Decree No. 463, otherwse known as "The Mnera Resources
Deveopment Decree of 1974"
Hampered by the dffcutes and deays n securng
surface rghts for the entry nto prvate ands for purposes of
mnng operatons, Presdenta Decree No. 512 dated 19 |uy
1974 was passed nto aw n order to acheve fu and
acceerated mnera resources deveopment. Thus,
Presdenta Decree No. 512 provdes for a new system of
surface rghts acquston by mnng prospectors and
camants.
Whereas n Commonweath Act No. 137 and Presdenta
Decree No. 463 emnent doman may ony be exercsed n
order that the mnng camants can bud, construct or nsta
roads, raroads, ms, warehouses and other factes, ths
tme, the )o.er of em#nent &oma#n ma+ no. /e #n*o=e& /+
m#n#ng o)erators for the entr+, a%4$#s#t#on an& $se of )r#*ate
lan&s.
Consderng that Secton 1 of Presdenta Decree No. 512 granted
the quafed mnng operators the authorty to exercse emnent
doman and snce ths grant of authorty s deemed ncorporated n
Secton 76 of Rep. Act No. 7942, the nescapabe concuson s that
the atter provson s a takng provson.
o The takng to be vad must be for pubc
use.
o Pubc use as a requrement for the vad
exercse of the power of emnent doman s now synonymous
wth pubc nterest, pubc beneft, pubc wefare and pubc
convenence.
o It ncudes the broader noton of ndrect
pubc beneft or advantage. Pubc use as tradtonay
understood as "actua use by the pubc" has aready been
abandoned.
0ecision THEREFORE, the Mnng Law and the CAMC FTAA are not
vod because Sec. 76 of Rep. Act No. 7942 and Sec. 107 of DAO 96-
40 provde for the payment of |ust compensaton based on the
agreement entered nto by the hoder of mnng rghts and the
surface owner, occupant or concessonare n accordance to PD
512.
Reasonng and Hed/s on the Second Substantve Issue:
3. On the Power of Courts to Determne |ust Compensaton
The queston on the |udca determnaton of |ust compensaton has
been setted n the case of E,)ort Pro%ess#ng Vone 0$thor#t+ *.
:$la+ wheren the Court decared that the determnaton of |ust
compensaton n emnent doman cases s a 3$&#%#al f$n%t#on . E*en
as the e,e%$t#*e &e)artment or the leg#slat$re ma+ ma=e the #n#t#al
&eterm#nat#ons, the same %annot )re*a#l o*er the %o$rtGs f#n&#ngs.
(N2"E@ 7 th#n= th#s #s the rat#o alrea&+.!
There s nothng n the provsons of the
assaed aw and ts mpementng rues and reguatons that
excude the courts from ther |ursdcton to determne |ust
compensaton n expropraton proceedngs nvovng mnng
operatons.
There s nothng wrong wth the grant of
prmary |ursdcton by the Pane of Arbtrators or the Mnes
Ad|udcaton Board to determne n a premnary matter the
reasonabe compensaton due the affected andowners or
occupants.
The |ursdcton of the Regona Tra Courts s
not any ess "orgna and excusve" because the queston s
frst passed upon by the DAR, as the |udca proceedngs are
not a contnuaton of the admnstratve determnaton.
4. On the Suffcent Contro by the State Over Mnng Operatons
Ctng 5a -$gal--G5aan "r#/al 0sso%#at#on, 7n%. *. >amos:
The Court hed that RA 7942 provdes for the states contro
and supervson over mnng operatons.
o The gamut of requrements, reguatons,
restrctons and mtatons mposed upon the FTAA contractor
by the statute and reguatons easy overturns pettoners
contenton that the setup under RA 7942 and DAO 96-40
reegates the State to the roe of a "passve reguator"
dependent on submtted pans and reports.
On the contrary, the government agences
concerned are empowered to approve or dsapprove -- hence,
to nfuence, drect and change -- the varous work programs
and the correspondng mnmum expendture commtments
for each of the exporaton, deveopment and utzaton
phases of the mnng enterprse.
- Consderng the provsons of the statute and the reguatons |ust
dscussed, the Court beeves that the State defntey possesses
the means by whch t can have the utmate word n the operaton
of the enterprse, set drectons and ob|ectves, and detect
devatons and noncompance by the contractor; kewse, t has
the capabty to enforce compance and to mpose sanctons,
shoud the occason therefore arse.
In other words, the FTAA contractor s not free to do
whatever t peases and get away wth t; on the contrary, t
w have to foow the government ne f t wants to stay n
the enterprse. Ineuctaby then, RA 7942 and DAO 96-40 vest
n the government more than a suffcent degree of contro
and supervson over the conduct of mnng operatons.
5. On the Proper Interpretaton of the Consttutona Phrase
"Agreements Invovng Ether Technca or Fnanca Assstance"
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.('(
Ctng 5a -$gal--G5aan "r#/al 0sso%#at#on, 7n%.
*. >amos:
Par. 4 of Sec. 2 Art XII aows for the possbty
that matters, other than those expcty mentoned, coud be
made part of the agreement.
o The use of the word "nvovng" mpes
that these agreements wth foregn corporatons are not
mted to mere fnanca or technca assstance. The
dfference n sense becomes very apparent when we
|uxtapose "agreements for technca or fnanca assstance"
aganst "agreements #n%l$&#ng technca or fnanca
assstance." Ths much s unateraby cear n a *er/a leg#s
approach.
o The word "nvovng" as used n ths
context has three connotatons that can be dfferentated
thus: one, the sense of "concernng," "havng to do wth," or
"affectng"; t.o, "entang," "requrng," "mpyng" or
"necesstatng"; and three, "ncudng," "contanng" or
"comprsng."
If the rea ntenton of the drafters was to confne
foregn corporatons to fnanca or technca assstance and
nothng more, ther anguage woud have certany been so
unmstakaby restrctve and strngent as to eave no doubt n
anyones mnd about ther true ntent.
o For exampe, they woud have used the
sentence foregn corporatons are absoutey prohbted from
nvovement n the management or operaton of mnng or
smar ventures or words of smar mport. A search for such
strngent wordng yeds negatve resuts.
- The meanng of the phrase "agreements nvovng ether technca
or fnanca assstance" must not be construed n an excusonary
and mtng manner snce there was a conscous and deberate
decson by the drafters to avod the use of restrctve wordng.
6. On Servce Contracts Not Deconsttutonazed
The 1987 Consttuton aows the contnued
use of servce contracts wth foregn corporatons as
contractors who woud nvest n and operate and manage
extractve enterprses, sub|ect to the fu contro and
supervson of the State; ths tme, however, safety measures
were put n pace to prevent abuses of the past regme.
Ctng Phppne Veterans Bank v. Court of
Appeas:
a. "The phrase agreements nvovng ether technca or
fnanca assstance, referred to n paragraph 4, are n fact
servce contracts. But unke those of the 1973 varety, the
new ones are between foregn corporatons actng as
contractors on the one hand; and on the other, the
government as prncpa or "owner" of the works."
b. "xxx..From the foregong, we are mpeed to concude that
the phrase agreements nvovng ether technca or fnanca
assstance, referred to n paragraph 4, are n fact servce
contracts. But unke those of the 1973 varety, the new ones
are between foregn corporatons actng as contractors on the
one hand; and on the other, the government as prncpa or
"owner" of the works. "
- "As wrtten by the framers and ratfed and adopted by the peope,
the Consttuton aows the contnued use of servce contracts wth
foregn corporatons -- as contractors who woud nvest n and
operate and manage extractve enterprses, sub|ect to the fu
contro and supervson of the State -- sans the abuses of the past
regme. The purpose s cear: to deveop and utze our mnera,
petroeum and other resources on a arge scae for the mmedate
and tangbe beneft of the Fpno peope." (d.)
0ecision The petton for prohbton and mandamus s hereby
DISMISSED.
Secton 76 of Repubc Act No. 7942 and Secton 107 of DAO 96-40;
Repubc Act No. 7942 and ts Impementng Rues and Reguatons
contaned n DAO 96-40 - nsofar as they reate to fnanca and
technca assstance agreements referred to n paragraph 4 of
Secton 2 of Artce XII of the Consttuton are NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(O%#3E&(# "I!D&!&O GOLD "I!I!G V .&LI#E PO#&L
"I!I!G
YNARES-SANTIAGO; Apr 3, 2002
'&C#(
- Diwalwal Gol+ us* &rea - rch tract of mnera and stuated n
the Agusan-Davao-Surgao Forest Reserve. It s ocated at Mt.
Dwata n the muncpates of Monkayo and Cateek n Davao De
Norte. The and has been embroed n controversy snce md-80s
due to the scrambe over god deposts found wthn ts bowes.
- March 10, 1988, Marcopper Mnng Corporaton was granted
Exporaton Permt No. 133 (EP No. 133) over 4,491 hectares of
and, whch ncuded the Dwawa area.
- |une 27, 1991, Congress enacted Repubc Act No. 7076 or the
Peopes Sma-Scae Mnng Act whch estabshed a Peopes Sma-
Scae Mnng Program to be mpemented by the secretary of the
DENR and created the Provnca Mnng Reguatory Board (PMRB)
under the DENR Secretarys drect supervson and contro. It aso
authorzed the PMRB to decare and set asde sma-scae mnng
areas sub|ect to revew by the DENR Secretary and award mnng
contracts to sma-scae mners under certan condtons.
- December 21, 1991, then DENR Secretary Fugenco Factoran
ssued Department Admnstratve Order (DAO) No. 66 decarng
729 hectares of the Dwawa area as non-forest and open to sma-
scae mnng. Ths was made pursuant to the powers vested n the
DENR Secretary by Procamaton No. 369 whch estabshed the
Agusan-Davao-Surgao Forest Reserve.
- Petton for the canceaton of EP No. 133 and the admsson of a
Mnera Producton Sharng Agreement (MPSA) proposa over
Dwawa was fed before the DENR Regona Executve Drector
(RED Mnes Case)
- February 16, 1994, whe RED mnes case was pendng, Marcopper
assgned ts EP No. 133 to Southeast Mndanao God Mnng
Corporaton (SEM), whch n turn apped for an ntegrated MPSA
over the and covered by the permt. The Mnes and Geoscences
Bureau Regona Offce No. XI n Davao Cty (MGB-XI) accepted and
regstered SEMs ntegrated MPSA appcaton. Severa sma-scae
mners fed ther opposton (MAC cases).
- March 3, 1995, Repubc Act No. 7942 or the Phppne Mnng Act
was enacted. Pursuant to ths, the MAC cases were referred to a
Regona Pane of Arbtrators (RPA) tasked to resove dsputes
nvovng confctng mnng rghts. RPA took cognzance of the RED
Mnes cases whch was consodated wth the MAC cases.
- Apr 1, 1997 Provnca Mnng Reguatory Board of Davao passed
Resouton No. 26, Seres of 1997 authorzng the ssuance of ore
transport permts (OTPs) to sma-scae mners operatng n the
Dwawa mnes.
- May 30, 1997, pettoner SEM fed compant for damages aganst
DENR Secretary and PMRB-Davao, aegng that the ega ssuance
of the OTPs aowed the extracton and haung of P60,000 worth of
god ore per truckoad from SEMs mnng cam.
- Meanwhe, |une 13, 1997, the RPA resoved the Consodated
Mnes cases and decreed n an Omnbus Resouton that the vadty
of EP No. 133 s reterated and a adverse cams aganst MPSAA
No. 128 are dsmssed.
- |une 24, 1997 the DENR Secretary ssued Memorandum Order No.
97-03 whch provded among others, that:
a. DENR sha st$&+.the opton of &#re%t state $t#l#6at#on of the
mnera resources n the Dwawa God-Rush Area.
b. Study sha ncude. studyng and weghng the feasbty of
enterng nto management agreements or operatng
agreements.
c.Such agreements sha ncude provsons for proft-sharng.
ncudng proft-sharng arrangements wth sma-scae mners,
as we as the payment of royates to ndgenous cutura
communtes.
- |uy 16, 1997 pettoner SEM fed a speca cv acton for
certorar, prohbton and mandamus before the CA for the
nufcaton of Memorandum Order No. 97-03 on the ground that
the "drect state utzaton" espoused theren woud effectvey
mpar ts vested rghts under EP No. 133, among others
- |anuary 6, 1998, the MAB rendered a decson n the Consodated
Mnes cases, settng asde the |udgment of the RPA. Ths decson
was then eevated to he Supreme Court by way of consodated
petton.
- March 19, 1998, the CA dsmssed petton of SEM rung that:
a. DENR Secretary dd not abuse hs dscreton n ssung
Memorandum Order No. 97-03 snce t was merey a drectve to
conduct studes on the varous optons avaabe to the
government for sovng the Dwawa confct.
b. The assaed memorandum dd not concusvey adopt
"drect state utzaton" as offca government pocy on the
matter, but was smpy a manfestaton of the DENRs ntent to
consder t as one of ts optons, after determnng ts feasbty
through studes.
c.Pettoners rghts under EP No. 133 are not nvoabe,
sacrosanct or mmutabe and, beng n the nature of a prvege
granted by the State, the permt can be revoked, amended or
modfed by the Chef Executve when the natona nterest so
requres.
- Moton for reconsderaton was dened, thus ths petton.
I((%E(
1. WON CA erred n uphodng the questoned acts of the DENR
Secretary whch pettoner aege as voatve of mnng aws and n
derogaton of vested rghts of pettoner over the area as covered
by EP No. 133.
2. WON CA erred n hodng that an acton on the vadty of ore
transport permt (OTP) s vested n the Regona Pane of Arbtrators
(RPA).
3ELD
1. SC agreed wth CA that the chaenged MO 97-03 dd not
concusvey adopt "drect state utzaton" as a pocy n resovng
the Dwawa dspute. The terms of the memorandum ceary
ndcate that what was drected was merey a st$&+ of ths opton
and nothng ese. It dd not grant any management/operatng or
proft-sharng agreement to sma-scae mners or to any party, for
that matter, but smpy nstructed the DENR offcas concerned to
undertake studes to determne ts feasbty.
- Petton was premature. The MO dd not mpose any obgaton on
the camants or fx any ega reaton whatsoever between and
among the partes to the dspute. Pettoner can show no more than
a mere apprehenson that the State, through the DENR, woud
drecty take over the mnes, and unt the DENR actuay does so
and pettoners fears turn nto reaty, no vad ob|ecton can be
entertaned aganst MO 97-03 on grounds whch are purey
specuatve and antcpatory.
2. Whether or not pettoner actuay has a vested rght over
Dwawa under EP No. 133 s st an ndefnte and unsetted
matter, as the EPs vadty s st beng dsputed n the
Consodated Mnes cases.
- Whether or not respondent Bate Communa Porta Mnng
Cooperatve (BCPMC) and the other mnng enttes t represents
are conductng ega mnng actvtes s a factua matter that has
yet to be fnay determned n the Consodated Mnes Cases.
- SC aso ponted out that under no crcumstances may pettoners
rghts under EP No. 133 be regarded as tota and absoute, as EP
No. 133 merey evdences a prvege granted by the State, whch
may be amended, modfed or rescnded when the natona nterest
so requres. Ths s necessary so snce the exporaton,
deveopment and utzaton of the countrys natura mnera
resources are matters mpresses wth great pubc nterest.
- Lookng nto Artce XII, Secton 2 of the 1987 Consttuton and
Secton 4, Chapter II of the Phppne Mnng Act of 1995, the SC
sad that the State may pursue the consttutona pocy of fu
contro and supervson of the exporaton, deveopment and
utzaton of the countrys natura mnera resources, by ether
drecty undertakng the same or by enterng nto agreements wth
quafed enttes. The State need be guded ony by the demands of
pubc nterest.
- In the absence of any concrete evdence that the DENR Secretary
voated the aw or abused hs dscreton, he s presumed to have
reguary ssued the memorandum wth a awfu ntent and
pursuant to hs offca functons.
- Wth regard to the second ssue, the Court dd not rue on t as the
grounds nvoked by pettoner for nvadatng the OTPs are
nextrcaby nked to the ssues rased n the Consodated Mnes
cases.
0ecision Petton was dened; CA rung affrmed.
C3&VE4 V P%.LIC E(#&#E( &%#3OI#2 &!D &"&I
CO&(#&L .&2
CARPIO; |uy 9, 2002
'&C#(
< Nature orgna Petton for Mandamus wth prayer for wrt of
premnary n|uncton and a temporary restranng order. Petton
aso seeks to compe the Pubc Estates Authorty (PEA) to dscose
a facts on PEAs then on-gong renegotatons wth Amar Coasta
Bay and Deveopment Corporaton to recam portons of Mana
Bay. The petton further seeks to en|on PEA from sgnng a new
agreement wth AMARI nvovng such recaamton.
- 1973-The government through the Commsson of Pubc
Hghways sgned a contract wth the Constructon and
Deveopment Corporaton of the Phppnes (CDCP) to recam
certan foreshore and offshore areas of Mana Bay
- 1977-Presdent Marcos ssued Presdenta Decree No. 1084
creatng the PEA. And was tasked to recam and, ncudng
foreshore and submerged areas and to deveop, mprove, acqure x
x x ease and se any and a knds of ands. On the same date,
Presdent Marcos ssued PD. 1085 transferrng to PEA the ands
recamed n the foreshore and offshore of the Mana Bay under the
Mana-Cavte Coasta Road and Recamaton Pro|ect (MCCRRP)
- 1981-Pres. Marcos ssued a memorandum orderng PEA to amend
ts contract wth CDCP whch stated that CDCP sha transfer n
favor of PEA the areas recamed by CDCP n the MCCRRP
- 1988-Presdent Aquno ssued Speca Patent grantng and
transferrng to PEA parces of and so recamed under the MCCRRP.
Subsequenty she transferred n the name of PEA the three
recamed sands known as the "Freedom Isands"
- 1995-PEA entered nto a |ont Venture Agreement (|VA) wth
AMARI, a prvate corporaton, to deveop the Freedom Isands and
ths was done wthout pubc bddng
- Presdent Ramos through Executve Secretary Ruben Torres
approved the |VA
- 1996-Senate Presdent Maceda devered a prveged speech n
the Senate and denounced the |VA as the "grandmother of a
scams". As a resut, nvestgatons were conducted by the Senate.
Among the concusons were: (1) the recamed ands PEA seeks to
transfer to AMARI under the |VA are ands of the pubc doman
whch the government has not cassfed as aenabe ands and
therefore PEA cannot aenate these ands; (2) the certfcates of
the tte coverng the Freedom Isands are thus vod, and (3) the |VA
tsef s ega
- 1997-Presdent Ramos created the Lega Task Force to conduct a
study on the egaty of the |VA n vew of the Senate Commttee
report.1998-The Phppne Day Inqurer pubshed reports on on-
gong renegotatons between PEA and AMARI
- PEA Drector Nestor Kaaw and PEA Charman Arseno Yuo and
former navy offcer Sergo Cruz were members of the negotatng
pane
- Frank Chavez fed petton for Mandamus statng that the
government stands to ose bons of pesos n the sae by PEA of
the recamed ands to AMARI and prays that PEA pubcy dscose
the terms of the renegotatons of |VA. He cted that the sae to
AMARI s n voaton of Artce 12, Sec. 3 prohbtng sae of
aenabe ands of the pubc doman to prvate corporatons and
Artce 2 Secton 28 and Artce 3 Sec. 7 of the Consttuton on the
rght to nformaton on matters of pubc concern
- 1999-PEA and AMARI sgned Amended |VA whch Pres. Estrada
approved
I((%E(
1. WON the prncpa reefs prayed for n the petton are moot and
academc because subsequent events
2. WON the petton merts dsmssa for faure to observe the
prncpe governng the herarchy of courts
3. WON the petton merts dsmssa for non-exhauston of
admnstratve-remedes
4. WON pettoner has ocus stand to brng ths sut
5. WON the consttutona rght to nformaton ncudes offca
nformaton on on-gong negotatons before a fna agreement
6. WON the stpuatons n the amended |ont venture agreement
for the transfer to amar of certan ands, recamed and st to be
recamed, voate the 1987 constuton; and
7. WON the court s the proper forum for rasng the ssue of
whether the amended |ont venture agreement s grossy
dsadvantageuos to the government.
o threshod ssue: whether amar, a prvate corporaton, can
acqure and own under the amended |va 367.5 hectares of
recamed froeshore and submerged area n mana bay n
vew of sectons 2 and 3, artce 12 of the 1987 consttuton
3ELD
(1) The prayer to en|on the sgnng of the Amended |VA on
consttutona grounds necessary ncudes preventng ts
mpementaton f n the meantme PEA and AMARI have sgned one
n voaton of the Consttuton and f aready mpemented, to annu
the effects of an unconsttutona contract
(2) The prncpe of herarchy of courts appes generay to cases
nvovng factua questons
easonin; the nstant case rases consttutona ssues of
transcendenta mportance to the pubc
(3) The prncpe of exhauston of admnstratve remedes does not
appy when the ssue nvoved s a purey ega or consttutona
queston
(4) Pettoner has standng f petton s of transcendenta pubc
mportance and as such, there s the rght of a ctzen to brng a
taxpayers sut on these matters of transcendenta pubc
mportance
(5) The consttutona rght to nformaton ncudes offca
nformaton on on-go#ng negot#at#ons before a fna contract and
must therefore consttute defnte propostons by the government
and shoud not cover recognzed exceptons ke prveged
nformaton, mtary and dpomatc secrets and smar matters
affectng natona securty and pubc order
easonin; The State pocy of fu transparency n a transactons
nvovng pubc nterest renforces the peopes rght to nformaton
on matters of pubc concern. PEA must prepare a the data and
dscose them to the pubc at the start of the dsposton process,
ong before the consummaton of the contract. Whe the evauaton
or revew s on-gong, there are no "offca acts, transactons, or
decsons" on the bds or proposas but once the commttee makes
ts offca recommendaton, there arses a defnte proposton on
the part of the government
(6) In a form of a summary:
o The 157.84 hectares of recamed ands comprsng
the Freedom Isands, now covered by certfcates of tte n the
name of PEA, are al#ena/le lan&s of the )$/l#% &oma#n. PEA
may ease these ands to prvate corporatons but may not se
or transfer ownershp of these ands to prvate corporatons.
PEA may ony se these ands to Phppne ctzens, sub|ect to
ownershp mtatons n the 1987 Consttuton and exstng
aws.
o The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Mana
Bay reman naenabe natura resources of the pubc doman
and outsde the commerce of man unt cassfed as aenabe
or dsposabe ands open to dsposton and decared no onger
needed for pubc servce. The government can make such
cassfcaton and decaraton ony after PEA has recamed
these submerged areas. Ony then can these ands quafy as
agrcutura ands of the pubc doman, whch are the ony
natura resources the government can aenate.
o Snce the Amended |VA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a
prvate corporaton, ownershp of 77.34 hectares of the
Freedom Isands, such transfer s vod for beng contrary to
Secton 3, Artce 12 of the 1987 Consttuton whch prohbts
prvate corporatons from acqurng any knd of aenabe and
of the pubc doman
o Snce the Amended |VA aso seeks to transfer to
AMARI ownershp of 290.156 hectares of st submerged
areas of Mana Bay, such transfer s vod for beng contrary to
Secton 2, Artce 12 of the 1987 Consttuton whch prohbts
the aenaton of natura resources other than agrcutura
ands of the pubc doman. PEA may recam these submerged
areas. Thereafter, the government can cassfy the recamed
ands as aenabe or dsposabe, and further decare them no
onger needed for pubc servces. St, the transfer of such
recamed aenabe ands of the pubc doman to AMARI w
be vod n vew of Secton 3, Artce 12 whch prohbts prvate
corporatons from acqurng any knd of aenabe and of the
pubc doman.
easonin; Commonweath Act 141 of the Phppne Natona
Assemby empowers the presdent to cassfy ands of the pubc
doman nto aenabe or dsposabe" sec. 6. "he Pres#&ent, $)on
re%ommen&at#on of the Se%retar+ of 0gr#%$lt$re an& Commer%e,
shall from t#me to t#me %lass#f+ the lan&s of the )$/l#% &oma#n #nto
Q(a! 0l#ena/le of &#s)osa/le, (/! t#m/er, an& (%! m#neral lan&s.-The
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(''
Presdent must frst offcay cassfy these ands as aenabe or
dsposabe, and then decare them open to dsposton or
concesson.
-Sec. 59 states that the lan&s &#s)osa/le $n&er th#s t#tle shall /e
%lass#f#e& as follo.s@ (a! 5an&s re%la#me& /+ the 9o*ernment /+
&re&g#ng, f#ll#ng, or other meansK (/! ;oreshoreK (%! Marsh+ lan&s
(&! 5an&s not #n%l$&e& #n an+ of the forego#ng %lasses. -Sec. 61
states that the lan&s %om)r#se& #n %lasses (a!, (/! an& (%! of se%t#on
9 shall /e &#s)ose& f to )r#*ate )art#es /+ lease onl+ an& not
other.#se
-After the effectvty of the 1935 Consttuton, government
recamed and marshy dsposabe ands of the pubc doman
contnued to be ony eased and not sod to prvate partes. These
ands remaned s$#s gener#% as the ony aenabe or dsposabe
ands of the pubc doman the government coud not se to prvate
partes. The ony way that the government can se to prvate
partes government recamed and marshy dsposabe ands of the
pubc doman s for the egsature to pass a aw authorzng such
sae.
-n case of sae or ease of dsposabe ands of the pubc doman, a
pubc bddng s requred
-1987 Consttuton decares that a natura resources are owned by
the State. Wth the excepton of agrcutura ands, a other natura
resources sha not be aenated. Artce 12, Sec. 3 states that
al#ena/le lan&s of the )$/l#% &oma#n shall /e l#m#te& to agr#%$lt$ral
lan&s. Pr#*ate %or)orat#ons or asso%#at#ons ma+ not hol& s$%h
al#ena/le lan&s of the )$/l#% &oma#n e,%e)t /+ lease, for a )er#o&
not e,%ee&#ng t.ent+-f#*e +ears, rene.a/le for not more than
t.ent+-f#*e +ears, an& not to e,%ee& one tho$san& he%tares #n
area.
-raton behnd the ban on corporatons from acqurng except
through ease s not we understood. If the purpose s to equtaby
dffuse ands ownershp then the Const coud have smpy mted
the sze of aenabe ands of the pubc doman that corporatons
coud acqure. If the ntent was to encourage "owner-cutvatorshp
and the economc famy-sze farm and to prevent a recurrence of
cases ke the nstant case, then pacng the and n the name of a
corporaton woud be more effectve n preventng the break-up of
farmands. If the farmand s regstered n the name of a
corporaton, upon the death of the owner, hs hers woud nhert
shares n the corporaton nstead of subdvded parces of the
farmand. Ths woud prevent the contnung break-up of farmands
nto smaer and smaer pots from one generaton to the next. In
actua practce then, ths ban strengthens the const mtaton on
ndvduas from acqurng more than the aowed area of aenabe
ands of the pubc doman. Wthout the ban, ndvduas who
aready acqured the maxmum area of aenabe ands of the pubc
doman coud easy set up corporatons to acqure more aenabe
pubc ands. An ndvdua coud own as many corporatons as hs
means woud aow hm. He coud even hde hs ownershp of a
corporaton by puttng hs nomnees as stockhoders of the
corporaton.
$.G. (%""I# 3OLDI!G( V CO%# O' &PPE&L(
PUNO; September 24, 2003
'&C#(
- |anuary 27, 1977 - The Natona Investment and Deveopment
Corporaton (NIDC), a government corporaton, entered nto a |ont
Venture Agreement wth Kawasak Heavy Industry, Ltd of Kobe,
|apan for the constructon, operaton, management of the Subc
Natona Shpyard, whch became the Phppne Shpyard and
Engneerng Corporaton (PHILSECO) wth 60-40% captazaton.
- One of the features of the agreement s the grant to the partes
the r#ght of f#rst ref$sal shoud ether of them decde to se, assgn
or transfer ts nterest n the |ont venture.
- November 25, 1986-- the NIDC transferred a ts rghts, tte and
nterest n PHILSECO to the Phppne Natona Bank (PNB). And
subsequenty transferred to the Nat Government pursuant to
Admnstratve Order No. 14
- December 8, 1986-- Pres Aquno ssued Procamaton No. 50
estabshng the Commttee on Prvatzaton (COP) and the Asset
Prvatzaton Trust (APT) to take possesson of, manage and dspose
of non*performng assets of the Natona Government.
- APT was named trustee n the Natona Govt share n PHILSECO.
- COP and APT decded to se the govt shares to prvate enttes
(87.67% equty share).
- APT and KAWASAKI agreed to exhange KAWASAKIs r#ght of f#rst
ref$sal for the rght to top by 5% the hghest bd, and be entted to
name the company whch coud top. KAWASAKI named Phyard
Hodngs, Inc. (PHI)
- |G Summt Hodngs Inc submtted a bd of 2,030,000,000.00php
wth an acknowedgment of KAWASAKI/PHIs rght to top. |GSHI was
decared the hghest bdder.
- KAWASAKI/PHI exercsed the opton to top and the COP approved.
APT and PHI executed a Stock Purchase Agreement.
- |GSHI fed a petton for mandamus to queston the egaty of the
rght to frst refusa and rght to top exercsed by KAWASAKI/PHI.
- CA hed that petton for mandamus was not the proper remedy,
and that |GSHI was estopped from questonng the vadty because
t partcpated n the pubc bddng wth the fu knowedge of
KAWASAKI/PHIs rght to top.
- SC hed that a) the rght to top granted to KAWASAKI/PHI was
ega. Because t aows foregn corporatons to own more than
40% equty n PHILSECO, whch s a pubc utty whose
captazaton shoud be 60% Fpno-owned. It aso voates the
rues of compettve bddng; 6) |GSHI cannot be estopped from
questonng the unconsttutona, ega and nequtabe provson;
0) APT shoud accept the 2,030,000,000.00 bd of |GSHI, execute
Stock Purchase Agreement, return to PHI the amount of
2,131,500,000.00php, and cance the stock certfcates ssued to
PHI.
- Respondents fed MFR wth the ff. ssues.
I((%E(
1. WON PHILSECO s a pubc utty.
2. WON under 1977 |ont Venture Agreement, KAWASAKI can
exercse ts rght of frst refusa onl1 up to GJ] of the tota
captazaton of PHILSECO
3. WON the rght to top granted to KAWASAKI voates the
prncpes of compettve bddng.
3ELD
1. !o. PHILSECO s not a pubc utty. A shpyard s not a pubc
utty by nature, and there s no aw decarng t to be.
a) +ublic utilit( = a busness or servce engaged n
reguary suppyng the pubc wth some commodty or servce
of pubc consequence such as eectrcty, water, transportaton.
The facty must be necessary for the mantenance of fe and
occupaton of resdents.
b) Pubc utty mpes pubc use and servce to the
pubc. Determnatve characterstc: servce or readness to
serve an ndefnte pubc (not a prveged few), whch has
rghts to demand and receve the servces and commodtes.
c) Pubc use s not synonymous wth pubc nterest.
The fact that a busness offers servces and goods that promote
pubc good and serve the nterest of the pubc does not make
t a pubc utty.
d) True crteron to |udge the character of the use:
whether the pubc may en|oy t by RIGHT or ony by
PERMISSION
e) .&ip(ard = a pace or encosure where shps are
but or repared. It has a mted centee whom t may choose
to serve as ts dscreton. It s not egay obged to render ts
servces to the pubc. Though the ndustry may be mbued wth
pubc nterest, ts pubc servce s onl1 in0i+ental.
f) Shpyards n the past were decared as pubc uttes (by Act No
2307, Commonweath Act No 146). Then Marcos PD No. 666
removed t from the st of pubc uttes to free the ndustry
from the 60% ctzenshp requrement under the Consttuton
(he wanted to acceerate the growth of the ndustry). Then BP
Bg 391 repeaed PD No. 666 , revertng back the status of
shpyards as pubc uttes.
g) Pres Aquno repeaed BP Bg 391 wth EO No. 226.
But ths dd not revve PD No 666 or the other repeaed aws.
The status of shpyards reverts back to non-pubc utty pror to
the Pubc Servce Law.
I) !o. There s nothng that prevents KAWASAKI to acqure
more then 40% of PHILSECOs tota captazaton, under the
|ont Venture Agreement. (or 2E(5 it 0an own more t*an
GJ]). They agreed that n the event that one party ses ts
shares, the non-seng party have a preferenta rght to buy or
to refuse the seng. The partnershp s based on &ele%t$s
)ersonae. No one can become a member of the partnershp
assocaton w/o the consent of a other assocates.
M) !o. The rght to top +i+ not violate the rues of
compettve bddng.
a) bddng = makng an offer or an nvtaton to
prospectve contractors whereby the govt manfests ts
ntenton to make proposas for the purpose of suppes,
materas and equpment for offca busness or pubc use.
Pubc bddng s the accepted method n arrvng at a far
and reasonabe prce, and ensures that overprcng,
favortsm, and other anomaous practces are emnated or
mnmzed.
b) Prncpes of bddng: 1) the offer to the pubc; 2) an
opportunty for competton; 3) a bass for comparson of
bds. As ong as the three are comped wth, the bddng s
vad and ega.
c) The hghest bd may not be automatcay accepted.
Bddng rues may specfy other condtons or reservatons.
d) In the case, 1) a nterested bdders were wecomed;
2) bass for comparng bds were ad down; 3) a bds were
accepted seaed and were opened and read n the presence
of the COAs offca representatve and before a other
bdders.
e) The bdders were paced n equa footng. And they
were made aware of the rues that the govt reserved the
rght to re|ect the hghest bd shoud KAWASAKI/PHI decde
to exercse ts rght to top.
f) If the partes dd not swap rght to frst refusa wth
rght to top, KAWASAKI woud st have the rght to buy the
shares (for the orgna amount, whch was esser), so there
s no bass n the submsson that the rght to top unfary
favored KAWASAKI.
0ecision: MFR granted. Decson & resouton of CA affrmed.
2otin; Concur: Davde, Ynares-Santago, Corona, Tnga (w/ sep
op)
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
#I!G&
Shpyard s not a pubc utty. Snce the enactment of CA No. 454
shpyards have never been consdered pubc uttes. PD 666
merey removed any doubt as to ther non-pubc utty status.
.&G&#(I!G V CO""I##EE O! PIVI#I4&#IO!
OUAISON; |uy 14, 1995
'&C#(
- ths s a petton to nufy the bddng conducted for the sae of a
bock of shares of Petron Corporaton and the award made to
Aramco Overseas Company as the hghest bdder and to stop the
sae of sad bock of shares to Aramco
- PETRON was orgnay regstered wth the Securtes and
Exchange Commsson n 1966 under the corporate name "Esso
Phppnes, Inc."
- In 1973, the Phppne government acqured ESSO through the
PNOC and became a whoy-owned company of the government
under the corporate name PETRON and as a subsdary of PNOC.
- On December 8, 1986, Presdent Aquno promugated
Procamaton No. 50 entted "Procamng and Launchng a
Program for the Expedtous Dsposton and Prvatzaton of Certan
Government Corporatons and/or the Assets thereof and creatng
the Commttee on Prvatzaton and the Asset Prvatzaton Trust" n
the exercse of her egsatve power under the Freedom
Consttuton.
- Impct n the procamaton s the need to rase revenue for the
government and the dea of eavng busness to the prvate sector.
- December 2, 1991, Presdent Ramos deemed the prvatzaton
program to be successfu and benefca.
- September 9, 1992, the PNOC Board of Drectors approved
Specfc Thrust No. 6 and moved to brng the attenton of the
admnstraton to the need to prvatze Petron.
- October 21, 1992, Sec. De Rosaro, as Charman of the
Commttee on Prvatzaton, endorsed to Presdent Ramos the
proposa of PNOC.
- |anuary 4, 1993, a foow-up etter was sent by Secretary De
Rosaro to Presdent Ramos.
- |anuary 6, 1993, Secretary Lazaro of the Dept. of Energy endorsed
for approva
- |anuary 12, 1993, the Cabnet approved the prvatzaton of Petron
as part of the Energy Sector Acton Pan.
- March 25, 1993, the Government Corporate Montorng and
Coordnatng Commttee recommended a 100% prvatzaton of
Petron.
- March 31, 1883, the PNOC Board of Drectors passed a resouton
authorzng the company to negotate and concude a contract wth
the consortum of Saomon Brothers of Hongkong Lmted and PCI
Capta Corporaton for fnanca advsory servces to be rendered to
Petron.
- Apr 1, 1993, Presdent Ramos approved the prvatzaton of
Petron up to a maxmum of 65% of ts capta stock.
- August 10, 1993, Presdent Ramos approved the 40%-40%-20%
prvatzaton strategy of Petron.
- Invtaton to bd was pubshed.
- The foor prce bd for the 40% bock was fxed at US$400 mon.
- The bds of Petroam Nasona Berhad (PETRONAS), ARAMCO, and
WESTMONT were submtted whe the foor prce was beng
dcussed.
- ARAMCO was decared the wnnng bdder at US$502 mon
- December 16, 1993, Monno |acob, Presdent and Chef Executve
Offcer of PNOC, endorsed to COP the bd of ARAMCO for approva.
And was approved on the same day. Aso on the same day,
WESTMONT fed a compant questonng the award of shares to
ARAMCO.
- February 3, 1994, PNOC and ARAMCO sgned the Stock Purchase
Agreement
- March 4, 1994, the two companes sgned the Sharehoders
Agreement
I((%E(
1. WON the pettoner have ocus stand
2. WON the ncuson of Petron n the prvatzaton program
contravened the decared pocy of the State
3. WON the bddng procedure was vad
4. WON Petron was a pubc utty
3ELD
1. YES. Taxpayers may queston contracts entered nto by the
natona government or government-owned or controed
corporatons aeged to be n contraventon of the aw.
2. YES. The decson of PNOC to prvatze Petron and the approva
of the COP of such prvatzaton, beng made n accordance wth
Procamaton No. 50, cannot be revewed by the Court. Such acts
are exercses of the executve functon as to whch the Court w
not pass |udgment upon or nqure nto ther wsdom.
3. YES. The nterpretaton of an agency of ts own rues shoud be
gven more weght than the nterpretaton by that agency of the
aw t s merey tasked to admnster.
4. NO. A pubc utty under the Consttuton and the Pubc Servce
Law s one organzed for hre or compensaton to serve the pubc,
whch s gven the rght to demand ts servce. Petron s not
engaged n o refnng for hre and compensaton to process the o
of other partes.
0ecision Pettons dsmssed
E!EG2 EG%L&#O2 .O&D V CO%# O' &PPE&L(
YNARES-SANTIAGO; Apr 20, 2001
'&C#(
- Petton for revew on certorar of a decson of the Court of
Appeas
- Ppnas She Petroeum Corporaton (She) s engaged n the
busness of mportng crude o, refnng the same and seng
varous petroeum products through a network of servce statons
throughout the country
- Petroeum Dstrbutors and Servce Corporaton (PDSC) owns and
operates a Catex servce staton at the corner of the MIA and
Domestc Roads n Pasay Cty
- |une 30, 1983: She fed wth the quondam Bureau of Energy
Utzaton (BEU) an appcaton for authorty to reocate ts She
Servce Staton at Tambo, Paranaque to Imeda Marcos Ave,
Paranaque. The appcaton was ntay re|ected because the od
ste had been cosed for fve years such that reocaton of the same
to a new ste woud amount to a new constructon of a gasone
outet, whch constructon was then the sub|ect of a moratorum.
Subsequenty, BEU reaxed ts poston and gave due course to the
appcaton.
- PDSC fed opposton on the grounds that: (1) there are adequate
servce statons attendng to the motorsts requrements n the
tradng area, (2) runous competton w resut, and (3) there s a
decne not an ncrease n the voume of saes n the area. Petroph
and Catex aso opposed on the ground that She faed to compy
wth the |ursdctona requrements.
- March 6, 1984: BEU dsmssed appcaton on |ursdctona
grounds and for ack of "fu tte" of the essor over the proposed
ste
- May 7, 1984: BEU renstated appcaton and conducted a hearng
thereon
- |une 3, 1986: BEU rendered a decson denyng appcaton
because there was no necessty for an addtona petroeum
products reta outet on the ste. She appeaed to the Offce of
Energy Affars (OEA)
- May 8, 1987: EO 172 was ssued creatng the Energy Reguatory
Board (ERB) and transferrng to t the reguatory and ad|udcatory
functons of the BEU
- May 9, 1988: OEA dened Shes appea. She moved for
reconsderaton and prayed for new hearng or remand of the case
for further proceedngs. She submtted a new feasbty study to
|ustfy appcaton.
- |uy 11, 1988: OEA remanded case to ERB notng the updated
survey conducted by She
- September 17, 1991: ERB aowed She to estabsh the servce
staton
- PDSC fed a moton for reconsderaton but was dened by the
ERB. It thus eevated the case to the CA.
- November 8, 1993: CA reversed ERB |udgment
- CA dened moton for reconsderaton. She and ERB thus
eevated matters to the Supreme Court
- Whe case was pendng n the CA, Catex fed a smar
appcaton n the same area. PDSC opposed on the same grounds
but ERB aso approved appcaton. PDSC agan fed a petton wth
the CA. Petton was dsmssed n May 14, 1993.
- ERB arguments: evdence used as bass for ERBs decson s
nether stae nor rreevant and |ustfes estabshment of reta
outet, evdence on vehce voume and fue demand supports
constructon of outet, new outet w not ead to runous
competton
- She arguments: ERB fndngs based on substanta evdence,
feasbty study has not become rreevant even f presented two
years after preparaton, CA erred n passng |udgment and makng
pronouncement of purey economc and pocy ssues on petroeum
busness, proposed outet w not resut to runous competton, CA
shoud have referred the new evdence to ERB under the doctrne
of pror resort to prmary |ursdcton
I((%E(
1. WON the court shoud set asde the ERB decson
2. WON there s substanta evdence to support ERBs fndng of
pubc necessty to warrant approva of Shes appcaton
3. WON the Feasbty study has become stae because t was
submtted n evdence two years after t was prepared n 1988
4. WON the estabshment of the outet woud resut to runous
competton
3ELD
atio The courts w not nterfere wth actons of an
admnstratve agency, except f there s an error of aw, abuse of
power, ack of |ursdcton or grave abuse of dscreton.
4eneral ule: The courts w not nterfere n matters, whch are
addressed to the sound dscreton of government agences
entrusted wth the reguaton of actvtes comng under the speca
technca knowedge and tranng of such agences
- Executve offcas are presumed to have famarzed themseves
wth a the consderatons pertnent to the meanng and purpose of
the aw, and to have formed an ndependent, conscentous and
competent expert opnon
- ,)ception An acton by an admnstratve agency may be set
asde f there s an error of aw, abuse of power, ack of |ursdcton
or grave abuse of dscreton ceary confctng wth the etter and
sprt of the aw.
- When an admnstratve agency renders an opnon or ssues a
statement of pocy, t merey nterprets a pre-exstng aw and the
admnstratve nterpretaton s at best advsory for t s the courts
that fnay determne what the aw means.
1. No cogent reason to depart from genera rue snce ERB fndngs
conform to the governng statutes and controng case aw on
the matter
Reguatory boards were empowered to entertan and act on
appcatons for the estabshment of gasone statons n the
Phppnes.
There s a wordwde trend towards economc
dereguaton. Ths trend s refected n our pocy
consderatons, statutes and |ursprudence.
- RA 8479 was enacted to mpement Art XII, Sec. 19 of
the Consttuton
- Government beeves dereguaton w eventuay
prevent monopoy
- Art XII, Sec. 19 s ant-trust n hstory and sprt. It
espouses competton. The ob|ectve s based upon the
beef that through competton producers w satsfy
consumer wants at the owest prce wth the sacrfce of
the fewest resources. Competton among producers
aows consumers to bd for goods and servces and thus,
matches ther desres wth socetys opportunty costs.
Recent deveopments n the o ndustry as we as
egsatve enactments and |ursprudenta pronouncements
have overtaken and rendered stae the vew espoused by
the appeate court n denyng Shes petton
2. ERB Decson was based on hard economc data
Data ncudes: deveopmenta pro|ects, resdenta
subdvson stngs, popuaton count, pubc conveyances,
commerca estabshments, traffc count, fue demand,
growth of prvate cars, pubc utty vehces and
commerca vehces ncreased market potenta whch
w beneft communty and transent motorsts
ERB s n a better poston to resove Shes
appcaton beng prmary the agency possessng the
necessary expertse on the matter
Substanta evdence s a that s needed to support
an admnstratve fndng of fact. It means such reevant
evdence as a reasonabe mnd mght accept to support a
concuson
3. The pronouncement of Court of Appeas Sxteenth Dvson
affrmng ERB Decson approvng a smar appcaton by Catex
s more n keepng wth the pocy of the State and the ratonae
of the statutes enacted to govern the ndustry
CA: no gasone staton aong the entre stretch; need
not necessary resut n runous competton, absent
adequate proof to that effect; uness pettoner s abe to
prove by competent evdence that sgnfcant changes have
occurred suffcenty to nvadate that afore-stated study,
the presumpton s that sad study remans vad
4. The mere possbty of reducton of earnngs of a busness s not
suffcent to prove runous competton
In determnng the aowance or dsaowance of an
appcaton for the constructon of a servce staton, the CA
confned the factors thereof wthn the rgd standards
governng pubc utty reguaton, where excusvty, upon
satsfacton of certan requrements, s aowed. However,
excusvty s more the excepton rather than the rue n the
gasone servce staton busness
PDSC faed to show that ts busness woud not have
suffcent proft to have a far return on nvestment
Catex, PDSCs prncpa, never fed any opposton to
Shes appcaton
A cmate of fear and pessmsm generated by
unsubstantated cams of runous competton aready
re|ected n the past shoud not be made to retard free
competton, consstenty wth egsatve pocy of
dereguatng and berazng the o ndustry to ensure a
truy compettve market under a regme of far prces,
adequate and contnuous suppy, envronmentay cean and
hgh quaty petroeum products
0ecision
(1) Chaenged decson of the Court of Appeas s reversed and set
asde
(2) ERB Order grantng the amended appcaton of Ppnas She
Corporaton to reocate ts servce staton to Bengno Aquno |r.,
Ave., Pque, Metro Mana renstated
2otin; 3 |ustces concurred, 1 on sck eave
#/ 1III: #4#I#N ,F!*
'O#IC3 V COO!&
MARTINEZ; November 17, 1998
'&C#(
- Two separate motons for reconsderaton seekng reversa of the
SCs decson nufyng the wn-wn resouton dated November 7,
1997 ssued by the Offce of the Presdent (OP)
- Decson struck down as vod the act of the OP n reopenng the
case n OP Case No. 96-C 6424 through the ssuance of November
7, 1997 wn-wn Resouton whch substantay modfed ts March
29, 1996 OP Decson that had ong become fna and executory
- The March 29, 1996 OP Decson was decared by the same offce
as fna and executory after the DARs moton for reconsderaton of
the sad decson was dened for havng been fed beyond the 15-
day regementary perod
- Movants:
o The wn-wn resouton s vad as t seeks to correct
an erroneous rung
o Proper remedy for pettoner s a petton for revew
and not certorar
o Fng of moton for reconsderaton s a condton sne
qua non before petton for certorar may be fed
o Pettoners are guty of forum shoppng
- Intervenors:
o They have rght to ntervene
o The wn-wn resouton s vad as t seeks to correct
an erroneous rung
o Wn-wn resouton propery addresses the substanta
ssues of the case
- Both movants ask that ther motons be resoved en banc snce
the ssues are "nove" and of "transcendenta sgnfcance" Issue
here accordng to them s WON the power of the oca government
unts (LGUs) to recassfy ands s sub|ect to the approva of the
Dept of Agraran Reform (DAR)
- Other ssues rased by movants descrbed as "substanta" (1)
whether the sub|ect and s consdered a prme agrcutura and
wth rrgaton facty; (2) whether the and has ong been covered
by a Notce of Compusory Acquston (NCA); (3) whether the and
s tenanted, and f not, whether the appcants for nterventon are
quafed to become benefcares thereof; and (4) whether the
Sanggunang Bayan of Sumao has the ega authorty to recassfy
the and nto ndustra/nsttutona use
I((%E
WON the SCs decson nufyng the wn-wn resouton dated
November 7, 1997 ssued by the Offce of the Presdent (OP) must
be reversed.
3ELD
- The ssues presented are matters of no extraordnary mport to
mert the attenton of the Court en banc
o The ssue s no onger nove as havng been decded n
Provnce of Camarnes Sur, et a. v. CA wheren t was hed
that LGUs need not obtan the approva of the DAR to convert
or recassfy ands from agrcutura to non agrcutura use.
o Decson sought to be reconsdered was arrved at by a
unanmous vote of a fve members of the 2
nd
Dvson.
- The order whch dened the DARs moton for reconsderaton of
the March 29, 1996 OP Decson was not an erroneous rung and t
does not have to be corrected by the November 7, 1997 wn-wn
resouton
o In accordance wth Admnstratve order No. 18 whch
mandates that decsons, orders, resoutons of the OP sha
become fna after the apse of 15 days from recept of copy
thereof. uness a moton for reconsderaton s fed wthn
such perod.
o Late fng of DAR s not excusabe because DAR must not
dsregard the regementary perod fxed by aw n referrng
the decson to the departments concerned for the
preparaton of the moton of consderaton
o Procedura rues shoud be treated wth utmost respect and
due regard as they are desgned to factate the ad|udcaton
of cases to remedy the worsenng probem of deay n the
resouton of rva cams n the admnstraton of |ustce
- There s a grave abuse of dscreton n entertanng the second
moton for reconsderaton and on the bass thereof ssued the wn-
wn resouton was a fagrant nfrngement of the doctrne of res
|udcata. These grave breaches of the aw, rues and setted
|ursprudence are ceary substanta, not of technca nature.
o When the March 29, 1996 OP Decson was decared
fna and executory, vested rghts were acqured by the
pettoners
- When the DARs order denyng the pettoners frst appcaton for
converson was frst brought by pettoner to the OP, the
approprate admnstratve rues were not comped wth. But
movants cannot now queston the supposed procedura apse for
the frst tme before the SC. It shoud have been rased and
resoved at the admnstratve eve.
- Intervenors do not have certan rght or ega nterest n the
sub|ect matter.
o Beng merey seasona farmworkers wthout the rght to own,
appcaton for nterventon must fa as they have no ega or
actua and substanta nterest over the sub|ect and
o even "wn-wn Resouton of November 7, 1997 dd not
recognze the atter as proper partes to ntervene n the case
smpy because the quafed farmer-benefcares have yet to
be metcuousy determned as ordered n the sad resouton.
- The March 29, 1996 OP Decson has thoroughy and propery
dsposed of the aforementoned "substanta" ssues
o Factua fndngs of admnstratve agences whch have
acqured expertse n ther fed are bndng and concusve on
the Court, presumng the OP s the most competent n matters
fang wthn ts doman
- Our affrmaton of the fnaty of the March 29, 1996 OP Decson s
precsey pro-poor consderng that more of the mpoversed
members of socety w be benefted by the agro-economc
deveopment of the dsputed and whch the provnce of Bukdnon
and the muncpaty of Sumao, Bukdnon ntend to undertake.
o The OP Decson of March 29, 1996 was for the eventua
beneft of the many, no |ust of the few. Ths s ceary shown
from the deveopment pan on the sub|ect and as conceved
by the pettoners
- WHEREFORE, the separate motons for reconsderaton of the Apr
24, 1998 Decson of ths Court, fed by the respondents and the
appcants for nterventon, are hereby DENIED wth FINALITY.
(IGE V CO%# O' &PPE&L(
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; August 8, 2002
'&C#(
- Prvate respondent La Y. Gonzaes, as co-admnstratrx of the
Estate of Matas Yusay, fed wth the Court of Appeas a petton for
prohbton and man&am$s seekng to prohbt the Land Bank of the
Phppnes (LBP) from acceptng the easehod rentas from Ernesto
Sgre (predecessor of pettoner Roando Sgre), and for LBP to turn
over to prvate respondent the rentas prevousy remtted to t by
Sgre.
- Ernesto Sgre was prvate respondents tenant n an rrgated rce
and ocated n Barangay Naga, Pototan, Ioo. He was prevousy
payng prvate respondent a ease renta of 16 cavans per crop or
32 cavans per agrcutura year. In the agrcutura year of 1991-
1992, Sgre stopped payng hs rentas to prvate respondent and
nstead, remtted t to the LBP pursuant to the Department of
Agraran Reforms Memorandum Crcuar No. 6, Seres of 1978,
whch set the gudenes n the payment of ease renta/parta
payment by farmer-benefcares under the and transfer program
of P.D. No. 27.
- The pertnent provson of the DAR Memorandum Crcuar No. 6
reads:
"A. Where the vaue of the and has aready been
estabshed.
The vaue of the and s estabshed on the date the
Secretary or hs authorzed representatve has fnay
approved the average gross producton data estabshed
by the BCLP or upon the sgnng of the LTPA by
andowners and tenant farmers concerned heretofore
authorzed.
Payment of ease rentas to andowners covered by OLT
sha termnate on the date the vaue of the and s
estabshed. Thereafter, the tenant-farmers sha pay ther
ease rentas/amortzatons to the LBP or ts authorzed
agents: provded that n case where the vaue of the and
s estabshed durng the month the crop s to be
harvested, the cut-off perod sha take effect on the next
harvest season. Wth respect to cases where ease rentas
pad may exceed the vaue of the and, the tenant-farmers
may no onger be bound to pay such renta, but t sha be
hs duty to notfy the andowner and the DAR Team Leader
concerned of such fact who sha ascertan mmedatey
the veracty of the nformaton and thereafter resove the
matter expedtousy as possbe. If the andowner sha
nsst after postve ascertanment that the tenant-farmer
s to pay rentas to hm, the amount equvaent to the
renta nssted to be pad sha de deposted by the tenant-
farmer wth the LBP or ts authorzed agent n hs name
and for hs account to be wthdrawn ony upon proper
wrtten authorzaton of the DAR Dstrct Offcer based on
the resut of ascertanment or nvestgaton."
- Accordng to prvate respondent, she had no notce that the DAR
had aready fxed the 3-year producton pror to October 1972 at an
average of 119.32 cavans per hectare, and the vaue of the and
was pegged at P13,405.67. Thus, the petton fed before the Court
of Appeas, assang, not ony the vadty of MC No. 6, but aso the
consttutonaty of P.D. 27.
- The Court of Appeas gave due course to the petton and decared
MC No. 6 nu and vod. The LBP was drected to return to prvate
respondent the ease rentas pad by Sgre, whe Sgre was drected
to pay the rentas drecty to prvate respondent. In decarng MC
No. 6 as nu and vod, the appeate court rued that there s
nothng n P.D. 27 whch sanctons the contested provson of the
crcuar; that sad crcuar s n confct wth P.D. 816 whch provdes
that payments of ease rentas sha be made to the andowner, and
the atter, beng a statute, must preva over the crcuar; that P.D.
27 s unconsttutona n ayng down the formua for determnng
the cost of the and as t sets mtatons on the |udca prerogatve
of determnng |ust compensaton; and that t s no onger
appcabe, wth the enactment of Repubc Act No. 6657.
Hence, these pettons.
I((%E(
1. WON MC No. 6 s vad
2. WON MC No. 6 can be reconced wth PD 816
3. WON PD 27 s unconsttutona
3ELD
1. YES.
- PD 27, ssued on October 21, 1972 by then Pres. Ferdnand E.
Marcos, procamed the entre country as a "and reform area" and
decreed the emancpaton of tenants from the bondage of the so,
transferrng to them the ownershp of the and they t. To acheve
ts purpose, the decree ad down a system for the purchase by
tenant-farmers, ong recognzed as the backbone of the economy,
of the ands they were tng. Owners of rce and corn ands that
exceeded the mnmum retenton area were bound to se ther
ands to quafed farmers at bera terms and sub|ect to condtons.
It was pursuant to sad decree that the DAR ssued MC No. 6, seres
of 1978.
- The Court of Appeas hed that P.D. No. 27 does not sancton sad
Crcuar, partcuary, the provson statng that payment of ease
rentas to andowners sha termnate on the date the vaue of the
and s estabshed, after whch the tenant-farmer sha pay ther
ease rentas/amortzatons to the LBP or ts authorzed agents.
- We dsagree. The power of subordnate egsaton aows
admnstratve bodes to mpement the broad poces ad down n
a statute by "fng n" the detas. A that s requred s that the
reguaton shoud be germane to the ob|ects and purposes of the
aw; that the reguaton be not n contradcton to but n conformty
wth the standards prescrbed by the aw. One such admnstratve
reguaton s DAR Memorandum Crcuar No. 6. As emphaszed n
:e Cha*e6 *. Vo/el, emancpaton s the goa of P.D. 27., #.e.,
freedom from the bondage of the so by transferrng to the tenant-
farmers the ownershp of the and theyre tng. As noted,
however, n the .hereas causes of the Crcuar, probems have
been encountered n the expedtous mpementaton of the and
reform program, thus necesstatng ts promugaton.
- The rat#onale for the Crcuar was, n fact, expcty recognzed by
the appeate court when t stated that "(T)he man purpose of the
crcuar s to make certan that the ease renta payments of the
tenant-farmer are apped to hs amortzatons on the purchase
prce of the and. x x x The crcuar was meant to remedy the
stuaton where the tenant-farmers ease rentas to andowner
were not credted n hs favor aganst the determned purchase
prce of the and, thus makng hm a perpetua obgor for sad
purchase prce." Snce the assaed Crcuar essentay sought to
accompsh the nobe purpose of P.D. 27, t s therefore vad. Such
beng the case, t has the force of aw and s entted to great
respect.
2. YES.
- The Court cannot see any "rreconcabe confct" between P.D.
No. 816 and DAR Memorandum Crcuar No. 6. Enacted n 1975,
P.D. No. 816 provdes that the tenant-farmer (agrcutura essee)
sha pay ease rentas to the andowner unt the vaue of the
property has been determned or agreed upon by the andowner
and the DAR. On the other hand, DAR Memorandum Crcuar No. 6,
mpemented n 1978, mandates that the tenant-farmer sha pay to
LBP the ease renta after the vaue of the and has been
determned.
- In C$rso *. Co$rt of 0))eals, nvovng the same Crcuar and P.D.
816, t was categorcay rued that there s no ncompatbty
between these two.
- In other words, MC No. 6 merey provdes gudenes n the
payment of ease rentas/amortzatons n mpementaton of P.D.
816. Under both P.D. 816 and MC No. 6, payment of ease rentas
sha termnate on the date the vaue of the and s estabshed.
Thereafter, the tenant farmers sha pay amortzatons to the Land
Bank. The rentas prevousy pad are to be credted as parta
payment of the and transferred to tenant-farmers.
- Prvate respondent, however, "spts hars," so to speak, and
contends that the C$rso case s premsed on the assumpton that
the Crcuar mpements P.D. 816, whereas t s expressy stated n
the Crcuar that t was ssued n mpementaton of P.D. 27. Both
MC No. 6 and P.D. 816 were ssued pursuant to and n
mpementaton of P.D. 27. These must not be read n soaton, but
rather, n con|uncton wth each other. Under P.D. 816, renta
payments sha be made to the andowner. After the vaue of the
and has been determned/estabshed, then the tenant-farmers
sha pay ther amortzatons to the LBP, as provded n DAR Crcuar
No. 6. Ceary, there s no nconsstency between them. 0$
%ontra#re, P.D. 816 and DAR Crcuar No. 6 suppement each other
nsofar as t sets the gudenes for the payments of ease rentas on
the agrcutura property.
3. NO.
- P.D. 27 does not suffer any consttutona nfrmty. It s a |udca
fact that has been repeatedy emphaszed by ths Court n a
number of cases. As eary as 1974, n :e Cha*e6 *. Vo/el, P.D. 27
was assumed to be consttutona, and uphed as part and parce of
the aw of the and, *#6.:
"There s no doubt then, as set forth expressy theren,
that the goa s emancpaton. What s more, the decree s
now part and parce of the aw of the and accordng to the
revsed Consttuton tsef. E|ectment therefore of
pettoners s smpy out of the queston. That woud be to
set at naught an express mandate of the Consttuton.
Once t has spoken, our duty s cear; obedence s
unavodabe. Ths s not ony so because of the cardna
postuate of consttutonasm, the supremacy of the
fundamenta aw. It s aso because any other approach
woud run the rsk of settng at naught ths basc aspraton
to do away wth a remnants of a feudastc order at war
wth the promse and the hope assocated wth an open
socety. To deprve pettoners of the sma andhodngs n
the face of a presdenta decree consdered ratfed by the
new Consttuton and precsey n accordance wth ts
avowed ob|ectve coud ndeed be contrbutory to
perpetuatng the msery that tenancy had spawned n the
past as we as the grave soca probems thereby created.
There can be no |ustfcaton for any other decson then
whether predcated on a |urdca norm or on the
tradtona roe assgned to the |udcary of mpementng
and not thwartng fundamenta pocy goas."
- Thereafter, n 9on6ales *. Estrella, whch ncdentay nvoves
prvate respondent and counse n the case at bench, the Court
emphatcay decared that "Presdenta Decree No. 27 has
survved the test of consttutonaty."
- Then, n 1982, P.D. 27, once agan, was stamped wth |udca
#m)r#mat$r n 0sso%#at#on of >#%e S Corn Pro&$%ers of the
Ph#l#))#nes, 7n%. *. "he Nat#onal 5an& >eform Co$n%#l.
- Further, n 0sso%#at#on of Small 5an&o.ners #n the Ph#l#))#nes, 7n%.
*. Se%retar+ of 0grar#an >eform, nvovng the consttutonaty of
P.D. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, and R.A. 6657, any other assaut on
the vadty of P.D. 27 was utmatey forecosed when t was
decared theren that "R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131,
and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are SUSTAINED aganst a the
consttutona ob|ectons rased n the heren petton."
- The ob|ecton that P.D. 27 s unconsttutona as t sets mtatons
on the |udca prerogatve of determnng |ust compensaton s
bereft of mert. P.D. 27 provdes:
"For the purpose of determnng the cost of the and to be
transferred to the tenant-farmer pursuant to ths Decree,
the vaue of the and sha be equvaent to two and one
haf (2 ) tmes the average harvest of three norma crop
years mmedatey precedng the promugaton of ths
Decree;"
- E.O. 228 suppemented such provson, *#6.:
"SEC. 2. Henceforth, the vauaton of rce and corn ands
covered by P.D. 27 sha be based on the average gross
producton determned by the Barangay Commttee on
Land Producton n accordance wth Department
Memorandum Crcuar No. 26, seres of 1973 and reated
ssuances and reguaton of the Department of Agraran
Reform. The average gross producton per hectare sha be
mutped by two and a haf (2.5), the product of whch
sha be mutped by Thrty Fve Pesos (P35.00), the
government support prce for one cavan of 50 kos of
paay on October 21, 1972, or Thrty One Pesos (P31.00),
the government support prce for one cavan of 50 kos of
corn on October 21, 1972, and the amount arrved at sha
be the vaue of the rce and corn and, as the case may be,
for the purpose of determnng ts cost to the farmer and
compensaton to the andowner."
- The determnaton of |ust compensaton under P.D. No. 27, ke n
Secton 16 (d) of R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law, s not fna or
concusve. Ths s evdent from the succeedng paragraph of
Secton 2 of E.O. 228:
"x x x In the event of dspute wth the andowner regardng
the amount of ease renta pad by the farmer benefcary,
the Department of Agraran Reform and the Barangay
Commttee on Land Producton concerned sha resove the
dspute wthn thrty (30) days from ts submsson
pursuant to Department of Agraran Reform Memorandum
Crcuar No. 26, seres of 1973, and other pertnent
ssuances. In the event a party questons n court the
resouton of the dspute, the andowners compensaton
sha st be processed for payment and the proceeds sha
be hed n trust by the Trust Department of the Land Bank
n accordance wth the provsons of Secton 5 hereof,
pendng the resouton of the dspute before the court."
- Ceary therefrom, uness both the andowner and the tenant-
farmer accept the vauaton of the property by the Barro
Commttee on Land Producton and the DAR, the partes may brng
the dspute to court n order to determne the approprate amount
of compensaton, a task unmstakaby wthn the prerogatve of the
court.
- Fnay, the Court need not beabor the fact that R.A. 6657 or the
CARP Law operates dstncty from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers a
pubc and prvate agrcutura and ncudng other ands of the
pubc doman sutabe for agrcuture as provded for n
Procamaton No. 131 and Executve Order No. 229; whe, P.D. 27
covers rce and corn ands. On ths score, E.O. 229, whch provdes
for the mechansm of the Comprehensve Agraran Reform
Program, specfcay states: "(P)resdenta Decree No. 27, as
amended, sha contnue to operate wth respect to rce and corn
ands, covered thereunder. x x x" It cannot be gansad, therefore,
that R.A. 6657 dd not repea or supersede, n any way, P.D. 27.
And whatever provsons of P.D. 27 that are not nconsstent wth
R.A. 6657 sha be suppetory to the atter, and a rghts acqured
by the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are retaned even wth the
passage of R.A. 6657.
0ecision Pettons GRANTED. The Decson of the Court of
Appeas s NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
OB&( &!D CO. V CO%# O' &PPE&L(
PUNO; December 17, 1999
'&C#(
- Petton for revew on certorar of a decson of the CA
- Three hacendas (Paco, Banad, Cayaway) n Nasugbu, Bats s
owned by Roxas and Co., a domestc corp.
- Presdent Aquno sgned Procamaton No. 131 and EO 229 for a
Comprehensve Agraran Reform Program.
- Congress passed RA 6657 (Comprehensve Agraran Reform Law
or CARL). Ths was sgned by Pres. Aquno.
- Roxas and Co. fed w/ DAR a vountary offer to se Hacenda
Cayaway. Hacendas Paco and Banad were ater paced under
compusory acquston by DAR n accordance w/ CARL.
PALICO AND BANILAD
- ;or 8a%#en&as Pal#%o an& -an#la&, the M$n#%#)al 0grar#an >eform
2ff#%er (M0>2! sent not#%es 7n*#tat#on to Part#es to >o,as an& Co.
thro$gh Mr. 1a#me P#mentel, 8a%#en&a 0&m#n#strator. "h#s .as to
&#s%$ss the res$lts of :0> #n*est#gat#on of 8a%#en&as. "he re)orts
re%ommen&e& that the ha%#en&as /e s$/3e%t to %om)$lsor+
a%4$#s#t#on. :0>, thro$gh #ts Se%retar+, sent Not#%es of 0%4$#s#t#on.
- Ahether the+ a%%e)t or re3e%t th#s offer, the+ m$st #nform -$rea$
of 5an& 0%4$#s#t#on an& :#str#/$t#on. 7n %ase of re3e%t#on or fa#l$re
to re)l+, :0> %on&$%ts a&m#n#strat#*e )ro%ee&#ngs to &eterm#ne
3$st %om)ensat#on of the lan&. 7n %ase of a%%e)tan%e or #f
%om)ensat#on has alrea&+ /een &e)os#te&, :0> ta=es #mme&#ate
)ossess#on of the lan&.
- -e% )et#t#oner re3e%te&, :0> sent to 5an&/an= a >e4$est to 2)en
"r$st 0%%o$nt #n fa*or of )et#t#oner for #ts %om)ensat#on.
- Pet#t#oner a))l#e& .C :0> for %on*ers#on of Pal#%o an& -an#la& fr
agr#%$lt$ral to non-agr# lan&s. :es)#te th#s a))l#%at#on, :0>
)ro%ee&e& .C a%4$#s#t#on of the ha%#en&as.
- "he 5an&/an= tr$st a%%o$nts for %om)ensat#on .ere re)la%e& /+
:0> .#th %ash an& 5an&/an= /on&s.
- :0> reg#stere& Cert#f#%ate of 5an& 2.nersh#) 0.ar& (C520s! an&
&#str#/$te& them to farmer /enef#%#ar#es.
CAYLAWAY
- "h#s ha%#en&a .as *ol$ntar#l+ offere& for sale to the go*Gt. :0>
a%%e)te& the )et#t#onerGs *ol$ntar+ offer an& sent Not#%e of
0%4$#s#t#on.
- 8o.e*er, >o,as an& Co. Pres#&ent sent letter to :0> .#th&ra.#ng
*ol$ntar+ offer for sale (V2S! /e% Sangg$n#ang -a+an of Nas$g/$
re%lass#f#e& Ca+la.a+ fr agr# to non-agr# lan&.
- :0> sa#& re%lass#f#%at#on .o$l& not e,em)t the lan& fr agrar#an
reform. 7t &en#e& the .#th&ra.al of the V2S.
- Pettoner nsttuted case w/ DAR Ad|udcaton Board (DARAB) for
canceaton of the CLOAs bec Nasugbu s a tourst zone and not
sutabe for agr producton. Ths petton for converson was
dened by the MARO.
- Pettoner fed w/ CA, but CA dsmssed the petton. Hence, the
recourse to SC.
I((%E(
1. WON SC can take cognzance despte faure of pettoner to
exhaust admnstratve remedes
2. WON acquston proceedngs were vad
3. WON SC can rue on recassfcaton of the hacendas
3ELD
1. Yes.
- Admnstratve remedes must be exhausted frst. But |udca
acton can be resorted to mmedatey when
- queston s purey ega
- the admnstratve body s n estoppe
- act s patenty ega
- theres urgent need for |udca nterventon
- respondent dsregarded due process
- the respondent s a department secretary
- rreparabe damage w be suffered
- theres no other speedy remedy
- strong pubc nterest s nvoved
- sub|ect of controversy s prvate and
- n quo warranto proceedngs
- DAR ssued CLOAs w/o |ust compensaton. And the aw provdes
that depost must be made ony n cash or Landbank bonds. DARs
nta acton to open trust account deposts does not consttute
payment.
2. No.
- CARL provdes for 2 modes of acquston: compusory and
vountary.
- In compusory acquston, the farmer benefcares and the
andowners must frst be dentfed. However, the aw s sent on
how dentfcaton must be made. To address ths, DAR ssued
Admn Order 12-1989. Ths was amended by DAR AO 9-1990 and
DAR AO 1-1993. In these amendments, Notce of Coverage and
etter of nvtaton to conference meetng were expanded.
- The Notce of Coverage notfes andowner that hs property s
paced under CARP, nforms hm that a pubc hearng w be
conducted and a fed nvestgaton of the and w be conducted.
- Notces and peadngs aganst a corp are served on the Presdent,
Manager, Secretary, Casher or agent or drectors. Ths s to ensure
prompt and proper notce. |ame Pmente s not one of these
partes.
- Pettoners prncpa pace of busness s n Makat. Pmente s
based n Nasugbu.
- Assumng that Pmente was an agent of the corp, there s no
showng that he was duy authorzed to attend the conference
meetng.
- Assumng pettoner was duy notfed, the areas sub|ect to CARP
were not propery dentfed before they were taken over by DAR.
The acquston covers ony portons, not the entre hacendas. The
hacendas are not entrey agr ands. Pettoner had no dea whch
porton was sub|ect to compusory acquston. Ths s mportant
bec pettoner can exercse rght to retenton - choose to retan not
more than 5 hectares out of the tota area sub|ect to CARP.
- Wth respect to Cayaway, notces were not deemed receved by
the pettoner.
3. No.
- DARs faure to observe due process n acquston does not pso
facto gve SC power to ad|udcate on appcaton for converson
from agr to non-agr and. Its DARs |ob.
- Gudng prncpe n and use converson s to preserve prme agr
ands for food producton whe recognzng need of other sectors
for and. CARL promotes soca |ustce, ndustrazaton, and
optmum use of and.
- Land use - manner of utzaton of and nc. aocaton, devt and
mgmt.
- Land use converson requres fed nvestgaton.
- Doctrne of prmary |ursdcton does not warrant SC to arrogate
authorty to resove controversy |ursdcton over w/c s ntay
odged w/ an admnstratve body. Here, DAR must be gven
chance to correct ts procedura apses.
0ecision Petton s remanded to DAR for proper acquston
proceedngs and determnaton of pettoners appcaton for
converson.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
"ELO D0on0ur an+ +issentE
- PP 1520 whch decared Nasugbu, Bats as tourst zone, has force
and effect of aw uness repeaed. It cannot be dsregarded by
DAR.
2!&E(-(&!#I&GO D0on0urr an+ +issentE
- If acts of DAR are patenty ega and rghts of party are voated,
the wrong decsons of DAR shoud be reversed and set asde.
- CLOAs do not have nature of Torrens Tte and admnstratve
canceaton of tte s suffcent to nvadate them.
#/ 1I2: ,05C#/I!N
%!IVE(I#2 O' #3E P3ILIPPI!E( .O&D O' EGE!#( V
CO%# O' &PPE&L( &!D &IO)&(7&"2 7ILLI&"
"&G&E# CELI!E
MENDOZA; August 31, 1999
'&C#(
- Arokaswamy Wam Margaret Cene s an Indan ctzen takng
her doctora program n Anthropoogy at the Unversty of the
Phppnes. To compete the doctora program she was requred to
pass a dssertaton and she created one entted, "Tam nfuences
n Maaysa, Indonesa, and the Phppnes." She defended her
dssertaton athough pror to t Dr. Medna noted some fted
matera n the dssertaton wthout proper acknowedgment. She
got the nod of four of the fve panest and thus was aowed to
graduate because the etter comng from Dean Paz that wanted her
to be temporary struck off the st of canddates for graduaton to
cear the probems regardng her dssertaton dd not reach the
Board of Regents on tme.
- Pror to the graduaton, Dean Paz tod Cene through a etter that
she woud not be granted academc cearance wthout Cene
substantatng her accusaton of Drs. Dokno and Medna
macousy workng for the dsapprova of her dssertaton. Cene
answered by sayng that the unfavorabe atttude was due to some
faure to ncude Dr. Medna n the st of pane members and that
Dr. Dokno was guty of harassment. Dr. Medna answered back
and wrote that Cenes dssertaton contaned pagarzed materas
and that her doctorate be wthdrawn.
- An ad-hoc commttee was formed to nvestgate the charges and
that the request for the wthdrawa of the doctorate degree was
asked of the Board of Regents. In the nvestgaton t was found out
that n at east 90 nstances the dssertaton ncuded fted
materas wthout proper or due acknowedgment. The Coege
Assemby therefore unanmousy approved and recommended the
wthdrawa of the doctorate degree and forwarded t to the
Unversty Counc. The Unversty Counc approved, endorsed, and
recommended the wthdrawa to the Board of Regents. UP Dman
Chanceor Roman summoned Cene to a meetng and that she
shoud submt her wrtten expanaton to the charges aganst her.
The Chanceor nformed Cene of the charges and showed a copy
of the fndngs of the nvestgatng commttee. A second meetng
was done as we as a thrd one, however Cene dd not attend the
thrd meetng aegng that the Board of Regents at that tme
aready had decded her case before she was fuy heard. Cene
asked for a re-nvestgaton and that the |ursdcton was paced on
the student dscpnary trbuna n the case of dshonesty and that
the wthdrawa of the doctorate degree s not an authorzed
penaty.
- A speca commttee was create by Chanceor Roman that
nvestgated the case and they came out wth the fndngs through
a the documents and an ntervew of Cene. It was estabshed
that at east 22 counts of documented ftng were dentfed that
forms the 90 nstances found by the Coege ad-hoc commttee.
That Cene admts of beng gut of the aegaton of pagarsm. The
Board of Regents decded to wthdraw the doctorate degree. Cene
requested an audence wth the Board of Regents and a
renvestgaton whch was dened.
- Thus ths case, a petton for mandamus and a prayer for a wrt of
mandatory n|uncton and damages was fed. Tra court dsmssed
the petton for ack of mert whe Court of Appeas reversed and
ordered the restoraton of the degree.
I((%E(
1. WON the wrt of Mandamus s appcabe n ths stuaton
2. WON THE wthdrawa of the doctora degree can be done by the
Unversty
3. WON there was a dena of due process
3ELD
1. No, a wrt of Mandamus s not avaabe to restran an nsttuton
of hgher earnng from the exercse of ts academc freedom that s
a consttutona rght
2. Yes, because Mandamus s a wrt commandng a trbuna,
corporaton, board or person to do the act requred to be done
when t or s/he unawfuy negects the performance of an act whch
the aw specfcay en|ons as a duty resutng from an offce, trust,
or staton, or unawfuy excudes another from the use and
en|oyment of a rght or offce to whch such other s entted, there
beng no pan, speedy, and adequate remedy n the ordnary
course of a aw. It coud not be nvoked aganst the academc
freedom of the schoo as academc freedom as a Consttutona
rght (Artce XIV Secton 5 (2)) gves a wde sphere of authorty
over the choce of students. Ths entas as we that t can aso
determne who woud have the dstncton of beng a graduate of
the schoo. If the Unversty dscovers that the honor and dstncton
was obtaned through fraud t has the rght to revoke or wthdraw
such dstncton. The actons of the Unversty through the Board of
Regents s to protect academc ntegrty by wthdrawng her
academc degree that she obtaned through fraud.
3. No, Due process was done as there were severa nvestgatons
done by the schoo startng from the coege to the Board of
Regents. She was aso nvted n the nvestgaton to cear up her
name. However, the actua admsson and the cear pagarsm of
her sources proved that ndeed she commtted the offense. Her
demand for the Student Trbuna to decde her case s untenabe,
as t s obvous that such case s useess for the penaty t gves s
suspenson. Cene n not n the ambt of dscpnary powers of the
UP anymore.
"II&" COLLEGE 'O%!D&#IO! V CO%# O' &PPE&L(
KAPUNAN; December 15, 2000
'&C#(
-PETITION for revew on certorar of a decson of the Court of
Appeas
-Vo. 41, No. 14, or the September-October 1994 ssue of Mram
Coeges schoo paper "Ch-Rho" entted "Lbog at Iba Pang Tua"
was odousy receved by the MCHS communty, cang t
"obscene", "ndecent" and "devod of a mora vaues" among
other thngs.
-an excerpt wrtten by Mr. Gomez, who wrote the foreword
(Forepay) reads:
ma+ mga )alangganang na=at#.ang.angQ
mga )$tang /#=a+ na sa g#tna
O&# na )$.e&eng )agla/han
O&# na maar#ng )ag/a/aranIJ
-severa other poems and stores are contaned w/ the theme
"sekswadad at bat bang karanasan nto"
-ff the pubcaton of the paper, Dr. Seva, Char of the MC
Dscpne Commttee wrote a etter to the edtora board, nformng
them of the compants fed aganst ther pubcaton by the Mram
Communty, aong wth the aeged schoo reguatons voated, and
requrng the board to submt a wrtten statement n answer to the
charges.
-the students requested to transfer the case to DECS, w/c under
Rue 7 of DECS order no. 94, has |ursdcton
-the students atty., Rcardo Vemonte, contends that for actons
commtted w/n ther capacty as campus |ournasts, what appes
s RA 7079 (The Campus |ournasm Act) and not commttee
reguatons
-the commttee proceeded w/ ts nvestgaton e, )arte, suspendng
5 students, expeng 3, dsmssng 2 and wthhodng graduaton
prveges of 1 student
-these students thus fed a petton for prohbton and certorar
wth premnary n|uncton and/or restranng order before the RTC
of OC, questonng the Dscpne Boards |ursdcton
-the RTC dened the prayer for a TRO and hed that nothng n the
DECS Order No. 94 excudes schoo Admn from exercsng
|ursdcton and that t cannot demt the |ursdcton of schoos
over dscpnary cases
-the students then fed a "Suppementa Petton and Moton for
Reconsderaton" after w/c the RTC granted the wrt for premnary
n|uncton (aganst expuson and dsmssa) so as not to render the
ssues moot
-both partes moved for reconsderaton after w/c the RTC recaed
the ssues and dsmssed the case
-the RTC referred the case to the CA for dsposton w/c ssued a
resouton requrng the respondents to show cause why no
premnary n|uncton shoud be ssued, and ssued a TRO (aganst
the dsmssas/suspensons)
-the CA granted the students petton, decarng the RTC order and
the dsmssas/suspensons as vod
-hence ths present petton by Mram Coege
I((%E(
1. WON the case has been rendered moot
2. WON the TC has |ursdcton to entertan the petton for
certorar by the students
3. WON Mram had |ursdcton over the compants aganst the
students
3ELD
1. NO. Pettoner asserts that the case s moot snce more than 1
year had passed snce the court ssued the TRO. A premnary
n|uncton s granted at any stage of a proceedng pror to the
|udgment of a fna order to preserve the stat$s 4$o of thngs unt
the merts of the case can be heard and perssts unt ssuance of a
fna n|uncton.
A TRO on the other hand preserves the stat$s 4$o unt the hearng
of the appcaton of the premnary n|uncton. In the nstant case,
no such premnary n|uncton was ssued, hence the TRO
automatcay expred (BP 224, TRO expres after 20 days f |udge
takes no acton on appcaton of premnary n|uncton). The CA
erred n assumng ts order was comped w/ by Mram; t cant be
sad that the students had graduated w/n that short span of tme.
Mram aso aegedy refused the students readmsson, and so
actua controversy st exsted. Snce the RTC had set asde a
prevous orders, t aowed the dsmssas and suspensons to
reman n force.
2. YES. RA 7079 ncudes a certan S4 whch states that the
edtora board of a schoo pubcaton s free to determne ts
edtora poces; S7 of the same act provdes that a .."a student
sha not be expeed or suspended soey on the bass of artces
he/she has wrtten or.performance of hs/her dutes.". S9
mandates DECS to "promugate the rues and reguatons for the
act, as emboded by DECS Order No. 94, seres of 1992 whch
under Rue 12 provdes that ."DECS regona offce sha have
orgna |ursdcton over cases as a resut of the decsons, actons
and poces of the edtora board of a schoo w/n ts area of
admnstratve responsbty.
When the Dscpne Board mposed the sanctons on the students,
they fed a petton for certorar and prohbton rasng the ff
grounds: (1) the Dscpne Board had no |ursdcton over the case
(2) the Board dd not have the quates of an mparta and neutra
arbter, w/c woud deny the students ther rght to due process.
The ssues thus rased were purey ega n nature and we wthn
the |ursdcton of the TC to determne. The TC had the duty to
render a decson for a case w/n ts |ursdcton and shoud have
setted the ssues before dsmssng the case.
3. YES. A14 S5(2) of the Consttuton guarantees a nsttuton of
hgher earnng academc freedom w/c ncudes the rght of the
schoo to decde for tsef how best to attan t:
(1) who may teach (2) what may be taught (3) how t sha be
taught (4) who may be admtted to study
-"how t sha be taught" certany encompasses the rght of the
schoo to dscpne ts students. "what may be taught" embodes
the Consttutona obgaton to nst dscpne n students, stated
n A14 S3(2)
-"who may be admtted to study" ceary provdes the schoo w/ the
rght to determne whom to expe
A14 S4(1) merey recognzes the States power to reguate and
supervse educatona nsttutons, not deprve them of ther rghts
-In severa cases, the Court has uphed the rghts of students to
free speech n schoo premses.
-As hed n "#n=er *. :es Mo#nes S%hool :#str#%t@ pettoners have
the rght to peacabe assemby and free speech-they do not shed
these consttutona rghts at the schoohouse gate. A students
rghts extend beyond cass hours, and he/she may express even
controversa sub|ects on schoo grounds
-however, free speech s not absoute and students ose mmunty
when "conduct by the student.dsrupts cass work or nvoves.
nvason of the rghts of others."
-provsons of RA 7079 shoud be construed aongsde the
provsons of the Consttuton. Consstent w/ |ursprudence, S7 of RA
7079 shoud be read to mean that the s%hool %anGt s$s)en&Ce,)el a
st$&ent on the sole /as#s of art#%les heCshe has .r#tten, e,%e)t
.hen s$%h art#%les mater#all+ &#sr$)t %lass .or= orI#n*a&es the
r#ghts of others.
- From the foregong, t s evdent that Mram Coege has
|ursdcton over the compants aganst the students, as the power
to nvestgate s an ad|unct of ts power to suspend or expe
students. It s a necessary coroary to ts enforcement of rues and
reguatons, w/c s nherenty granted by the Consttuton. The court
therefore rues that MC has the authorty to hear and decde the
cases fed aganst respondent students.
C&"&C3O V COE(I(
OUISUMBING; August 22, 2002
'&C#(
- The Case: Speca cv acton for certorar aganst the graft
nvestgator n the Offce of the Ombudsman, Atty. |ovto Coress |r.,
n dsmssng the admnstratve and crmna compants aganst
prvate respondents.
- In |une 1995, Pettoner Manue Camacho, the Dean of the Coege
of Educaton of the Unversty of Southeastern Phppnes (USP)
receved compants from severa doctora students regardng a
cass hed by respondent Dr. Daeon durng the 1st sem. of SY
1994-1995. The compants were that there were "ghost students"
n Dr. Daeons cass, namey respondents Ada Aguo, Desdero
Aaba and Norma Tecson, who were gven grades of 1.0, 1.5, and
1.25 respectvey, despte ther faure to attend reguar casses.
- |une 13, 1995, pettoner requested respondent Daeon to furnsh
copes of exams, term papers, records of attendance, whch
respondent gnored. The matter was rased n a unversty counc
meetng and a commttee was created to nvestgate the compant.
Dr. Daeon admtted that he made speca arrangements wth
Aguo, Aaba and Tecson regardng ther course wthout pettoners
approva.
- Pettoner recommended to Dr. Pranta (the Unversty Pres) that
Aguo, Aaba, and Tecson be requred to attend reguar casses and
compy wth the course requrements. Dr. Pranta approved the
recommendaton; however, he aso entertaned an appea by Aguo
to vadate the grades gven to them. The BoR uphed the grades
and consequenty, pettoner fed an admnstratve compant
aganst Dr. Daeon, as we as crmna compants aganst Dr.
Daeon, Aguo, Aaba, Tecson, and members of the USP BoR
ncudng Dr. Pranta for voatng R.A. 3019 and/or such other
pena aws to the Offce of the Ombudsman-Mndanao. Sad offce
ordered respondents to desst from further proceedngs to
consodate the admnstratve compant wth the crmna
compant.
- On |une 3, 1997, a Resouton was ssued by Atty. |ovto Coress,
|r., the graft nvestgator of the Offce of the Ombudsman-
Mndanao, and approved by Ombudsman Anano Deserto. It
dsmssed both compants upon fndng nsuffcent evdence to
hod Dr. Daeon abe for the admnstratve charges as we as
fndng no prma face voaton for the crmna compant.
Pettoner moved for reconsderaton and was dened for ack of
mert. Hence, the case was brought before the Supreme Court.
I((%E
WON pubc respondents commtted grave abuse of dscreton
amountng to ack of |ursdcton (n exoneratng Dr. Daeon from
admnstratve as we as crmna abty arsng from hs gvng
passng grades to Aguo, Tecson, and Aaba wthout requrng them
to attend casses).
3ELD
- Absent a showng of ack or excess of |ursdcton or grave abuse
of dscreton amountng to ack of |ursdcton, the Courts power of
|udca revew under Rue 65 of the Rues of Court may not be
nvoked.
easonin;
1. From the records, there s no vad ground nor cogent
reason to hod respondent Offce of grave abuse of dscreton
because the concusons n ts assaed Resouton are based on
substanta evdence easy verfabe. We estabshed s the
prncpe that factua fndngs of admnstratve agences are
generay accorded respect and even fnaty by ths Court,
provded such fndngs are supported by substanta evdence.
2. Pubc respondent anchored hs decson on Art. 140 of the
Unversty Code whch provdes that the rues on attendance of
students sha be enforced n a casses s$/3e%t to the
mo&#f#%at#on /+ the :ean #n the %ase of gra&$ate st$&ents an&
other %o$rses. It s undsputed that Dr. Daeon had aready been
desgnated Offcer-n-Charge (OIC) of the Graduate Schoo by
the Presdent of USP and was even entted to emouments
nherent to the Dean of the Grad. Schoo. Accordngy, as OIC,
performng the functons of the Dean of the Grad. Schoo, Dr.
Daeon had the authorty to modfy the rue on attendance
wthout seekng permsson of pettoner.
3. Dr. Daeons teachng stye had support of the members of
the Board of Regents (BoR), the body wth the authorty to
formuate unversty poces, fuy knowng the pocy on
attendance of students n the graduate schoo. In passng ts
resouton, they not ony vadated the grades gven by Daeon,
they aso gave an mprmatur on the proprety, reguarty and
acceptabty of Dr. Daeons nstructona approach.
4. Dr. Daeons teachng stye, vadated by the USP BoR, s
bostered by the consttutona guarantee on academc freedom.
Academc freedom s two-tered - that of the academc
nsttuton and the teachers. As was hed n M#r#am College *.
C0, "Insttutona freedom ncudes the rght of the schoo or
coege to decde for tsef, ts ams and ob|ectves and the
methods on how best to attan them, free from nterference or
outsde coercon except when overrdng pubc wefare cas for
some restrant. It ncudes the freedom to determne for tsef:
who may teach, what may be taught, ho. #t shall /e ta$ght,
and who may be admtted to study.
5. It was sad n Montema+or *. 0raneta En#*ers#t+ ;o$n&at#on
that, HAcademc freedom aso accords a facuty member the
rght to pursue hs studes n hs partcuar specaty." Apped to
the case at bar, academc freedom cothes Dr. Daeon wth the
wdest attude to nnovate and experment on the method of
teachng whch s most fttng to hs students, sub|ect ony to
the rues and poces of the unversty. Consder that the BoR,
whose task s to ay down schoo rues and poces, has
vadated hs teachng, there can be no reason for pettoner to
compan before the Court smpy because he hods a contrary
opnon on the matter.
0ecision Petton s dsmssed for ack of mert. Resouton of Offce
of the Ombudsman-Mndanao s affrmed.
2otin; Concurred wth by ||s: Beoso, Mendoza, and Corona
G&CI& V LO2OL& #3EOLOGIC&L (C3OOL
FERNANDO; November 28, 1975
'&C#(
- Ths s a mandamus proceedng to compe the Admsson
Commttee of the Loyoa Schoo of Theoogy to aow pettoner to
contnue studyng there.
- Pettoner aeged that she was admtted by respondent n the
Summer of 1975 to pursue graduate studes eadng to an MA n
Theoogy, but was dened re-admsson n the foowng semester.
She contended that the reason gven by respondent for such
dena, namey: that "her frequent questons and dffcutes were
not aways pertnent and had the effect of sowng down the
progress of the cass," s not vad ground for expuson
- Respondent, on the other hand, contended that pettoner was
admtted, not to a degree program but merey to take some
courses for credt, snce admsson to a degree requres acceptance
by the Assstant Dean of the Graduate Schoo of Ateneo de Mana
Unversty (as opposed to, the Loyoa Schoo of Theoogy), and no
such acceptance was gven.
- Further, that respondent, beng an "nsttute of hgher earnng"
has the "academc freedom" to dscreton whether to admt or
contnue admttng any partcuar student consderng not ony
academc or nteectua standards but aso other factors.
- Fnay that there s no "cear duty" to admt pettoner snce the
Schoo of Theoogy s a semnary for the presthood and pettoner
s admttedy and obvousy not studyng for the presthood, she
beng a ay person and a woman.
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON a mandamus proceedng s proper n the case at bar
S$/stant#*e
2. WON respondent s deemed possessed of a rght to contnued
admsson to the Loyoa Schoo of Theoogy.
3. WON her expuson was based on reasonabe grounds (therefore,
not arbtrary).
3ELD
1. Mandamus sha not e absent a showng that there s a cear
ega rght on her part and a cear duty on respondent's part to so
admt her.
- What a student possesses s a prvege rather than a rght. She
cannot therefore satsfy the prme an ndspensabe requste of a
mandamus proceedng.
2. Autonomy recognzed by the Consttuton: "A nsttutons of
hgher earnng sha en|oy academc freedom."
- Athough "academc freedom" s more often dentfed wth the
rght of a facuty member to pubsh hs fndngs and thoughts
wthout fear of retrbuton, the reference gven by the consttuton
of "nsttutons of hgher earnng," show that the schoo or coege
tsef s possessed of such a rght.
- |. Frankfurter: "four essenta freedoms" - determne for tsef who
may teach, what may taught, how, and who may be admtted to
study
- Unverstes, unke pubc utttes, have dscreton as to whom to
admt or re|ect.
3. Dened not ony on genera prncpe, but aso n vew of the
character of the partcuar educatona nsttuton nvoved. It s a
semnary for the presthood. Therefore, at most, she can ay cam
to a prvege, no duty beng cast on respondent schoo.
- Decson for her expuson was deemed best consderng the
nterest of the schoo as we as of the other students and her own
wefare. There was nothng arbtrary n such apprasa of the
crcumstances deemed reevant.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
#EE3&!)EE D0on0urE
- Same ponts as Ponenca, pus:
- A petton w be dsmssed where pettoner has admttedy faed
to exhaust her admnstratve remedes.
- Ouestons of admsson to the schoo are matters of technca and
academc |udgment that the courts w not ordnary nterfere wth.
Ony after exhauston of admnstratve remedes and when there s
marked arbtrarness, w the courts nterfere wth the academc
|udgment of the schoo facuty.

"&)&(I& D+issentE
- 1935 Consttuton: "Unverstes estabshed by the State sha
en|oy academc freedom." VS. 1973 Consttuton whch broadened
the scope nto "A nsttutons of hgher earnng." Thus
guaranteed, t s not mted to the members of the facuty nor to
admnstratve authortes of the educatona nsttuton. It must
aso be deemed granted n favor of the student body because a
three consttute the educatona nsttuton, wthout any one of
whch the educatona nsttuton can nether exst nor operate.
- An ndvdua has a natura and nherent rght to earn and deveop
hs facutes. The Consttuton provdes for ths n varous
provsons. The happness and fu deveopment of the curous
nteect of the student are protected by the narrow guarantee of
academc freedom and more so by the broader rght of free
expresson, whch ncudes free speech and press, and academc
freedom.
- No prvate person has the nherent rght to estabsh and operate
a schoo. Educaton s a soveregn state functon; therefore, not
dfferent n ths respect from commerca pubc uttes, whose
rght to exst and to operate depends upon state authorty.
Consttutona rghts must be respected by the State and by
enterprses authorzed by the state to operate.
E2E( V .O&D O' EGE!#( O' %P
MEDIALDEA; February 25, 1991
'&C#(
< Nature Pettons for certorar and prohbton wth premnary
n|uncton and restranng order to revew the decson of the CA
- Respondent-students (students herenafter) as then appcants to
the Unversty of the Phppnes Coege, of Medcne (UPCM)
obtaned scores hgher than 70 percent n the Natona Medca
Admsson Test (NMAT) whch was the cut-off score prescrbed for
academc year 1986-1987 by the UPCM Facuty n ts meetng of
|anuary 17, 1986 as approved by the Unversty Counc (UC) on
Apr 8,1986.
- However, ther scores were ower than the 90 percente cut-off
score prescrbed by the UPCM Facuty n ts meetng of October 8,
1986 effectve for academc year 1987-88.
- Upon appea of some concerned PreMed students, the Board of
Regents (BOR) n ts 996th resouton dated February 24, 1987
reverted to the NWAT cut-off score of 70 percente. The BOR
reterated ts 996th resouton n ts 997th resouton dated March
24, 1987.
- subsequenty, the Unversty Genera Counse, pursuant to the
nstructon of the Chanceor, conducted an nvestgaton on the
student's case and recommended nter aa the admsson of a
appcants obtanng a percente I ratng rangng from 70 to 90 "as
a matter of rght".
- The Dean of the UPCM and the Facuty &#& not heed the BOR
drectve for them to admt the students. Ths prompted the
students to fe a petton for mandamus wth the RTC. On |une 11,
1987, the tra court ssued a wrt of premnary n|uncton for ther
admsson.
- Students fed wth the RTC a moton to dsmss and attached
thereto ther etter
69
to the UPCM Facuty. In an Order dated |une
15, 1990, the RTC dsmssed ther case wth pre|udce. In vew of
ths deveopment, the UPCM Facuty hed an emergency meetng
on |une 22, 1990 where t dened the appea of the students on the
ground that they were not quafed for admsson to the UPCM. As a
resut, the students fed wth the RTC a moton to reconsder ts
order of dsmssa. On |une 27, 1990, the RTC ssued an order for
the admsson of the students to the coege. Whereupon, the
pettoners moved to ft the ex-parte mandatory order.
- Meanwhe, the BOR n ts 1031st meetng dated |une 28, 1990,
nvokng ts penary power under the Charter of the Unversty over
matters affectng unversty affars, resoved to approve the
admsson of the students n the nterest of |ustce and equty and
to order the pettoners to admt them.
- Consequenty, the UP Presdent ssued a forma charge of Grave
Msconduct aganst them and ater, ssued an Order for ther
Preventve Suspenson. So, heren pettoners appeaed to the CA
but ther appea was dsmssed. Moton for reconsderaton was aso
dened. Hence, ths petton.
I((%E
WON the BOR voated the pettoners academc freedom, and thus
coud vady drect the pettoners to admt the students to the
coege of medcne.
69
Students manfested that they never ntended to queston the Facuty's rght to academc freedom; that they
beeved the ssue was smpy on the queston of observance of the proper procedure n mpementng admsson
requrements; that they fet they no onger have any mora rght to pursue the court acton; that they woud
eave to the Facuty the determnaton of humantaran consderaton of ther case; that they apoogzed for
offendng the Facuty and that they woud ke to appea for a chance to reman n the coege
3ELD
There s no voaton of academc freedom when an order of BOR n
uphodng the admsson requrement approved by the Unversty
Counc (n 1986) s supportve of rght of the Unversty Counc to
fx or approve admsson requrements, aganst the UPCM Facuty
and Dean who changed the admsson requrements approved by
the Unversty Counc wthout foowng the prescrbed rues and
procedures of the Unversty.
easonin; The method depoyed was smpy referrng to the UP
Charter or to the Unversty Code, and then appyng the reevant
provsons or rues to the case at bar. The ponenca cted the case
of 9ar%#a *. "he ;a%$lt+ 0&m#ss#on Comm#ttee
70
, 5o+ola S%hool of
"heolog+, ctng |ustce Frankfurter's concurrng opnon n S.ee6+
*. Ne. 8am)sh#re
71
, though as obter dcta ony, to strengthen the
arguments n support of the rato decdend.
;#rst. Under the UP Charter, the power to fx the requrements for
admsson to any coege of the unversty s vested n the
Unversty Counc (See. 9). The power to prescrbe the courses of
study s vested n the Unversty Counc sub|ect to the approva of
the Board of Regents (Sec. 9). The power to appont the academc
staff, fx ther compensaton, hours of servce and other condtons
s vested n the Board of Regents |Sec. 6(e)|. The power to aocate
the ncome among the dfferent categores of expendtures s
vested n the Board of Regents
Se%on&. Academc freedom
72
may be asserted by the Unversty
Counc or by the Board of Regents or both n so far (sc) as t
reates to the functons vested n them by aw whch are essenta
to nsttutona academc freedom
The academc freedom camed by the facuty to have been
voated by the Board of Regents when t ssued the questoned
order s reated to the rght of the Unversty to fx admsson
<0
The ndvdua facuty member has the freedom to pursue hs studes n hs partcuar specaty and thereafter
to make known or pubsh the resut of hs endeavors wthout fear that retrbuton woud be vsted on hm n the
event that Hs concusons are found dstastefu or ob|ectonabe to the powers that be, whether n the potca,
economc, or academc estabshments
<1
In contrast, the Unversty has the academc freedom to determne for tsef on academc grounds who may
teach, what may be taught, how t sha be taught, and who may be admtted to study
<2
Art. XIV Sec.5 (2) of the 1987 Consttuton sates that Academc freedom sha be en|oyed n a nsttutons of
hgher earnng.
requrements. Ths rght and power to fx admsson requrements s
ceary vested by aw n the Unversty Counc. The Coege Facuty
was merey empowered by the Board of Regents under Artce 324
of the Unversty Code to ntay determne the admsson
requrements, sub|ect to the approva of the Unversty Counc and
the Presdent of the Unversty.
"h#r&. When the Board of Regents retaned the cut off score n the
NMAT at 70th percente (p, 161, Roo) whch was the cut off score
approved by the Unversty Counc on 8 Apr 1986, t dd not
exercse the power to prescrbe the entrance requrements. It
merey uphed the power of the Unversty Counc under the aw to
fx the requrements for admsson to the UPCM and rendered
neffectve the acton of the UPCM Facuty, whch attempted to
exercse that power to ncrease the cut off score n NMAT to 90
percente wthout the approva of the Unversty Counc and the
Presdent of the Unversty n voaton of Secton 324 of the
Unversty Code (supra) whch s very expct on ths matter.|
;o$rth. The BOR ony exercsed ts power of governance and ts
duty n seeng to t that a the unts abde wth the aw, unversty
rues and reguatons.
;#fth. Under the Consttuton, the students have the rght to seect a
professon or course of study sub|ect to a far, reasonabe and
equtabe admsson and academc requrements |Artce XIV,
Secton 5(3)|. Whe t may be the UC coud ratfy the acts of the
Coege regardng admsson requrements, the same shoud be
done wthn a reasonabe tme. It s to be recaed that the
controversy regardng the students' admsson started n 1987. It s
surprsng that despte pettoners' nsstence on the UC's
|ursdcton over admsson requrements, they dd not seek
recourse to t mmedatey. From the records, there appears to be
no physca or ega hndrance to the cang for a UC meetng on
the students' case. To vadate these resoutons at ths pont n
tme woud not be far and equtabe to the students. In the span of
three years, they have proved ther mette by passng the
academc requrements of the coege
/&ere9ore No. There was no voaton of the pettoners
academc freedom by the BOR snce the BOR ony exercsed ts
power of governance and ts duty n seeng to t that a the unts
abde wth the aw, unversty rues and reguatons.
0ecision Pettons DISMISSED and the decsons of the Court of
Appeas AFFIRMED.
2otin; 3 concur, no dssent, 2 took no part.
"O&LE( V %P
CHICO-NAZARIO; December 13, 2004
'&C#(
- Accordng to Art. 410 of the UP Code, students who compete ther
courses wth the foowng mnmum weghted average grade sha
be graduated wth honors:
Summa cum aude - 1.20
Magna cum aude - 1.45
Cum aude - 1.75
- Provded that a the grades n a sub|ects prescrbed n the
currcuum, as we as sub|ects that quafy as eectves, sha be
ncuded n the computaton of the weghted average grade;
provded further that n cases where the eectves taken are more
than those requred n the program, the foowng procedure w be
used n seectng the eectves to be ncuded n the computaton of
the weghted average grade:
1) For students who dd not shft programs, consder
the requred number of eectves n chronoogca order.
2) For students who shfted from one program to
another, the eectves to be consdered sha be seected
accordng to the foowng order of prorty:
a. Eectves taken n the program where the
student s graduatng w be seected n chronoogca
order.
b. Eectves taken n the prevous program
and acceptabe as eectves n the second program w be
seected n chronoogca order.
c.Prescrbed courses taken n the prevous program, but
quafy as eectves n the second program w be seected
n chronoogca order.
- Nadne Moraes transferred from UP Mana (ma|ored n Speech
Pathoogy) to UP Dman and enroed n the European Languages
undergraduate program n SY 1997-98. She was enroed under the
Pan A currcuum and chose French as her ma|or and German as
her mnor.
- Under Pan A, a student has to compete 141 unts wth 27 beng
eectves.
- 1
st
semester of AY 1997-98 - Moraes enroed n German 10 and
German 11 where she obtaned a grade of 1.0 n both sub|ects.
- 2
nd
semester of AY 1997-98 - Moraes changed mnor to Spansh
but mantaned French as her ma|or.
- End of 1
st
semester of SY 1990-2000 - Moraes ncuded n st of
canddates for graduaton wth probabe honors based on the
computaton made by the Coege of Arts and Letters of Moraes
GWA ncusve of her grades of 1.0 n German 10 and 11. Her GWA
then was 1.725.
- 2
nd
semester of SY 1999-2000 - Moraes GWA was 1.729 after
obtanng an average of 1.708 n her fna semester n UP, makng
her egbe for cum aude honors.
- Durng the assessment for graduaton, she was not granted cum
aude honors because her grades n German 10 and 11 were
excuded n the computaton, brngng her GWA to 1.760.
- Accordng to Prof. Bautsta of the Dept. of European Languages, a
Pan A student s requred to ma|or n a European anguage other
than Spansh and mnor n any other dscpne aowed n the
currcuum.
o In Moraes case, her ma|or s French and her mnor s
Spansh so German does not ft nto her currcuum.
o Pan A currcuum aso does not aow for free
eectves.
Eectves must be ma|or anguage eectves
taken from French courses n ether terature or transaton.
German 10 and 11 are basc anguage
courses and do not fa under eectves as contempated n
the Pan A currcuum.
- Moraes requested that her German 10 and 11 grades be ncuded
n the computaton of her GWA.
o Her etter was taken up on a no-name bass durng
the Unversty Counc meetng upon the endorsement of the
Regstrar. By a vote of 207-4, the Counc affrmed the
decson of the CAL n not awardng honors to Moraes.
o Issue was then eevated by Moraes to the UP Board
of Regents and t was resoved that the appea be returned to
the Unversty Counc for further consderaton wth fu
dscosure of pettoners dentty.
o By a vote of 99 n favor-12 aganst-6 abstanng, the
Counc dened the award of cum aude honors to Moraes.
o A subsequent appea was made to the Board of
Regents. Ths appea was dened 9-2.
- Moraes fed a petton for certorar and mandamus before the
RTC and assaed the decson of the UP Board of Regents as
erroneous. The RTC rued n her favor by sayng that the UP Board
of Regents greaty abused ts dscreton n the mproper appcaton
of ts academc dscreton n nterpretng Art. 410 of the UP Code.
The RTC ordered that UP recomputed Moraes grades by ncudng
German 10 and 11 and confer upon her cum aude honors.
- In the Court of Appeas:
o In resovng the ssue, the CA ntay determned
whether ony questons of aw were nvoved and eventuay
decded that an anayss of the facts of the cases was
ndspensabe.
o The CA rued that the ower court voated UPs
consttutonay protected rght to academc freedom when t
substtuted ts own nterpretaton of the nterna rues and
reguatons of the Unversty for that of the UP Board of
Regents and apped the same to the case at bar.
I((%E(
1. WON the CA had no |ursdcton over the appea of the RTC Order
because the essenta facts were never n dspute, the case
nvovng ony questons of aw
2. WON the RTCs nterpretaton of Art. 410 of the UP Code voated
the academc freedom granted to UP as an nsttuton of hgher
earnng
3ELD
1. Yes, the appea rases questons of aw.
- A queston of aw arses when the ssue does not ca for an
examnaton of the probatve vaue of evdence presented, the
truth or fasehood of facts beng admtted and the doubt concerns
the correct appcaton of aw and |ursprudence on the matter.
There s a queston of fact when the doubt or controversy arses as
to the truth or fasty of the aeged facts. When there s no dspute
as to fact, the queston of whether or not the concuson drawn
therefrom s correct s a queston of aw.
- Both partes admtted to the facts. Any concuson based on these
facts woud not nvove a cabraton of the probatve vaue of such
peces of evdence, but woud be mted to an nqury of whether
the aw was propery apped gven the state of facts of the case.
Snce the appea rases ony questons of aw, the proper mode of
appea s through a certorar. The CA dd not have the |ursdcton
to take cognzance of the appea.
2. Yes, the RTC voated the academc freedom granted to UP.
atio decidendi: 5nless t&ere is a clear s&o:in; o9 arbitrar(
and capricious e)ercise o9 'ud;ment, courts ma( not
inter9ere :it& t&e 5niversit(Es e)clusive ri;&t to decide 9or
itsel9 its aims and ob'ectives and &o: best to attain t&em
6in t&is case, to :&om amon; its ;raduates it s&all con9er
academic reco;nition based on its establis&ed standards7.
- In Unversty of San Caros v. Court of Appeas, t was sad that the
dscreton of schoos of earnng to formuate the rues and
gudenes n the grantng of honors for purposes of graduaton
forms part of the academc freedom. Such dscreton may not be
dsturbed much ess controed by the courts uness there s a grave
abuse of dscreton n ts exercse.
- Grave abuse of dscreton nvoves caprcous and whmsca
exercse of |udgment as s equvaent to ack of |ursdcton. The
power shoud be exercsed n an arbtrary or despotc manner by
reason of passon or persona hostty and t must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evason of postve duty or a vrtua
refusa to perform the duty en|oned or to act at a n
contempaton of aw.
- UP proceeded fary n evauatng the stuaton of Moraes and
gave her and her parents ampe opportunty to present ther sde
on dfferent occasons. There s no showng of caprcousness or
arbtrarness.
o Deberatons were done n the Unversty Counc.
A member asked whether German 10 and 11 coud be
counted as eectves for Moraes and the Regstrar
responded the student was enroed n Foregn Languages
wth a ma|or n French and a mnor n Spansh and German
10 and 11 are not requred n the checkst. These can
nether be consdered as eectves because eectves shoud
be non-anguage eectves. German 10 and 11 are excess
sub|ects.
Even f Moraes competed a the requred sub|ects under
the currcuum so that German 10 and 11 shoud be
ncuded, the Dean of the CAL sad that the same rue had
apped n the past to prevous students. Appyng the rues
to Moraes woud be unfar to the other students.
o Snce the rue provdes for an order of prorty n the
eectves, there s an mpcaton that not a eectves may be
ncuded n the GWA.
o The Advsng Commttee aows students to change
ther ma|ors and mnors but these shfts are not counted as
part of the course wth credt n the currcuum.
- The word "program" n Art. 410 must be nterpreted n the
context of a partcuar currcuum. In computng the GWA, the
grades of sub|ects prescrbed n the currcuum and the grades of
sub|ects that quafy as eectves n the currcuum are ncuded.
- The nterpretaton of the requred sub|ects or aowabe eectves
n the currcuum shoud be taken n the context of the entre
courses. Moraes decson to shft caused the excuson of her
grades n German 10 and 11. Besdes, German 10 and 11 were
excess sub|ects, her tota unts taken up n the Unversty beng
147, nstead of the requred 141.
- We-setted s the prncpe that by reason of the speca
knowedge and expertse of admnstratve agences over matters
fang under ther |ursdcton, they are n a better poston to pass
|udgment thereon; thus ther fndngs of fact n that regard are
generay accorded respect, f not fnaty, by the Courts.
Art. 14, Sec. 4 of the Consttuton proves that academc freedom
sha be en|oyed n a nsttuton
GOVE!"E!#
DE $%E &!D DE '&C#O GOVE!"E!#(
Co )im C*am v. Val+e, #an )e* (194!
Co Km Cham has a cv case n CFI Mana nsttuted under the
Repubc of the Phppnes durng the perod of |apanese
occupaton. |udge Dzon aeges that the case shoudnt be
contnued because:
3. The PEC and RP under |apanese mtary
occupaton were not de facto governments.
4. McArthurs procamaton nvadated a
|udca proceedngs and |udgments of Phppne Courts under
the PEC and the RP.
3. Lower courts have no |ursdcton to contnue pendng |udca
proceedngs wth the absence of an enabng aw to grant such
authorty.
A wrt of mandamus was ssued to the |udge orderng hm to take
cognzance and render fna |udgment of the case. "he f#rst #ss$e
nvoved was whether or not the PEC and the RP were de facto
governments. And the SC hed that they were by expoundng on
the dfferent knds of de facto governments (whch are sted beow)
and pontng out that a acts and proceedngs of the PEC/RP (whch
was cassfed as a de facto government of the second form) are
good and vad.
4. Government that USURPS by FORCE or BY
THE VOICE OF THE MA|ORITY the rghtfu ega government.
5. Government of PARAMOUNT FORCE.
6. Government estabshed by the natve
nhabtants who rse n INSURRECTION aganst the parent state.
The se%on& #ss$e revoved around McArthurs procamaton. It dd
not have the effect of nvadatng and nufyng a |udca
proceedngs and |udgments of Phppne Courts under the PEC and
the RP by vrtue of the prncpe of POSTLIMINY n nternatona aw.
Postmnum s a prncpe n nternatona aw whch
consders vad, except n a very few cases, the acts done
by an nvader, whch for one reason or another t s wthn
hs competence to do so, notwthstandng the fact that the
terrtory whch has been occuped by hm comes agan n
the power of ts egtmate government or soveregnty.
The last #ss$e was the queston of whether or not an enabng aw
was requred. It snt. Conquest or coonzaton s mpotent to
amend aws. Laws reman unchanged unt the new soveregn by a
egsatve act creates such change.
In e- (aturnino .ermu+e,
(19'6!
A awyer questons Artce 18 of proposed 1986 Consttuton
regardng who the provson refers to when t says Presdent and
Vce Presdent. The court dsmsses t outrght for ack of |ursdcton
and a cause of acton.
Pettoner's aegaton of ambguty or vagueness of the
aforequoted provson s manfesty gratutous, t beng a
matter of pubc record and common pubc knowedge that
the Consttutona Commsson refers theren to ncumbent
Presdent Corazon C. Aquno and Vce-Presdent Savador H.
Laure, and to no other persons
Pettoners have no personaty to sue and ther pettons
state no cause of acton. For the egtmacy of the Aquno
government s not a |ustcabe matter. It beongs to the
ream of potcs where ony the peope of the Phppnes are
the |udge. And the peope have made the |udgment; they
have accepted the government of Presdent Corazon C.
Aquno whch s n effectve contro of the entre country so
that t s not merey a de facto government but n fact and
aw a de |ure government. Moreover, the communty of
natons has recognzed the egtmacy of the present
government. A the eeven members of ths Court, as
reorganzed, have sworn to uphod the fundamenta aw of
the Repubc under her government.
In re- Letter o/ &sso0iate $usti0e e1nate Puno
Ths s an admnstratve matter n the SC. Puno was eevated n the
senorty rankngs of the CA from no. 12 to no. 5. Ths, however,
caused |aveana and Campos to fe a moton for reconsderaton.
Puno countered by sayng that Aquno had pedged that "no rght
provded under the 1973 Consttuton sha be absent from the
Freedom Consttuton" and thus by vrtue of Secton 2 E.O. 33, Puno
can cam senorty. Ths was debunked by the SC on the ground
that a revouton changes everythng because t went n defance of
the then exstng 1973 Consttuton. The core ssue at hand was
precsey WON the exstng ega order was overthrown by the
revoutonary government. It was. The tte resstance met by the
new government, contro of the state, appontment of key offcers
n the admnstraton, departure of offcas of the prevous regme,
and the revamp of the mtary and |udcary sgnaed the pont
where the ega system had ceased to be obeyed by the Fpno
peope.
Estra+a v. Desierto
(2001!
Erap aeges that he s st the Presdent, abet on-eave, where as
Arroyo merey cams to be Presdent. He sought to en|on the
respondent Ombudsman from conductng any crmna compants
aganst hs offce unt after the term of hs presdency was over
and ony f egay warranted. The f#rst #ss$e rased by the
respondents s that the case s a potca queston and therefore
outsde the |ursdcton of the SC. To determne whether or not the
queston s potca, the court ooks to the most authortatve
gudene n determnng such ssues: |ustce Brennans words n the
1962 case of Baker v. Carr. The Phppnes eadng case s Tanada
v. Cuenco, where ths Court, through former Chef |ustce Roberto
Concepcon, hed that potca questons refer:
"to those questons whch, under the Consttuton, are to be
decded by the peope n ther soveregn capacty, or n
regard to whch fu dscretonary authorty has been
deegated to the egsatve or executve branch of the
government. It s concerned wth ssues dependent upon
the wsdom, not egaty of a partcuar measure."
The court hed that the Arroyo government was not a revoutonary
government as compared to ts Aquno counterpart. EDSA I
nvoved extra-consttutona exercse of peope power revouton
(and s thus a potca queston and not sub|ect to |udca revew)
whereas EDSA II provoked the resgnaton of the sttng presdent
whch resuted n the successon of the vce presdent (whch s
ntra-consttutona and thus |ustcabe). EDSA I overthrew the
whoe government. EDSA II sought to petton the government for
redress of grevances whch ony affected the offce of the
Presdent.
CO!(#I#%E!# &!D "I!I(#&!# '%!C#IO!(
&CC'& v. C%GCO
ACCFA s beng sued by CUGCO because of aeged voatons of a
coectve barganng agreement, dscrmnaton aganst members,
and refusa to bargan. The CIR favored the companants but
ACCFA pettoned to the SC questonng WON the CIR has
|ursdcton over the case dependng on WON ACCFA exercsed
governmenta or propretary functons. The court rued that the
mpementaton of the and reform program of the government
accordng to Repubc Act No. 3844 s most certany a
governmenta, not a propretary, functon. The CIR has no
|ursdcton but nevertheess the coectve barganng agreements
must be enforced.
The ACA s a government offce or agency engaged n
governmenta, not propretary functons. These functons
may not be strcty what Presdent Wson descrbed as
"consttuent" (as dstngushed from "mnstrant"),4 such as
those reatng to the mantenance of peace and the
preventon of crme, those reguatng property and property
rghts, those reatng to the admnstraton of |ustce and the
determnaton of potca dutes of ctzens, and those
reatng to natona defense and foregn reatons. Under ths
tradtona cassfcaton, such consttuent functons are
exercsed by the State as attrbutes of soveregnty, and not
merey to promote the wefare, progress and prosperty of
the peope - these etter functons beng mnstrant he
exercse of whch s optona on the part of the government.
The growng compextes of modern socety, however, have
rendered ths tradtona cassfcaton of the functons of
government qute unreastc, not to say obsoete. The areas
whch used to be eft to prvate enterprse and ntatve and
whch the government was caed upon to enter optonay,
and ony "because t was better equpped to admnster for
the pubc wefare than s any prvate ndvdua or group of
ndvduas,"5 contnue to ose ther we-defned boundares
and to be absorbed wthn actvtes that the government
must undertake n ts soveregn capacty f t s to meet the
ncreasng soca chaenges of the tmes. Here as amost
everywhere ese the tendency s undoubtedy towards a
greater socazaton of economc forces. Here of course ths
deveopment was envsoned, ndeed adopted as a natona
pocy, by the Consttuton tsef n ts decaraton of prncpe
concernng the promoton of soca |ustce.
P&E!( P&#I&E
Gov. o/ P*il. Islan+s v. "onte +e Pie+a+
(1916!
Contrbutons were coected durng the Spansh Regme for the
reef of the vctms of an earthquake. Part of the money was never
dstrbuted and was nstead deposted wth the defendant bank. In
an acton for ts recovery ater fed by the government, the
defendant questoned the competence of the pantff (PI
government), contendng that the sut coud be nsttuted ony by
the ntended benefcares themseves or by the hers of the
vctms. The ssue of concern here s WON the PI has the rght to fe
a case n behaf of ts ctzens. It does n ts capacty as the
guardan or )arens )atr#ae of the peope.
(OVEEIG!#2
Co )im C*an v. Val+e, #an )e* (194!
There was no change of soveregnty durng the perod of |apanese
occupaton. Possess#on of so*ere#gnt+ remaned wth the Amercans
whe the e,er%#se of the a%ts of so*ere#gnt+ beonged to the
begerent nvaders.
"a0ariola v. &sun0ion
(1992!
In a cv case of the CFI Leyte, |udge Asuncon rued a partton of
ots of one deceased Francsco Reyes among Macaroa (soe chd
of Francscos frst wfe) and the chdren from hs second marrage.
A year ater, the |udge bought one of the ots he setted from a
certan Gaapon. Macaroa charges Asuncon wth a compant of
commttng "acts unbecomng a |udge." The man ssues are
twofod: the frst s WON he voated Artce 1491 (5) of the CC; and
second s WON he voated Artce 14 (1) & (5) of the Code of
Commerce.
The prohbton of the artce n the frst ssue has aready been
decded n recent cases by reasonng of: ". . . for the prohbton to
operate, the sae or assgnment of the property must take pace
durng the pendency of the tgaton nvovng the property"
73
Thus,
no voaton of sad provson took pace. As for the second
regardng the voaton of the Code of Commerce provson:
Potca Law has been defned as that branch of pubc aw
whch deas wth the organzaton and operaton of the
governmenta organs of the State and defne the reatons of
the state wth the nhabtants of ts terrtory (Peope vs.
Perfecto). It may be recaed that potca aw embraces
consttutona aw, aw of pubc corporatons, admnstratve
aw ncudng the aw on pubc offcers and eectons.
Specfcay, Artce 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes
73
The Drector of Lands vs. Ababa, et a., |1979|; Rosaro vda. de Lag vs. Court of
Appeas, |1978|
more of the nature of an admnstratve aw because t
reguates the conduct of certan pubc offcers and
empoyees wth respect to engagng n busness; hence,
potca n essence.
Upon the transfer of soveregnty from Span to the Unted
States and ater on from the Unted States to the Repubc of
the Phppnes, Artce 14 of the Spansh Code of Commerce
must be deemed to have been abrogated because where
there s change of soveregnty, the potca aws of the
former soveregn, whether compatbe or not wth those of
the new soveregn, are automatcay abrogated, uness they
are expressy re-enacted by affrmatve act of the new
soveregn.
Thus, We hed n Roa vs. Coector of Customs that:
"'By we-setted pubc aw, upon the cesson of terrtory by
one naton to another, ether foowng a conquest or
otherwse, . . . those aws whch are potca n ther nature
and pertan to the prerogatves of the former government
mmedatey cease upon the transfer of soveregnty.'
74

"Whe muncpa aws of the newy acqured terrtory not n
confct wth the aws of the new soveregn contnue n force
wthout the express assent or affrmatve act of the
conqueror, the potca aws do not.
75
74
Opnon, Atty. Gen., |uy 10, 1899
<5
Haeck's Int. Law, chap. 34, par. 14
Lkewse, n Peope vs. Perfecto, ths Court stated that: "It s
a genera prncpe of the pubc aw that on acquston of
terrtory the prevous potca reatons of the ceded regon
are totay abrogated."
There appears no enabng or affrmatve act that contnued
the effectvty of the aforestated provson of the Code of
Commerce after the change of soveregnty from Span to
the Unted States and then to the Repubc of the
Phppnes. Consequenty, Artce 14 of the Code of
Commerce has no ega and bndng effect and cannot appy
to the respondent, then |udge of the Court of Frst Instance,
now Assocate |ustce of the Court of Appeas.
u//1 v. C*ie/ o/ (ta//
(1946!
Ruffy, a provnca commander of the Phppne Constabuary,
nstead of surrenderng to the |apanese forces, dsbanded hs
company, retreated to the mountans and ed a guera unt. Leut.
Co. |urado, recognzed by the Unted States Armed Forces, was
sent to repace Ruffy but was san by the atter and hs
companons. The same peope who ked the repacng offcer cam
that they were not sub|ect to mtary aw at the tme when the
offense was commtted. -$t the r$le s$s)en&#ng )ol#t#%al la.s onl+
affe%ts the %#*#l#an #nha/#tants of the o%%$)#e& terr#tor+ an& #s not
#nten&e& to /#n& the enem#es #n arms. Thus, members of the armed
forces contnued to be covered by the Natona Defense Act, the
Artces of War, and other aws reatng to the armed forces even
durng the |apanese occupaton. By the acceptance of the
pettoners appontments as offcers n the Phppne Army they
became amenabe to the Artces of War.
Peralta v. Dire0tor o/ Prisons
(194!
Pettoner, a member of the Metropotan Constabuary, was
prosecuted for the crme of robbery as defned by the Natona
Assemby of the so-caed Repubc of the Phppnes. He was found
guty and sentenced to serve tme by the Court of Speca and
Excusve Crmna |ursdcton created n sec. 1 of Ordnance no. 7
promugated by the Presdent of the Repubc. The petton for
habeas corpus s based on the ground that the Courts exstence
was vod ab nto because t was created as a potca
nstrumentaty under the command of the |apanese Impera Army;
that the provsons of sad ordnance voate hs consttutona
rghts; that the penates provded for are much more severe than
the RPC. SoGen s of the opnon that the petton shoud be
granted because the Ordnance mentoned n creatng sad court s
"tnged wth potca compexon", that the procedure does not
afford a far tra and voates consttutona rght of accused
persons under a egtmate Consttuton. The court s of the opnon
that:
0s to the *al#&#t+ of the %reat#on of the Co$rt of S)e%#al an&
E,%l$s#*e Cr#m#nal 1$r#s&#%t#on /+ 2r&#nan%e No. 7, the ony
factor to be consdered s the authorty of the egsatve
power whch promugated sad aw or ordnance. It s we
estabshed n Internatona Law that "The crmna
|ursdcton estabshed by the nvader n the occuped
terrtory fnds ts source nether n the aws of the
conquerng or conquered state, - t s drawn entrey from
the aw marta as defned n the usages of natons. The
authorty thus derved can be asserted ether through
speca trbunas, whose authorty and procedure s defned
n the mtary code of the conquerng state, or through the
ordnary courts and authortes of the occuped dstrct."
(Tayor, Internatona Pubc Law, p. 598.)
The so-caed Repubc of the Phppnes, beng a
governmenta nstrumentaty of the begerent occupant,
had therefore the power or was competent to create the
Court of Speca and Excusve Crmna |ursdcton. No
queston may arse as to whether or not a court s of a
potca compexon, for t s mere governmenta agency
charged wth the duty of appyng the aw to cases fang
wthn ts |ursdcton. Its |udgments and sentences may be
of a potca compexon or not dependng upon the nature
or character of the aw so apped. There s no room for
doubt, therefore, as to the vadty of the creaton of the
court n queston.
"he *al#&#t+ of the senten%e rendered by the Court of
Speca and Excusve Crmna |ursdcton whch mposes
fe mprsonment upon the heren pettoner, depends upon
the competence or power of the begerent occupant to
promugate Act No. 65 whch punshes the crme of whch
sad pettoner was convcted.
It appears cear that t was wthn the power and
competence of the begerent occupant to promugate,
through the Natona Assemby of the so-caed Repubc of
the Phppnes, Act No. 65 of the sad Assemby, whch
penazes the crmes of robbery and other offenses by
mprsonment rangng from the maxmum perod of the
mprsonment prescrbed by the aws and ordnances
promugated by the Presdent of the so-caed Repubc as
mnmum, to fe mprsonment or death as maxmum.
Athough these crmes are defned n the Revsed Pena
Code, they were atered and penazed by sad Act No. 65
wth dfferent and heaver penates, as new crmes and
offenses demanded by mtary necessty, ncdent to a state
of war, and necessary for the contro of the country by the
begerent occupant, the protecton and safety of the army
of occupaton, ts support and effcency, and the success of
ts operatons.
The ast queston s the ega effect of the reoccupaton of
the Phppnes and restoraton of the Commonweath
Government; that s, whether or not, by the prncpe of
postmny, the )$n#t#*e senten%e .h#%h )et#t#oner #s no.
ser*#ng fell thro$gh or %ease& to /e *al#& from that t#me.
We have aready hed n our recent decson n the case of
Co Km Cham vs. Vadez Tan Keh and Dzon, supra, that a
|udgment of potca compexon of the courts durng the
|apanese regme, ceased to be vad upon reoccupaton of
the sands by vrtue of the prncpe or rght of postmnum.
Appyng that doctrne to the present case, the sentence
whch convcted the pettoner of a crme of a potca
compexon must be consdered as havng ceased to be
vad pso facto upon the reoccupaton or beraton of the
Phppnes by Genera Dougas MacArthur.
&l0antara v. Dire0tor o/ Prisons
Pettoner was convcted of the crme of ega dscharge of
frearms. The CA modfed the sentence from arresto mayor to
prson correccona. Pettoner questons the vadty of the CA on
the soe ground that the court was a creaton of the so-caed
Repubc of the Phppnes durng the |apanese mtary occupaton.
In Co Km Cham v. Vadez Tan Keh and Dzon, the court rued that
the RP and the PEC were governments de facto and that |udca
acts were good and vad and remaned good and vad after the
restoraton of the Commonweath Government. The CA that
exstng durng |apanese occupaton was the CA after the
restoraton. And even f the CA was a new court, ts |udgments
woud st reman good and vad provded that they do not have a
potca compexon.
A puntve or pena sentence s sad to be of a potca
compexon when t penazes ether a new act not defned n
the muncpa aws, or acts aready penazed by the atter
as a crme aganst the egtmate government, but taken out
of the terrtora aw and penazed as new offenses
commtted aganst the begerent occupant, ncdent to a
state of war and necessary for the contro of the occuped
terrtory and the protecton of the army of the occuper.
They are acts penazed for pubc rather than prvate
reasons, acts whch tend, drecty or ndrecty, to ad or
favor the enemy and are drected aganst the wefare, safety
and securty of the begerent occupant. As exampes, the
crmes aganst natona securty, such as treason,
esponage, etc., and aganst pubc order, such as rebeon,
sedton, etc., were crmes aganst the Commonweath or
Unted States Government under the Revsed Pena Code,
whch were made crmes aganst the begerent occupant.
(#&#E I""%!I#2
C3&&C#EI4&#IO! O' (%I#
.egosa v. C*airman5 P*il. Vet. &sso0.
(1970!
A veteran, Begosa, sufferng from permanent dsabty was beng
dened what has been granted hm specfcay by egsatve
enactment (whch certany s superor to any reguaton that may
be promugated by the Phppne Veterans Admnstraton).
Athough the respondent reented, the amount reeased was far
ess than what the veteran was egay entted to. He appeaed.
The doctrne of state mmunty cannot be nvoked by the PVA.
Where tgaton may have adverse consequences on the pubc
treasury, whether n the dsbursements of funds or oss of property,
the pubc offca beng tred cannot be hed abe by vrtue of state
mmunty. However, where the sut aganst such a government
offca had to be nsttuted because of hs faure to compy wth the
duty mposed by statute appropratng funds for the beneft of the
pantff, then the doctrne of state mmunty cannot be apped.
epu6li0 v. 'eli0iano
(19'7!
Fecano aegedy owns a parce of and through hs possesson of
nformacon possesora. But ths same and, by vrtue of
Procamaton No. 90 of Presdent Ramon Magsaysay, became
reserved for settement purposes. Fecano seeks to prove that hs
ownershp of the and as evdenced by hs nformacon s vad and
makes a cam to recover sad property. However, the court rued
that the state dd not gve ts consent to be sued and thus mmune
from the compant. Athough the procamaton stated that t sha
be "sub|ect to prvate rghts f any there be", ths cannot be
construed as an express waver of mmunty.
Waver of mmunty, beng a derogaton of soveregnty, w
not be nferred ghty, but must be construed n str#%t#ss#m#
3$r#s
76
. Moreover, the Procamaton s not a egsatve act.
The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from
statutory authorty. Waver of State mmunty can ony be
made by an act of the egsatve body.
&#IO!&LE 'O I""%!I#2
(an+ers v. Veri+iano
(19''!
<6
STRICTISSIMI |URIS. The most strct rght or aw. In genera, when a person
receves an advantage, as the grant of a cense, he s bound to conform receves an
advantage, as the grant of a cense, he s bound to conform strcty to the exercse
of the rghts gven hm by t, and n case of a strcty to the exercse of the rghts
gven hm by t, and n case of a dspute, t w be strcty construed.
Ross and Wyer, gameroom attendards, are sung Sanders and
Moreau (superors of the attendants) for beous mputatons
commtted by the atter whch eventuay cost them ther |obs.
However, the court rued that the auded acts were offca and not
persona and that the acts pettoners are caed to account were
performed n the dscharge of ther offca dutes.
Gven the offca character of the above-descrbed etters, we have
to concude that the pettoners were, egay speakng, beng sued
as offcers of the Unted States government. As they have acted on
behaf of that government, and wthn the scope of ther authorty,
t s that government, and not the pettoners personay, that s
responsbe for ther acts.
The doctrne of state mmunty s appcabe not ony to our own
government but aso to foregn states who are sub|ect to the
|ursdcton of our courts.
The practca |ustfcaton for the doctrne, as Homes put t,
s that "there can be no ega rght aganst the authorty
whch makes the aw on whch the rght depends." In the
case of foregn states, the rue s derved from the prncpe
of the soveregn equaty of states whch wsey admonshes
that )ar #n )arem non ha/et #m)er#$m
77
and that a contrary
atttude woud "unduy vex the peace of natons." Our
adherence to ths precept s formay expressed n Artce II,
Secton 2, of our Consttuton, where we reterate from our
prevous charters that the Phppnes "adopts the generay
<<
A states are soveregn equas and cannot assert |ursdcton over one another.
accepted prncpes of nternatona aw as part of the aw of
the and."
The acts of pettoners are protected by the presumpton of
good fath, whch has not been overturned by the prvate
respondents. Mstakes concededy commtted by such pubc
offcers are not actonabe as ong as t s not shown that
they were motvated by mace or gross neggence
amountng to bad fath. Exceptons to the doctrne of state
mmunty as enumerated n the case are:
Offcer s sued to compe hm to do an act requred by aw
|such as restranng a Cabnet member from enforcng a aw
camed to be unconsttutona|.
When the government voated ts own aws.
When an offcer acted wthout or n excess of authorty n
forcby takng prvate property wthout payng |ust
compensaton thereof, though the property was converted
for the pubc good.
%nite+ (tates v. Guinto
(1990!
Three man cases deang wth the doctrne of state mmunty are
consodated n ths case wth the fourth beng remanded due to a
ack of nformaton.
(1) Respondents fe for a case of canceaton of a barbershop
concessonare. The State heren can be sued because barbershop
concessonares are commerca n nature and the state enterng
nto such a propretary contract mpcty gave ts consent to be
sued.
(2) A cook was found guty of pourng urne n soup and was
subsequenty reeved from duty. He fes a compant aganst the
cub manager who nvokes state mmunty. The State can be sued
snce restaurant operaton s a commerca affar, however, t does
not necessary mean that the state s abe.
(3) Lus Bautsta was caught n a buy-bust operaton; he was then
subsequenty reeved from duty. He now sues wth the compant
of ega dsmssa. The respondent State cannot be sued because t
performed acts wthn ts offca capacty.
There s no queston that the Unted States of Amerca, ke any
other state, w be deemed to have mpedy waved ts non-
suabty f t has entered nto a contract n ts propretary or prvate
capacty. It s ony when the contract nvoves ts soveregn or
governmenta capacty that no such waver may be mped.
Even wthout such affrmaton |n Art. 16, Sec. 3 of 1987
Consttuton|, we woud st be bound by the generay
accepted prncpes of nternatona aw under the doctrne
of ncorporaton. Under ths doctrne, as accepted by the
ma|orty of states, such prncpes are deemed ncorporated
n the aw of every cvzed state as a condton and
consequence of ts membershp n the socety of natons.
Upon ts admsson to such socety, the state s
automatcay obgated to compy wth these prncpes n ts
reatons wth other states.
XXX
The doctrne s sometmes dersvey caed "the roya
prerogatve of dshonesty" because of the prvege t grants
the state to defeat any egtmate cam aganst t by smpy
nvokng ts non-suabty. That s hardy far, at east n
democratc socetes, for the state s not an unfeeng tyrant
unmoved by the vad cams of ts ctzens. In fact, the
doctrne s not absoute and does not say the state may not
be sued under any crcumstance. On the contrary, the rue
says that the state may not be sued wthout ts consent,
whch ceary mports that t may be sued f t consents.
The consent of the state to be sued may be manfested
expressy or mpedy. Express consent may be emboded n
a genera aw or a speca aw. Consent s mped when the
state enters nto a contract or t tsef commences tgaton.
The genera aw wavng the mmunty of the state from sut
s found n Act No. 3083, under whch the Phppne
government "consents and submts to be sued upon any
moneyed cam nvovng abty arsng from contract,
express or mped, whch coud serve as a bass of cv
acton between prvate partes." In Merrtt v. Government of
the Phppne Isands, a speca aw was passed to enabe a
person to sue the government for an aeged tort. When the
government enters nto a contract, t s deemed to have
descended to the eve of the other contractng party and
dvested of ts soveregn mmunty from sut wth ts mped
consent. Waver s aso mped when the government fes a
compant, thus openng tsef to a countercam.
The above rues are sub|ect to quafcaton. Express consent
s effected ony by the w of the egsature through the
medum of a duy enacted statute. 18 We have hed that not
a contracts entered nto by the government w operate as
a waver of ts non-suabty; dstncton must be made
between ts soveregn and propretary acts. As for the fng
of a compant by the government, suabty w resut ony
where the government s camng affrmatve reef from the
defendant.
#*e 3ol1 (ee v. osario
(1994!
The Hoy See, represented by the Papa Nunco, sod certan parces
of and to two buyers. However, because the pettoners were
unabe to evct the squatters, a dspute arose as to who hed the
responsbty of cearng the sad parces of and of squatters.
Respondents fed a compant for the annument of the sae of the
and but the DFA fed a moton to ntervene camng that t had a
ega nterest n the outcome of the case as regards the dpomatc
mmunty of pettoner.
The burden of the petton s that respondent tra court has no
|ursdcton over pettoner, beng a foregn state en|oyng soveregn
mmunty. On the other hand, prvate respondent nssts that the
doctrne of non-suabty s not anymore absoute and that
pettoner has dvested tsef of such a coak when, of ts own free
w, t entered nto a commerca transacton for the sae of a parce
of and ocated n the Phppnes.
Prvate respondents opnon s untenabe. Asde from the prvege
of soveregn mmunty estabshed by the DFA, the Hoy See s
nonetheess mmune from sut because the transacton entered
nto was not for proft or for gan. It merey wanted to dspose off
the same because the squatters vng there made t amost
mpossbe for pettoner to use t for the purpose of the donaton
(constructon of Papa Nuncos resdence). The fact that squatters
have occuped and are st occupyng the ot, and that they
stubborny refuse to eave the premses, has been admtted by
prvate respondent n ts compant.
There are two confctng concepts of soveregn mmunty,
each wdey hed and frmy estabshed. Accordng to the
cassca or absoute theory, a soveregn cannot, wthout ts
consent, be made a respondent n the courts of another
soveregn. Accordng to the newer or restrctve theory, the
mmunty of the soveregn s recognzed ony wth regard to
pubc acts or acts 3$re #m)er## of a state, but not wth regard
to prvate acts or acts 3$re gest#on#s (Unted States of
Amerca v. Ruz)
In the absence of egsaton defnng what actvtes and
transactons sha be consdered "commerca" and as
consttutng acts |ure gestons, we have to come out wth
our own gudenes, tentatve they may be.
Certany, the mere enterng nto a contract by a foregn
state wth a prvate party cannot be the utmate test. Such
an act can ony be the start of the nqury. The ogca
queston s whether the foregn state s engaged n the
actvty n the reguar course of busness. If the foregn state
s not engaged reguary n a busness or trade, the
partcuar act or transacton must then be tested by ts
nature. If the act s n pursut of a soveregn actvty, or an
ncdent thereof, then t s an act |ure mper, especay
when t s not undertaken for gan or proft.
In the case at bench, f pettoner has bought and sod ands
n the ordnary course of a rea estate busness, surey the
sad transacton can be categorzed as an act 3$re gest#on#s.
However, pettoner has &en#e& that the a%4$#s#t#on an&
s$/se4$ent &#s)osal of 5ot -0 .ere ma&e for )rof#t /$t
%la#me& that #t a%4$#re& sa#& )ro)ert+ for the s#te of #ts
m#ss#on or the 0)ostol#% N$n%#at$re #n the Ph#l#))#nes.
Prvate respondent faed to dspute sad cam.
7&IVE O' I""%!I#2
(a1son v. (ingson
(197(!
Sngson fed a money cam aganst the Hghways Audtor Genera
pettonng the atter to be compeed to pay the baance due to
Sngson. Sayson faed to pay the correspondng baance to Sngson
after dscoverng that the equpment beng sod by Sngson was
overprced.
To state the facts s to make cear the sodty of the stand
taken by the Repubc. The ower court was unmndfu of the
fundamenta doctrne of non-suabty. So t was stressed n
the petton of the then Soctor Genera Makasar. Thus: "It
s apparent that respondent Sngson's cause of acton s a
money cam aganst the government, for the payment of
the aeged baance of the cost of spare parts supped by
hm to the Bureau of Pubc Hghways. Assumng
momentary the vadty of such cam, athough as w be
shown hereunder, the cam s vod for the cause or
consderaton s contrary to aw, moras or pubc pocy,
mandamus s not the remedy to enforce the coecton of
such cam aganst the State..., but an ordnary acton for
specfc performance... Actuay, the sut dsgused as one
for mandamus to compe the Audtors to approve the
vouchers for payment, s a sut aganst the State, whch
cannot prosper or be entertaned by the Court except wth
the consent of the State
epu6li0 v. Purisima
(1977!
Yeow Be Freght Lnes brought a sut aganst the Rce and Corn
Admnstraton for an aeged breach of contract. Rce and Corn
moved to dsmss the sut by usng the doctrne of state mmunty.
Respondent |udge dsmssed the moton to dsmss. The SC hed
that the courts do not have |ursdcton to pass upon the merts of
the cams aganst any offce or entty actng as part of the
machnery of the natona government.
Express waver of mmunty cannot be made by a mere counse of
the government but must be effected through a duy-enacted
statute. Nether does such answer come under the mped forms of
consent as earer dscussed.
&miga6le v. Cuen0a
(1972!
The government used a porton of the and owned by Amgabe for
the constructon of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues wthout pror
negotaton/expropraton. Amgabe sues Cuenca n hs capacty as
Commssoner of Pubc Hghways seekng payment for the
approprated and. The court rued n favor of the state by vrtue of
appyng state mmunty. However, the SC set asde the ower
courts decson on the bass that "mmunty from sut cannot serve
as an nstrument for penetratng an n|ustce on a ctzen."
"inisterio v. Cit1 o/ Ce6u
(1971!
Pettoners seek |ust compensaton for a regstered ot aegng that
the government took physca and matera possesson of t and
used t for the wdenng of Gorodo Ave. n Cebu Cty. CFI dsmssed
the case on the ground of mmunty of the state to be sued wthout
ts consent.
The SC hed that: where the government takes away property from
a prvate andowner for pubc use wthout gong through the ega
process of expropraton or negotated sae, the aggreved party
may propery mantan a sut aganst the government wthout
thereby voatng the doctrne of governmenta mmunty from sut
wthout ts consent. The SC there sad:
". . . If the consttutona mandate that the owner be
compensated for property taken for pubc use were to be
respected, as t shoud, then a sut of ths character shoud
not be summary dsmssed. The doctrne of governmenta
mmunty from sut cannot serve as an nstrument for
perpetratng an n|ustce on a ctzen. Had the government
foowed the procedure ndcated by the governng aw at
the tme, a compant woud have been fed by t, and ony
upon payment of the compensaton fxed by the |udgment,
or after tender to the party entted to such payment of the
amount fxed, may t have the rght to enter n and upon the
and so condemned, to approprate the same to the pubc
use defned n the |udgment.' If there were an observance of
procedura reguarty, pettoners woud not be n the sad
pant they are now. It s unthnkabe then that precsey
because there was a faure to abde by what the aw
requres, the government woud stand to beneft. It s |ust as
mportant, f not more so, that there be fdety to ega
norms on the part of offcadom f the rue of aw were to be
mantaned. It s not too much to say that when the
government takes any property for pubc use, whch s
condtoned upon the payment of |ust compensaton, to be
|udcay ascertaned, t makes manfest that t submts to
the |ursdcton of a court. There s no thought then that the
doctrne of mmunty from sut coud st be appropratey
nvoked."
(antiago v. epu6li0
(197'!
Santago fed an acton n the CFI namng as defendant the
Government of the Repubc of the Phppnes represented by the
Drector of the Bureau of Pant Industry (BPI). Hs pea was for the
revocaton of a deed of donaton executed by hm and hs spouse n
1971, wth the BPI as the donee. Pettoner aeges that the donee
faed to compy the terms of the donaton. Pettoner then s ed to
concude that he was exempt from compance wth such an expct
consttutona command, whch prohbts a sut aganst the Repubc
wthout ts consent. "he #ss$e s WON the RP gave ts consent when
t accepted the terms of donaton gven by Santago, thereby
aowng tsef to be sued based on the hgh dctates of equty and
|ustce.
In the case at bar, the Repubc, as donee, gave ts mped
consent to perform the condtons of the donaton. In such a
case as ths, the court hed that the donor, wth the Repubc
as donee, s entted to go to court n case of an aeged
breach of the condtons of such donaton. He (the donor)
has the rght to be heard. Under the crcumstances, the
fundamenta postuate of non-sutabty cannot stand n the
way. The government beng the benefcary manfests ts
adherence to the hghest ethca standards, whch can ony
be gnored at the rsk of osng the confdence of the peope.
Lim v. .rownell
(1960!
Lm s camng ownershp over certan ots of and that were
recamed by the US government and subsequenty, turned over to
the RP. Lm cams these ands orgnay beong to hs deceased
mother but were egay possessed by |apanese troops. The US
was abe to take possesson of sad ands after the war by vrtue of
the Tradng wth the Enemy Act.
The mmunty of the state from sut, however, cannot be
nvoked where the acton, as n the present case, s nsttuted
by a person who s nether an enemy or ay of an enemy for
the purpose of estabshng hs rght, tte or nterest n vested
property, and of recoverng hs ownershp and possesson.
Congressona consent to such sut has expressy been gven
by the Unted States.
%nite+ (tates v. ui,
(19'!
Respondent was abe to wn a bd for a pro|ect for the repar of the
wharves/shorene of the Subc Bay Area. Pettoner asked for a
quotaton but ater on dened the respondent the pro|ect statng
that the respondent was not quafed. The atter fes sut for
awardng the pro|ect to hm and for damages as we.
The restrctve appcaton of State mmunty s proper ony
when the proceedngs arse out of commerca transactons
of the foregn soveregn, ts commerca actvtes or
economc affars. Stated dfferenty, a State may be sad to
have descended to the eve of an ndvdua and can thus be
deemed to have tacty gven ts consent to be sued ony
when t enters nto busness contracts. It does not appy
where the contract reates to the exercse of ts soveregn
functons. In ths case the pro|ects are an ntegra part of the
nava base whch s devoted to the defense of both the
Unted States and the Phppnes, ndsputaby a functon of
the government of the hghest order; they are not utzed
for nor dedcated to commerca or busness purposes.
epu6li0 v. Villasor
(197(!
Respondent |udge Vasor s aeged to have acted n excess of
|ursdcton |or| wth grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack of
|ursdcton n grantng the ssuance of an aas wrt of executon
aganst the propertes of the Armed Forces of the Phppnes, and
thus, the Aas Wrt of Executon and notces of garnshment ssued
pursuant thereto are nu and vod. What was done by respondent
|udge s not n conformty wth the dctates of the Consttuton.
It s a fundamenta postuate of consttutonasm fowng
from the |urstc concept of soveregnty that the state as
we as ts government s mmune from sut uness t gves
ts consent. It s ready understandabe why t must be so. In
the cassc formuaton of Homes: "A soveregn s exempt
from sut, not because of any forma concepton or obsoete
theory, but on the ogca and practca ground that there
can be no ega rght as aganst the authorty that makes the
aw on whch the rght depends."
Socoogca |ursprudence suppes an answer not dssmar.
So t was ndcated n a recent decson, Provdence
Washngton Insurance Co. v. Repubc of the Phppnes,
wth ts affrmaton that "a contnued adherence to the
doctrne of non-suabty s not to be depored for as aganst
the nconvenence that may be caused prvate partes, the
oss of governmenta effcency and the obstace to the
performance of ts mutfarous functons are far greater f
such a fundamenta prncpe were abandoned and the
avaabty of |udca remedy were not thus restrcted. Wth
the we known propensty on the part of our peope to go to
court, at the east provocaton, the oss of tme and energy
requred to defend aganst aw suts, n the absence of such
a basc prncpe that consttutes such an effectve obstace,
coud very we be magned."
|ustce Macom: "A rue, whch has never been serousy
questoned, s that money n the hands of pubc offcers,
athough t may be due government empoyees, s not abe
to the credtors of these empoyees n the process of
garnshment. One reason s, that the State, by vrtue of ts
soveregnty, may not be sued n ts own courts except by
express authorzaton by the Legsature, and to sub|ect ts
offcers to garnshment woud be to permt ndrecty what s
prohbted drecty. Another reason s that moneys sought to
be garnshed, as ong as they reman n the hands of the
dsbursng offcer of the Government, beong to the atter,
athough the defendant n garnshment may be entted to a
specfc porton thereof. And st another reason whch
covers both of the foregong s that every consderaton of
pubc pocy forbds t."
(%I#( &G&I!(# GOVE!"E!# &GE!CIE(
P*il. !ational ailwa1s v. I&C
(199(!
Bawag Bus and an express tran coded resutng to death and
damages. Bawag sues PNR; but PNR rases the defense that t was
the bus drver who was neggent and the doctrne of state
mmunty exempts them from sut. IAC rued n favor of Bawag,
hence ths appea.
Athough PNR s a government formed department, PNR engages n
a purey commerca acton. PNR was created not to dscharge a
governmenta functon but to operate a transport servce whch s
essentay a busness concern. When the government enters n a
commerca busness, t abandons ts soveregn capacty and s to
be treated ke any other prvate corporaton.
!ational Irrigation &+ministration v. 'ontanilla
(1991!
The NIA group was on ts way to a campste. In a hurry to reach
ther destnaton, they ran over someone and dd not even stop to
check what happened. It turned out to be the son of heren
respondents who subsequenty fed sut. NIA avers that they were
an agency of the government and therefore not abe for the acts
of the drver who was a speca agent. The SC rued, however, that
the NIA s a government agency wth |urdca personaty that s
separate and dstnct from the government. Therefore t s not
mmune from sut. Besdes, the NIAs charter specfcay aows the
NIA to sue and be sued.
(%I#&.ILI#2 V. LI&.ILI#2
"erritt v. Gov. o/ t*e P*il Islan+s
(1916!
Pantff Merrtt on a motorcyce coded wth an ambuance whch
dd not warn of ts mpendng approach. As the neggence whch
caused the coson s a tort commtted by an agent or empoyee of
the Government, the nqury at once arses whether the
Government s egay abe for the damages resutng therefrom.
The government, by no ess than an Act, authorzed Merrtt to brng
sut n the CFI Mana n order to fx the responsbty for the
coson between hs motorcyce and the ambuance of the Genera
Hospta.
Dd the government smpy wave ts mmunty from sut or dd t
aso concede ts abty to the pantff?
Paragraph 5 of artce 1903 of the Cv Code reads: "The
state s abe n ths sense when t acts through a speca
agent, but not when the damage shoud have been caused
by the offca to whom propery t pertaned to do the act
performed, n whch case the provsons of the precedng
artce sha be appcabe." It s, therefore, evdent that the
State (the Government of the Phppne Isands) s ony
abe, accordng to the above quoted decsons of the
Supreme Court of Span, for the acts of ts agents, offcers
and empoyees when they act as speca agents wthn the
meanng of paragraph 5 of artce 1903, supra, and that the
chauffeur of the ambuance of the Genera Hospta was not
such an agent.
GOVE!"E!# (#%C#%E
&"E!D"E!#( &!D EVI(IO!(
H;
Gon,ales v. CO"ELEC
November 9, 1967, Concepcion, C.J.
Facts:
The House of Representatves passed a b whch
aowed for proposas n Resouton 1 (ncreasng
max number of representatves from 120-180)
and Resouton 3 ( authorzng Senators and
Representatves to be deegates n a
consttutona conventon) to be passed. Ths was
subsequenty approved by the Presdent as R.A.
4913 whch provded for amendments to be made
sub|ect to the peopes approva at the genera
eectons of Nov. 1967.
Gonzaes, a taxpayer, fed a cass sut and
prayed that: (1) COMELEC restran from
performng acts that woud resut n the hodng
of the pebscte for ratfcaton; and (2) decare
the Act unconsttutona.
PHILCONSA (Phppne Consttuton Assocaton),
on the other hand, prayed that the decson n
ths case be deferred unt an dentca case
pendng (whch was expected soon) was decded
on. COMELEC dsmssed the petton whch
nstgated the assocatons fng of a revew by
certorar. SoGen mantans that the SC has no
|ursdcton upon the ground that the same s
"merey potca" as hed n Ma/anag *s. 5o)e6
V#to.
It was urged by the pettoners that sad
resoutons are nu and vod because:
<8
No dgests for the frst two sectons of ths chapter:
Separaton of Powers and the Non-Deegaton Doctrne
1. The Members of Congress, whch approved the
proposed amendments, as we as the resouton
cang a conventon to propose amendments,
are, at best, &e fa%to Congressmen;
2. Congress may adopt e#ther one of two
aternatves propose - amendments or ca a
conventon therefore but may not ava of both -
that s to say, propose amendment an& ca a
conventon - at the same tme;
3. The eecton, n whch proposas for
amendment to the Consttuton sha be
submtted for ratfcaton, must be a s)e%#al
eecton, not a general eecton, n whch offcers
of the natona and oca governments - such as
the eectons schedued to be hed on November
14, 1967 - w be chosen; and
4. The sprt of the Consttuton demands that the
eecton, n whch proposas for amendment sha
be submtted to the peope for ratfcaton, must
be hed under such condtons - whch, aegedy,
do not exst - as to gve the peope a reasonabe
opportunty to have a far grasp of the nature and
mpcatons of sad amendments.
Senator Arturo Toentno ob|ected to the
PHILCONSA petton on the foowng grounds: a)
that the Court has no |ursdcton ether to grant
the reef sought n the petton, or to pass upon
the egaty of the composton of the House of
Representatves; b) that the petton, f granted,
woud, n effect, render n operatona the
egsatve department; and c) that "the faure of
Congress to enact a vad reapportonment
aw . . . does not have the ega effect of
renderng ega the House of Representatves
eected thereafter, nor of renderng ts acts nu
and vod."
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the SC has |ursdcton.
Yes. "The |udca department s the ony
consttutona organ whch can be caed upon to
determne the proper aocaton of powers
between the severa departments and among the
ntegra or consttuent unts thereof." - Dr. |ose P.
Laure, 0ngara *. Ele%toral Comm#ss#on.

The force of the precedent n Ma/anag *s. 5o)e6
V#to decarng the ssue to be "merey potca"
has been weakened by S$anes *s. Ch#ef
0%%o$ntant of the Senate, Aveno vs. Cuenco,
Taada vs. Cuenco, and Ma%#as *s. Comm#ss#on
on Ele%t#ons. In the frst, we hed that the offcers
and empoyees of the Senate Eectora Trbuna
are under ts supervson and contro, not of that
of the Senate Presdent, as camed by the atter;
n the second, ths Court proceeded to determne
the number of Senators necessary for a 4$or$m
n the Senate; n the thrd, we nufed the
eecton, by Senators beongng to the party
havng the argest number of votes n sad
chamber, purportng to act on behaf of the party
havng the second argest number of votes
theren, of two (2) Senators beongng to the frst
party, as members, for the second party, of the,
Senate Eectora Trbuna; and n the fourth, we
decared unconsttutona an act of Congress
purportng to apporton the representatve
dstrcts for the House of Representatves, upon
the ground that the apportonment had not been
made as may be possbe accordng to the
number of nhabtants of each provnce. Thus we
re|ected the theory, advanced n these four (4)
cases, that the ssues theren rased were potca
questons the determnaton of whch s beyond
|udca revew.
In short, the ssue whether or not a Resouton of
Congress - actng as a consttuent assemby -
voates the Consttuton essentay |ustcabe,
not potca, and, hence, sub|ect to |udca
revew, and, to the extent that ths vew may be
nconsstent wth the stand taken n Ma/anag *s.
5o)e6 V#to, the atter shoud be deemed modfed
accordngy. The Members of the Court are
unanmous on ths pont.
(2) WON R.A. 4913 s unconsttutona.
No, t s consttutona. Even though t s urged
that the Congress became unconsttutona
because the Apportonment Act was deemed
ega (act was not made accordng to the
number of nhabtants of the dfferent provnces
of the Phppnes), ths argument snt tenabe.
Faure to make the apportonment does not
dssove Congress or makes t ega.
On the argument that the actng congress was
unconsttutona because t faed to apporton
tsef wthn three years, ths s untenabe. The
fact that Congress s under ega obgaton to
make sad apportonment does not |ustfy,
however, the concuson that faure to compy
wth such obgaton rendered Congress ega or
unconsttutona, or that ts Members have
become &e fa%to offcers.
On the argument of the pettoners that Congress
may ony amend or ca a conventon but not do
both, the SC rued that ths was a queston of
wsdom and not authorty and hence was a
potca queston.
On the choce between a speca eecton and a
genera eecton, a ma|orty of the SC, but not
enough to consttute a quafed ma|orty needed
to decare a aw unconsttutona, was of the vew
that the sprt of the Consttuton demanded that
"eecton" be read as "speca eecton" n order
that the transcendenta mportance of a
consttona amendment coud command the
undvded attenton of the eectorate. The
mnorty but prevang vew, however, sad:
"Ths, certany, s a stuaton to be hoped for. It s
a goa the attanment of whch shoud be
promoted. The dea condtons are, however, one
thng. The queston whether the Consttuton
forbds the submsson of proposas for
amendment to the peope except under such
condtons, s another thng. Much as the wrter
and those who concur n ths opnon admre the
contrary vew, they fnd themseves unabe to
subscrbe thereto wthout, n effect, readng nto
the Consttuton what they beeve s not wrtten
thereon and can not fary be deduced from the
etter thereof, snce the sprt of the aw shoud
not be a matter of sheer specuaton. "
On the ssue of nsuffcency of the pubcty and
tme for dscusson afforded by the mechansm of
ratfcaton provded by the egsature, agan the
mnorty but prevang opnon sad:
"We do not beeve t has been satsfactory
shown that Congress has exceeded the mts
thereof n enactng Repubc Act No. 4913.
Presumaby, t coud have done somethng better
to enghten the peope on the sub|ect-matter
thereof. But, then, no aw s perfect. No product
of human endeavor s beyond mprovement.
Otherwse, no egsaton woud be consttutona
and vad."
79
#olentino v. CO"ELEC
!ctober 16, 1971, "arredo, J.
Facts:
After the Consttona Conventon of 1971 came
nto beng and after ts eecton of deegates, the
conventon, on Sept. 28, 1971, approved ts frst
forma proposa to amend the Consttuton by
Organc Resouton No. 1 (Lowerng the Votng
Age to 18 n Artce V). Arturo M. Toentno fed a
petton for prohbton to restran COMELEC from
hodng a pebscte on November 8 at whch the
79
Despte ths decson of the SC whch ceared the way for
the pebscte, the pebscte nevertheess, overwhemngy,
re|ected Resoutons 1 and 3. - Mars.
proposed amendment coud be ratfed by the
peope.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON ony Congress can ca a pebscte for
ratfcaton of amendments.
The SC chose not to answer the queston on
whether or not the power to ca a pebscte was
excusvey egsatve. "In the vew the Court
takes of the present case, t does not perceve
absoute necessty to resove that queston, grave
and mportant as t may be Truth to te, the ack
of unanmty or even of a consensus among the
members of the Court n respect to ths ssue
creates the need for more study and deberaton,
and as tme s of the essence n ths case, for
obvous reasons, November 8, 1971, the date set
by the Conventon for the pebscte t s cang,
beng ngh, We w refran from makng any
pronouncement or expressng Our vews on ths
queston unt a more approprate case comes to
Us. After a, the bass of ths decson s as
mportant and decsve as any can be."
ARTICLE XV AMENDMENTS
SECTION 1. The Congress n |ont
sesson assembed, by a vote of three-
fourths of a the Members of the
Senate and of the House of
Representatves votng separatey may
propose amendments to ths
Consttuton or ca a conventon for
the purpose. Such amendments sha
be vad as part of ths Consttuton
when approved by a ma|orty of the
votes cast at an eecton at whch the
amendments are submtted to the
peope for ther ratfcaton.
(2) WON Sec. 1 Artce XV s voated by the act
of the Conventon n cang for a pebscte on the
soe amendment contaned n Organc Resouton
No. 1 and s thus unconsttutona.
Yes. "The Court hods that there s |a voaton|,
and t s the condton and mtaton that a the
amendments to be proposed by the same
Conventon must be submtted to the peope n a
snge "eecton" or pebscte. It beng
ndsputabe that the amendment now proposed
to be submtted to a pebscte s ony the frst
amendment the Conventon w propose We hod
that the pebscte beng caed for the purpose of
submttng the same for ratfcaton of the peope
on November 8, 1971 s not authorzed by
Secton 1 of Artce XV of the Consttuton, hence
a acts of the Conventon and the respondent
COMELEC n that drecton are nu and vod."
Barredo reasoned out hs grammatca argument
by sayng that parta amendments do not refect
a study of the whoe Consttuton n ts entrety
whch s necessary n order to amend a fragment
or porton of ts parts. Thus, a snge eecton of
these amendments ensures that a the proposed
and accepted amendments are compatbe wth
the entre Consttuton and not |ust wthn the
provsons scope.
"We are not denyng any rght of the peope to
vote on the proposed amendment; We are ony
hodng that under Secton 1, Artce XV of the
Consttuton, the same shoud be submtted to
them not separatey from but together wth a
the other amendments to be proposed by ths
present Conventon."
O00ena v. CO"ELEC
#pril $, 19%1, Fernando, C.J.
Facts:
Occena and Gonzaes fed an acton of
prohbton aganst the vadty of three Batasang
Pambansa Resoutons proposng consttutona
amendments, thereby mpyng the asserton that
the 1973 Consttuton s not the fundamenta aw,
regardess of the recent |aveana rung.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the 1973 Consttuton s the
fundamenta aw of the and.
Yes. It s too ate to deny the appcabty of the
1973 Consttuton. Ths was aready decded on
by a 6-4 vote n |aveana v. Executve Secretary.
"There s no further obstace to the new
consttuton beng consdered n force and effect."
(2) WON the Batasang Pambansa has the power
to propose amendments:
Yes t does. The exstence of the power of the
7nter#m Batasang Pambansa s ndubtabe. The
appcabe provson n the 1976 Amendments s
qute expct. Insofar as pertnent t reads thus:
"The 7nter#m Batasang Pambansa sha have the
same powers and ts Members sha have the
same functons, responsbtes, rghts, prveges,
and dsquafcatons as the #nter#m Natona
Assemby and the reguar Natona Assemby and
the Members thereof." One of such powers s
precsey that of proposng amendments.
Pettoners woud argue that the amendments
proposed are so extensve as to consttute a
revson. "At any rate, whether the Consttuton s
merey amended n part or revsed or totay
changed woud become mmatera the moment
the same s ratfed by the soveregn peope."
Regardng the ssue of votes necessary to
propose amendments as we as the standard for
proper submsson, pettoners have not made out
a case that cas for a |udgment n ther favor. The
anguage of the Consttuton suppes the answer
to the above questons. The 7nter#m Batasang
Pambansa, sttng as a consttuent body, can
propose amendments. In that capacty, ony a
ma|orty vote s needed. It woud be an
ndefensbe proposton to assert that the three-
fourth votes requred when t sts as a egsatve
body appes as we when t has been convened
as the agency through whch amendments coud
be proposed.
1. Under the prevang doctrne of "olent#no
*s. Comele% that the proposed amendments
to be vad must come from the consttutona
agency vested wth the consttuent power to
do so, .e. n the Interm Natona Assemby
provded n the Transtory Artce XVII whch
woud then have to be convened and not from
the executve power as vested n the
Presdent (Prme Mnster) from whom such
consttuent power has been wthhed.
2. As restated by me n the 1977 case of
8#&algo, under the controng doctrne of
"olent#no, the October 1976 consttutona
amendments whch created the Interm
Batasang Pambansa n eu of the Interm
Natona Assemby were nvad snce as rued
by the Court theren, consttutona provsons
on amendments "deang wth the procedure
or manner of amendng the fundamenta aw
are bndng upon the Conventon and the
other departments of the government (and)
are no ess bndng upon the peope" and "the
very Idea of deparcng from the fundamenta
aw s anachronstc n the ream of
consttutonasm and repugnant to the
essence of the rue of aw." The proposed
amendments at bar havng been adopted by
the Interm Batasang Pambansa as the frut of
the nvad October, 1976 amendments must
necessary suffer from the same congenta
nfrmty.
3. Prescndng from the foregong and
assumng the vadty of the proposed
amendments, I reterate my stand n San#&a&
that the doctrne of far and proper
submsson frs enuncated by a smpe
ma|orty of sx |ustces (of an eeven member
Court pror to the 1973 Consttuton whch
ncreased the offca composton of the Court
to ffteen) n 9on6ales *s. Comele% and
subsequenty offcay adopted by the
requred consttutona two-thrds ma|orty
vote of the Court (of eght votes, then) n
"olent#no s fuy appcabe n the case at bar.
The three resoutons proposng compex,
compcated and radca amendments of our
very structure of government were consdered
and approved by the Interm Batasang
Pambansa sttng as a consttuent assemby
on February 27, 1981. It set the date of the
pebscte for thrty-nne days ater on Apr 7,
1981 whch s totay nadequate and far short
of the nnety-day perod fxed by the
Consttuton for submtta to the peope to
"suffcenty nform them of the amendments
to be voted upon, to conscentousy
deberate thereon and to express ther w n
a genune manner."
4. "The mnmum requrements that must be
met n order that there can be a proper
submsson to the peope of a proposed
consttutona amendment" as stated by
retred |ustce Conrado V. Sanchez n hs
separate opnon n 9on6ales bears repeatng
as foows: "... we take the vew that the
words 'submtted to the peope for ther
ratfcaton,' f construed n the ght of the
nature of the Consttuton - a fundamenta
charter that s egsaton drect from the
peope, an expresson of ther soveregn w -
s that t can ony be amended by the peope
expressng themseves accordng to the
procedure ordaned by the Consttuton.
Therefore, amendments must be fary ad
before the peope for ther bessng or
spurnng. The peope are not to be mere
rubber stamps. They are not to vote bndy.
They must be afforded ampe opportunty to
mu over the orgna provsons, compare
them wth the proposed amendments, and try
to reach a concuson as the dctates of ther
conscence suggest, free from the ncubus of
extraneous or possby nsdous nfuences.
We beeve the word 'submtted' can ony
mean that the government, wthn ts
maxmum capabtes, shoud stran every
short to nform every ctzen of the provsons
to be amended, and the proposed
amendments and the meanng, nature and
effects thereof. ... What the Consttuton n
effect drects s that the government, n
submttng an amendment for ratfcaton,
shoud put every nstrumentaty or agency
wthn ts structura framework to enghten
the peope, educate them wth respect to
ther act of ratfcaton or re|ecton. For, as we
have earer stated, one thng s submsson
and another s ratfcaton. There must be far
submsson, ntegent consent or re|ecton. If
wth a these safeguards the peope st
approve the amendments no matter how
pre|udca t s to them, then so be t. For the
peope decree ther own fate."
|ustce Sanchez theren ended the passage
wth an apt ctaton that "... The great men
who buded the structure of our state n ths
respect had the menta vson of a good
Consttuton voced by |udge Cooey, who has
sad 'A good Consttuton shoud be beyond
the reach of temporary exctement and
popuar caprce or passon. It s needed for
stabty and steadness; t must yed to the
thought of the peope; not to the whm of the
peope, or the thought evoved n exctement,
or hot bood, but the sober second thought,
whch aone f the government s to be safe,
can be aowed effcacy ... Changes n
government are to be feard uness beneft s
certan.' As Montagn says: 'A great mutaton
shake and dsorder a state. Good does not
necessary succeed ev; another ev may
succeed and a worse."'
&lmario v. &l6a
1an$ar+ 2, 19'4, 9$t#erre6, 1r., 1.
Facts:
The Fpno eectorate w go to the pos to
approve or re|ect amendments to the
Consttuton proposed by resoutons of the
Batasang Pambansa. Pettoners seek to deay the
date of ratfcaton/re|ecton n order to gve
ampe tme to study the ramfcatons of the two
questons stated n Oueston No. 3 and No. 4 .
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON Ouestons No. 3 and No. 4 have been
propery submtted to the peope.
Yes. The Consttuton provdes, under Sec. 2, Art.
16, a perod of three months for an nformaton
campagn regardng the ntended amendments.
The suffcency of the perod durng whch
amendments are submtted to the peope before
they vote to ether affrm or re|ect depends on
the compexty and ntrcacy of the questons
presented. The pettoners have faed to show
that the addton of the one word "grant" to
Secton 11, Artce XIV or that the addton of two
paragraphs ncudng one on urban and reform to
Secton 12 of Artce XIV resut n amendments of
such nature that when the peope go to the pos
on |anuary 27, 1984 they cannot arrve at an
ntegent |udgment on ther acceptabty or non-
acceptabty.
More mportant, however, s that the necessty,
expedency, and wsdom of the proposed
amendments are beyond the power of the courts
to ad|udcate. Precsey, whether or not "grant" of
pubc and and "urban and reform" are unwse or
mprovdent or whether or not the proposed
amendments are unnecessary s a matter whch
ony the peope can decde. The questons are
presented for ther determnaton. Assumng that
a member or some members of ths Court may
fnd undesrabe any addtona mode of dsposng
of pubc and or an urban and reform program,
the remedy s to vote "NO" n the pebscte but
not to substtute hs or ther averson to the
proposed amendments by denyng to the mons
of voters an opportunty to express ther own
kes or dskes. The ssue before us has nothng
to do wth the wsdom of the proposed
amendments, ther desrabty, or the danger of
the power beng abused. The ssue s whether or
not the voters are aware of the wsdom, the
desrabty, or the dangers of abuse. The
pettoners have faed to make out a case that
the average voter does not know the meanng of
"grant" of pubc and or of "urban and reform."
The doctrne of far and proper submsson to
the peope of proposed consttutona
amendments as enuncated by the Court n
Toentno vs. Comeec (41 SCRA 702, 729)
mandates that "n order that a pebscte for
the ratfcaton of an amendment to the
Consttuton may be vady hed, t must
provde the voter not ony suffcent tme, but
ampe bass for an ntegent apprasa of the
nature of the amendment per se as we as ts
reaton to the other parts of the Consttuton
wth whch t has to form a harmonous
whoe." There must be far submsson and
ntegent consent or re|ecton.
As the ate |ustce Conrado V. Sanchez
stressed n hs separate opnon n the earer
case of Gonzaes vs. Comeec, concurred n by
the ate Chef |ustce Fred Ruz Castro and
|ustce Caxto Zadvar, (21 SCRA 774, 817),
the peope must be "suffcenty nformed of
the amendments to be voted upon, to
conscentousy deberate thereon, to express
ther w n a genune manner."
'%!D&"E!#&L PI!CIPLE(
&!D
(#&#E POLICIE(
Lim v. E:e0utive (e0retar1
;J
2002, :e 5eon, 1r. 1
Two years after the VFA was approved n 1999,
the terrorst attacks 9/11 prompted Amerca to
decare an nternatona terrorst campagn. Pres.
GMA pedged the countrys support to the
endeavor.
On |anuary 2002, members of the USAF (Unted
States Armed Forces) arrved n Mndanao to,
aong wth the AFP, take part n the "Bakatan
02-1" exercses. The next month, the Senate,
after conductng a hearng on the mtary
exercse, approved the Draft Terms of Reference
upon presentaton by then VP Gungona.
Pettoners Lm and Ersando fed ths petton for
certorar and prohbton attackng the
consttutonaty of the |ont exercse. They fed
sut as ctzens, awyers and taxpayers. Two
party-st ntervenors, SANLAKAS and PARTIDO
NG MANGAGAWA, aver that some of ther
members are resdents of Zamboanga and Suu
and thus are drecty affected by operatons
conducted n Mndanao.
They argue (a) that the Abu-Sayyaf bandts do
not consttute an externa armed force and thus,
the Phppnes s not sub|ect to armed externa
attack contempated n the MDT (mutua defense
treaty) of 1951 to warrant US mtary assstance.
They aso cam that the VFA sgned n 1999 does
not authorze US soders to engage n combat
80
A ot of dssentng opnons. Too azy. W get back to them
when I have tme.
operatons n Phppne terrtory, not even to fre
back f fred upon.
Issues/Held/atio:
(1) WON pettoners have ega standng.
No. They cannot fe sut as taxpayers because
the mtary exercse does not nvove Congress
taxng or spendng powers. Beng awyers does
not nvest them wth personaty to ntate the
case and they have faed to demonstrate the
requste of sufferng proxmate n|ury. Issues
rased premature and based on a fear of future
voatons of the Terms of Reference.
(2) WON the "Bakatan" exercses voate the
Consttuton.
No. Pettoners cam that t voates the
Renuncaton Cause of the Consttuton (The
Phppnes renounces war as an nstrument of
natona pocy) but nether the MDT nor the VFA
aow foregn troops to engage n an offensve war
on Phppne terrtory. The VFA permts the USAF
to engage, on an mpermanent bass, n
"actvtes". The word was used to gve eeway n
negotaton by both partes. In ths manner, the
US may so|ourn n the Phppnes for purposes
other than mtary. Combat-reated actvtes, as
opposed to combat, are authorzed by the MDT
and the VFA.
Athough nternatona aws are adhered to, as
expressed by the Indoctrnaton Cause, t does
not mpy prmacy of nternatona aw over
natona aw. The Consttuton espouses a vew
that has marked antpathy towards foregn
mtary presence n the country. The Court, f t
sees that the treaty runs counter to Congress or
goes aganst the fundamenta aw, can nufy
such an agreement. But n the case at bar, the
queston s WON Amercan troops are engaged n
combat aongsde Fpno soders under the guse
of aeged tranng and exercse. The Court cannot
answer ths queston because t acks suffcent
nformaton. Newspapers or eectronc reports per
se cannot be consdered apt support for
pettoners aegatons. Facts must be
estabshed accordng to the rues of evdence.
WON Pres. GMA s engaged n doubespeak
nvoves a queston of fact. the queston s thus
not ft for a speca cv acton for certorar.
Petton s thereby dsmssed.
Las0o5 et. al. v. %!'!E
;e/. 2(, 199, <$#ason, 1.
Facts:
Lasco, et. a were dsmssed from the Unted
Natons Revovng Fund for Natura Resources
Exporaton (UNRFNRE), whch s a speca fund
and subsdary organ of the Unted Natons. The
UNRFNRE s nvoved n a |ont pro|ect of the
Phppne Government and the Unted Natons for
exporaton work n Dnagat Isand. They fed sut
wth the Labor Arbter for ega dsmssa and
damages.
Respondent UNRFNRE fed a moton to dsmss
camng the Labor Arbter had no |ursdcton
because the respondent en|oyed dpomatc
mmunty (ctng the 1946 Conventon on the
Prveges and Immuntes of the Unted
Natons).
81

81
In support thereof, prvate respondent attached a etter
from the Department of Foregn Affars dated August 26,
1991, whch acknowedged ts mmunty from sut. The etter
Labor Arbter subsequenty dsmssed the cam
made by the pettoner. Wth ther moton for
reconsderaton dened, they proceeded to appea
wth NLRC whch affrmed the Labor Arbters
decson. Wthout seekng a reconsderaton of the
resouton, they fed an nstant petton for
certorar n the SC.
Pettoners argued that the acts of mnng
exporaton and expotaton are outsde the
offca functons of an nternatona agency
protected by dpomatc mmunty. Even
assumng that prvate respondent was entted to
dpomatc mmunty, pettoners nssted that
prvate respondent waved t when t engaged n
exporaton work and entered nto a contract of
empoyment wth pettoners.
Pettoners, kewse, nvoked the consttutona
mandate that the State sha afford fu protecton
to abor and promote fu empoyment and
equaty of empoyment opportuntes for a
(1987 Consttuton, Art. XIII, Sec. 3).
The Offce of the Soctor Genera s of the vew
that prvate respondent s covered by the mante
of dpomatc mmunty. Prvate respondent s a
specfed agency of the Unted Natons. Under
Artce 105 of the Charter of the Unted Natons.
82
confrmed that prvate respondent, beng a speca fund
admnstered by the Unted Natons, was covered by the 1946
Conventon on the Prveges and Immuntes of the Unted
Natons of whch the Phppne Government was an orgna
sgnatory (Roo, p. 21).
82
"1. The Organzaton sha en|oy n the terrtory of ts
Members such prveges and mmuntes as are necessary for
the fufment of ts purposes.
"2. Representatves of the Members of the Unted Natons
and offcas of the Organzaton sha smary en|oy such
prveges and mmuntes as are necessary for the
ndependent exercse of ther functons n connecton wth the
Organzaton."
Issues/Held/ation:
WON the respondent s mmune by vrtue of ts
dpomatc status.
As a matter of state pocy as expressed n the
Consttuton, the Phppne Government adopts
the generay accepted prncpes of nternatona
aw (1987 Consttuton, Art. II, Sec. 2). Beng a
member of the Unted Natons and a party to the
Conventon on the Prveges and Immuntes of
the Specazed Agences of the Unted Natons,
the Phppne Government adheres to the
doctrne of mmunty granted to the Unted
Natons and ts specazed agences. Both
treates have the force and effect of aw.
Our courts can ony assume |ursdcton over
prvate respondent f t expressy waved ts
mmunty, whch s not so n the case at bench
(Conventon on the Prveges and Immuntes of
the Specazed Agences of the Unted Natons,
Art. III, Sec. 4).
Coroary to the cted artce s the Conventon on the
Prveges and Immuntes of the Specazed Agences of the
Unted Natons, to whch the Phppnes was a sgnatory (Vo.
1, Phppne Treaty Seres, p. 621.) We quote Sectons 4 and 5
of Artce III thereof:
"Sec. 4. The specazed agences, ther property and
assets, wherever ocated and by whomsoever hed, sha en|oy
mmunty from every form of ega process except nsofar as
n any partcuar case they have expressy waved ther
mmunty. It s, however, understood that no waver of
mmunty sha extend to any measure of executon mphass
supped).
"Sec. 5. The premses of the specazed agences sha be
nvoabe. The property and assets of the specazed
agences, wherever ocated and by whomsoever hed, sha be
mmune from search, requston, confscaton, expropraton
and any other form of nterference, whether by executve,
admnstratve, |udca or egsatve acton".
Prvate respondent s not engaged n a
commerca venture n the Phppnes. Its
presence here s by vrtue of a |ont pro|ect
entered nto by the Phppne Government and
Unted Natons for mnera exporaton n Dnagat
Isand. Its msson s not to expot our natura
resources and gan pecunary thereby but to
hep mprove the quaty of fe of the peope,
ncudng that of pettoners.
Ths s not to say that pettoners have no
recourse. Secton 31 of the Conventon on the
Prveges and Immuntes of the Specazed
Agences of the Unted Natons states that "each
specazed agency sha make a provson for
approprate modes of settement of: (a) dsputes
arsng out of contracts or other dsputes of
prvate character to whch the specazed agency
s a party."
"e<o// v. Dire0tor O/ Prisons
191 (1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
Nature:
a 2
nd
pettton for habeas corpus by Bors Me|off
(a Russan who was brought to the country from
Shangha as a secret operatve by the |apanese)
Facts:
Me|off was arrested as a |apanese spy upon Ph
beraton by the US Counter Integence Corps;
he was handed to the Commonweath for
dsposton accordng to Commonweath Act No.
682. The Peopes Court ater reeased hm.
The Deportaton Board found that he had no
trave documents and was thus an ega aen.
The Board of Commssoners of Immgraton
decared that he entered the country egay n
1944 and was ordered deported mmedatey
Has been n detenton ever snce (faed attempts
to deport hm) whe authortes try to make new
trave arrangements
The Court hed that temporary detenton s a
necessary step n the process of expuson of
undesrabe aens and sad detenton for a
reasonabe ength of tme s a Government rght
No perod was fxed wthn
whch mmgraton authortes woud carry
out the deportaton
"Reasonabe tme" depends
on the crcumstances
Issue/Held/
WON Me|off shoud be dscharged from custody
Wrt w ssue commandng pettoners reease
w/ terms: sha be paced under surveance; w
put up a bond as surety
atio:
Non-enemy Foregn natonas aganst whom no
charge has been made other than the expry of
ther permsson to stay may not be ndefntey
kept n detenton
Protecton aganst deprvaton of berty wthout
due process s not mted to Fpnos (extends to
everyone except enemy aens)
83
83
Note: Pettoners entry n to the Phs was not unawfu as
was brought n by a de facto begerent |ap govt (decrees
were aw)
Art 2, Sec. 3 - the Phs adopts the generay
accepted prncpes of nternatona aw as part of
the aw of the Naton
Phs was part of UN Genera Assemby that
approved Unversa Decaraton of Human Rghts.
Sad Decaraton outned:
A human bengs are born free and equa
n rghts
Everyone s entted to the freedoms set
forth n ths Decaraton w/o makng any
dstnctons
Everyone has the rght to an effectve
remedy by competent trbunas for acts
voatng fundamenta rghts granted to
hm by the Const or aw
No one s&all be sub'ect to arbitrar(
arrest, detention or e)ile
Phppne aw on mmgraton was coped from US
aw, thus the reasonng n Stanszewsk v.
Watkns appes (wrt of habeas corpus was
sustaned. Pettoner was reeased w/ condton to
nform mmgraton offcas of hs whereabouts
every month unt he can be propery deported)
Further, pettoner has no pendng charges
aganst hm and the prospects of brngng any
aganst hm are sm and remote.
)uro+a v. $alan+oni
(1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
Nature:
Petton to decare EO No. 68
84
nvad/ petton to
prohbt proceedng wth the case
84
EO No. 68 - estabshed a Natona War Crmes Offce
prescrbng rue and reguaton governng the tra of accused
war crmnas.
Facts:
Kuroda was formery a Lt. Genera of the
|apanese Army and Commandng Genera of the
|apanese forces n the Phs. he s now charged
before a mtary commsson convened by the
Chef of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Phppnes wth havng faed to dscharge hs
dutes
85
Kuroda now pettons SC to estabsh the egaty
of EO No. 68 because (a) t voates oca aws and
consttuton and (b) because the Phs. s not a
sgnatory of the Hague Conventon on Rues and
reguatons coverng Land Warfare
Issues/Held/atio:
(1) WON EO No. 68 s vad
Yes. SC says t s vad and consttutona
Art. 2, Sec. 3 of Const - Phs. renounces war as
an nstrument of natona pocy and adopts the
generay accepted prncpes of nternatona aw
as part of the naton
The Hague Conventon and Geneva Conventons
form part of and are whoy based on the
generay accepted prncpes of nternatona aw.
Snce both US and |apan sgned them, ther
prncpes form part of our aw even f Phs. was
not a sgnatory
Phs. was under the soveregnty of the US at the
tme the crmes were commtted so we are
equay bound to uphod the prncpe
85
ettng those n hs command to commt atroctes and
other hgh crmes aganst cvans and prsoners n voaton of
the aws and customs of war
Rghts and obgatons were not erased by
assumpton of soveregnty
Internatona |ursprudence estabshed that a
persons who have been guty of pannng or
stagng a war, commttng atrocous crmes and
offenses, etc are to be hed accountabe
86
(2) WON respondents Hussey and Port can
partcpate n prosecutng pettoners case
Yes. It s not voatve of Const because the
Mtary Commsson s a speca mtary trbuna
governed by a speca aw and not by ROC whch
govern cv courts. Nothng n EO. 68 whch says
that partcpatng awyers have to be quafed n
the Phs. Common n mtary trbunas that
counses are usuay mtary persona
Sprt of comty esp. snce US s a party n nterest
E2 No. 6' #s *al#&. M#l#tar+ %omm#ss#on %an
)ro%ee&.
)oo9oorit0*9in v. (oli0itor General
86
EO No. 68 s n conformty wth ths
(1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
Nature:
Appea from a decson of ower court denyng
petton for naturazaton of Eremes
Kookoortchkn
Facts:
Kookoo apped for ctzenshp under
Commonweath Act 473 as amended by Act 535
Estabshed at the hearng that he was a natve
born Russan and grew up n Russa under the
czars. When Boshevks took over, he fed the
country and found hs way to Mana n 1923
Permanenty estabshed resdence n Camarnes
Sur on May 1925
Remaned a resdent except from 1942-
1945 because he became an underground
guera offcer. After the beraton, he
went back to Camarnes
Has resded n Phs. for about 25 years
Marred to a Fpna wth whom he has a son
Works as a shop superntendent wth about 80
Pnoys under hm. Gets ncome
Can speak Engsh and Bco daect. Intermnges
wth Pnoys. Has good mora character and
beeves n the Ph Consttuton
Appcant coud have been chummy wth the
|apanese but nstead, chose to fght n guera
movement
Athough a Russan by brth, he dscams
aegance to the present Communst govt of
Russa. He s thus STATELESS and a REFUGEE of
ths country
Issues/Held/atio:
(1) WON decaraton of ntenton to become a
Fpno ctzen s nvad and nsuffcent as a bass
for the petton for naturazaton
Sec. 5 of Revsed Naturazaton Law - No
decaraton sha be vad unt entry for
permanent resdence has been estabshed and a
certfcate showng the date, pace and manner of
arrva has been ssued
. Ony a reconsttuted decaraton was
presented as the records of the Bureau
of |ustce were destroyed durng the
batte for the beraton of Mana
v. Even f reconsttuted, decaraton s st
vad coz proven by other competent
evdence
(2) WON Kookoo estabshed a ega resdence n
the Phs and WON he can speak and wrte n Ph.
Languages
Testmones on the record show that he was a
ega resdent for a contnuous perod of not ess
than 10years as requred by Sec. 2 of
Commonweath Act No. 473
Lower court found that he coud speak and wrte
Engsh and Bco. Besdes, no specfc standard
has been set on the use of the prncpa Ph.
Languages
(3) WON Kookoo s reay stateess and WON he s
dsquafed from ctzenshp
Lower court s uphed n pronouncng Kookoo
stateess.
Appeees testmony s uncontradcted and t s a
we known fact that modern dctatorshps have
scattered stateess refugees a over the word.
Kookoo owes and fees no aegance to Russa
0))eale& &e%#s#on #s 0;;7>ME:.
'7
2amas*ita v. (t1er
(1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
Nature:
Petton for habeas corpus and prohbton aganst
Lt. Gen. Styer (Commandng Genera of the US
Army Forces)
Facts:
87
|acke: Kookoo s Pnoy!
Yamashta was the commandng genera of the
14
th
army group of the |apanese army n the Phs
and s now charged before the Amercan mtary
commsson for commttng henous acts aganst
Amercans and Pnoys
Was orgnay cassfed as prsoner of war but
was ater changed to war crmna
Yamashta now wants to be changed back to
prsoner of war and that the mtary commsson
be prohbted from further tryng hm
Issues/Held/atio:
WON Yamashta may seek wrt of habeas corpus
Nope. Petton DENIED.
Untenabe. He doesnt seek dscharge from
confnement, |ust restoraton to od status as
POW
. Degree of confnement s a matter of
mtary measure, beyond |ursdcton of
cv court
v. Mtary Commsson has been vady
consttuted and has |ursdcton over
pettoner (coz Yamashta fe nto the
hands of the US army)
Under Par. 356 of the Rues of the Land Warfare,
a Mtary Commsson for the tra and
punshment of war crmnas must be desgnated
by the begerent (the begerents
representatve n ths case s Styer)
Accordng to the Reguatons Governng the Tra
of War Crmnas n the Pacfc, the tra of
persons, unts and organzatons accused as war
crmnas w be the Mtary Commssons to be
convened by or under the authorty of the
Commander n Chef, US Army Forces.
Artces of War Nos. 12 and 15 recognzed the
mtary Commsson apponted by mtary
command as an approprate trbuna for the tra
and punshment of offenses aganst the aw of the
war not ordnary tred by court marta.
88
Further, t s aeged that Span (|apans
protectng power) as not gven due notce before
tra was begun aganst pettoner, contrary to
provson of Geneva conventon.
89
I.P v. 4amora
0$g$st 1, 2000, ?a)$nan, 1.
Facts:
IBP aeged that Erap, n orderng the mtary
depoyed n Mana, commtted grave abuse of
dscreton because: (a) no emergency exsted,
and thus no mtary depoyment was warranted;
and (b) through Letters of Instructon formuated
by the head of the natona poce, the |ont
exercse of Task Force Tuungan (as vsbty
patros) conducted by the marnes and the PNP
was a voaton of cvan supremacy because the
task of aw enforcement was cvan n nature.
Issues/ Held/atio:
88
Yamashta s charged wth permttng atroctes ke rape of
young grs, massacre of noncombatants, destructon of
property - offenses descrbed n Par. 347 of the Rues of Land
Warfare
89
Nothng n Conventon sayng that notce s a prerequste
to the |ursdcton of mtary commssons apponted by
vctorous begerent. Span has aso severed dpomatc
reaton wth |apan
(1) WON the IBP has standng.
No. They faed to present a specfc and
substanta nterest n the resouton of the case.
"Uphodng the rue of aw and the consttuton" s
not suffcent to cothe t wth standng. Ths s too
genera an nterest whch s shared by other
groups and the whoe ctzenry.
(2) WON the Presdents decson s sub|ect to
|udca revew.
Yes. When the Presdent cas out the mtary to
prevent or suppress awess voence, the Court
cannot queston the wsdom or substtute ts own.
However, t can st conduct an examnaton on
whether such a decson was exercsed wthn
permssbe consttutona mts or whether or not
t was exercsed consttutng grave abuse of
dscreton.
In eu of such a decson made by the Presdent,
t s ncumbent for the pettoners to show that
the decson was wthout factua bass. No
evdence of such nature was adduced.
(3) WON grave abuse of dscreton was
commtted n cang out the mtary when no
emergency exsted.
In the words of the ate |ustce Irene Cortes n
Marcos v. Mangapus:
"More partcuary, ths case cas for the exercse
of the Presdents powers as protector of the
peace. |Rosster, The Amercan Presdency|. The
power of the Presdent to keep the peace s not
mted merey to exercsng the commander-n-
chef powers n tmes of emergency or to eadng
the State aganst externa and nterna threats to
ts exstence. The Presdent s not ony cothed
wth extraordnary powers n tmes of emergency,
but s aso tasked wth attendng to the day-to-
day probems of mantanng peace and order and
ensurng domestc tranquty n tmes when no
foregn foe appears on the horzon. Wde
dscreton, wthn the bounds of aw, n fufng
presdenta dutes n tmes of peace s not n any
way dmnshed by the reatve want of an
emergency specfed n the commander-n-chef
provson. For n makng the Presdent
commander-n-chef the enumeraton of powers
that foow cannot be sad to excude the
Presdents exercsng as Commander-n-Chef
powers short of the cang of the armed forces, or
suspendng the prvege of the wrt of habeas
corpus or decarng marta aw, n order to keep
the peace, and mantan pubc order and
securty."
(4) WON n depoyng the marnes, the Presdent
voated the cvan supremacy cause.
IBP contends that wth the sad agreement, the
cvan task of aw enforcement s mtarzed and
s thus n voaton of Sec. 3, Artce II of the
Consttuton.
Court rues that there s no breach. The |ont
exercse merey consttutes a permssbe use of
mtary assets for cvan aw enforcement;
mtary partcpaton n the conduct of |ont
vsbty patros s appropratey crcumscrbed as
evdenced by the LOI. Furthermore, eadershp s
vested n the PNP, a cvan nsttuton, and ther
assgned roe specfcay gves them the
responsbty of drectng and managng the
depoyment of the marnes.
There s no ncurson of the mtary because the
marnes werent ncorporated or ensted as
members of the PNP - the marnes, n effect,
merey provded assstance n these vsbty
patros; hence, such depoyment does not destroy
the cvan character of the PNP.
As evdenced by the ong hstory of mtary and
cvan agences workng n tandem wth each
other, the |ont vsbty patros nstead of
showng the aeged derogaton of cvan
supremacy, shows mutua support and
cooperaton n the depoyment of the marnes.
Puno5 (eparate-
He contends that the executve branchs
decson to coud ts actvtes under the
potca queston doctrne w not suffce.
"en+o,a5 Dissenting5 Con0urring-
There beng no actua controversy manfest
yet, the case shoud not be heard, but he
concurs wth the dsmssa of the petton
because of the ack of standng.
Pimentel v. E:e0utive (e0retar1
Facts:
The Rome Statute was sgned by the Phppnes
through the DFA. Its provsons, however,
requred that t be sub|ect to ratfcaton,
acceptance and approva of the sgnatory states.
Pmente, as senator, fes a petton for
mandamus camng that the ratfcaton of a
treaty (under domestc and nternatona aw) s a
functon of the Senate, hence, the Executve
Dept. has a duty to transmt the sgned statute to
the Senate for ratfcaton.
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON the ExecSec and DFA have a mnstera
duty to transmt to the Senate the copy of the
Rome Statute.
No. As chef archtect of foregn pocy, Presdent
s the countrys mouthpece wth respect to
nternatona affars. In the ream of treaty
makng, Presdent has the soe authorty to
negotate wth other states; ratfcaton s under
hs/her authorty. The Consttuton, however,
provdes a mtaton to such power to ratfy by
vestng n the Senate, the power to concur wth
the Presdents decson. It does not the agency
deegated to ratfy but the agency to concur or
not wth sad decson. The duty beng n the
provnce of the Presdents offca dutes, the
court cannot compe the Executve branch by
means of mandamus because t s beyond ts
|ursdcton.
.a1an v. E:e0utive (e0retar1
2%to/er 10, 2000, -$ena, 1.
Facts:
The VFA, after beng ratfed and concurred wth,
was put nto effect on |une 1, 1999. Pettoners
contend that such an agreement s n voaton of
Artce XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Consttuton.
Respondents cam that the appcabe provson
s Artce VII Sec 21. snce the VFA s not a basng
arrangement but an agreement whch nvoves
temporary vsts engaged n |ont mtary
exercses.
Issues/ Held/atio:
No. As concerned ctzens, taxpayers, and
egsators, they fa to show that they have
sustaned or n danger of sustanng any drect
n|ury as a resut of the enforcement of the VFA.
As taxpayers, the VFA doesnt nvove the
exercse by Congress n taxng/spendng powers.
(2) WON the appcabe provson s that stated by
the pettoners or that stated by respondents.
When the respondent says that temporary vsts
doesnt make t a basng arrangement and thus
nvadates the appcabty of Artce XIII Sec. 25,
the Court consders ths untenabe snce the
Consttuton does not make a dstncton between
transent and permanent bases. When the
respondent avers that sad Artce shoudnt be
controng because no bases are nvoved but
merey troops and factes, the Court fnds t
rreevant because the provsons prohbton
nvoves ether one of the ndependent stuatons.
"It s our consdered vew that both consttutona
provsons, far from contradctng each other,
actuay share some common ground. These
consttutona provsons both embody phrases n
the negatve and thus, are deemed prohbtory n
mandate and character. In partcuar, Secton 21
opens wth the cause "No treaty x x x," and
Secton 25 contans the phrase "sha not be
aowed." Addtonay, n both nstances, the
concurrence of the Senate s ndspensabe to
render the treaty or nternatona agreement vad
and effectve."
"The fundamenta aw s crystane that the
concurrence of the Senate s mandatory to
compy wth the strct consttutona
requrements" regardess of what provson s
deemed appcabe.
The ony thng to consder now s whether a the
requrements of Artce XVIII Sec. 25 have been
comped wth:
(a) t must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty must
be duy concurred n by the Senate and, when so
requred by congress, ratfed by a ma|orty of the
votes cast by the peope n a natona
referendum; and (c) recognzed as a treaty by the
other contractng state.
Pettoners say that there must be concurrence
by the US Senate as we as umnated by (c).
Respondents cam that the ony thng necessary
s US recognton of the treaty whch was gven
when the US Ambassador stated the VFA was
bndng.
The Court says : "To requre the other contractng
state, the Unted States of Amerca n ths case,
to submt the VFA to the Unted States Senate for
concurrence pursuant to ts Consttuton, s to
accord strct meanng to the phrase."
"We-entrenched s the prncpe that the words
used n the Consttuton are to be gven ther
ordnary meanng except where technca terms
are empoyed, n whch case the sgnfcance thus
attached to them prevas. Its anguage shoud be
understood n the sense they have n common
use."
(ilva v. C&
Facts:
Marred busnessman Sva cohabted wth an
unmarred actress Gonzaes wthout beneft of a
marrage. Athough they had two chdren, they
eventuay parted ways. Gonzaes refused to
aow Sva to be wth the chdren on weekends.
Sva fed a petton for custoda rghts before the
RTC. Petton was opposed by the mother of the
chdren on the ground that Sva was a
womanzer and a gamber and such behavor
woud have detrmenta effects on the chdren.
The RTC granted vstaton rghts whch Gonzaes
st contended despte her marryng a Dutch
natona and emgratng to Hoand wth the
chdren. The CA rued n favor of Gonzaes
because t saw that the rotaton of custody woud
not be conducve to the wefare of the chdren.
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON vstatons rght shoud be granted.
Yes. The Consttuton doesnt specfcay
mandate the "natura and prmary rghts of
parents" to those who have egtmate
reatonshps wth ther chdren. And such
vstatons, contrary to the CAs rung, woud not
affect the chdren to such an extent that t woud
be detrmenta to ther upbrngng.
3ernan+e, v. Court o/ &ppeals
Facts:
Marred for 11 years, wfe, former teacher of the
husband n coege, fes petton for annument
on the ground of psychoogca ncapacty for
faure to support the famy and contrbute to the
management of the househod. She aeges that
he spent most of hs tme drnkng wth hs frends
and that because of hs extramarta reatons, he
nfected her wth an STD - testament to whch
was confnement of both partes n a hospta for
treatment. RTC dsmssed the petton sayng:
"The Court can underscore the fact that the
crcumstances mentoned by the pettoner n
support of her cam that respondent was
"psychoogcay ncapactated" to marry her are
among the grounds cted by the aw as vad
reasons for the grant of ega separaton (Artce
55 of the Famy Code) - not as grounds for a
decaraton of nuty of marrages or annument
thereof." CA affrmed the decson of the RTC
ctng Santos v. CA: "It s cear n the above aw
and |ursprudence that the psychoogca
ncapacty of a spouse, as a ground for
decaraton of nuty of marrage, must exst at
the tme of the ceebraton of marrage. More so,
chronc sexua nfdety, abandonment, gambng
and use of prohbted drugs are not grounds per
se, of psychoogca ncapacty of a spouse."
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON the nstant case wth the crcumstances
presented can serve as a ground for
psychoogca ncapacty.
No. In the nstant case, other than her sef-
servng decaratons, pettoner faed to estabsh
the fact that at the tme they were marred,
prvate respondent was sufferng from a
psychoogca defect whch n fact deprved hm of
the abty to assume the essenta dutes of
marrage and ts concomtant responsbtes. As
the Court of Appeas ponted out, no evdence
was presented to show that prvate respondent
was not cognzant of the basc marta
obgatons.
P#=# v. !LC
Facts:
A womans (Grace de Guzman) empoyment was
termnated by PT&T because of aeged
conceament of cv status and defacaton of
company funds. De Guzman argues that the rea
reason she was fred was because she contracted
the marred durng empoyment whch s aganst
company pocy. She admts, however, that when
she apped to work she ndcated she was snge
when, n fact, she was aready marred. She was
remnded by correspondence of the companys
pocy of not acceptng marred women as
empoyees. She subscrbed to the defense that
she wasnt aware of such a pocy and thus, had
no ntent to hde the fact that she was aready
marred. The abor arbter decded that she was
dscrmnated aganst because of havng
contracted marrage whe empoyed wth the
company. PT&T appeaed to the NLRC but the
atter uphed the decson of the abor arbter
modfyng the decson by sayng the womans
dshonest nature warrants a 3-month suspenson
from work.
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON PT&Ts pocy of not acceptng or
consderng as dsquafed from work any woman
worker who contracts a marrage, s
dscrmnatory and thus contrary to the
Consttuton?
Yes. Athough PT&T asserts that t dsmssed
Grace because of her dshonesty; records, not to
menton the etter remndng her of her
companys pocy, say otherwse; provng that
she was termnated because of her cv status.
Furthermore, t was the pocy tsef whch was
the cause of Graces secretve conduct (he who s
the cause of the cause s the cause of the ev
caused.) PT&Ts aegatons of msappropraton s
nsncere and sef-servng.
C"#C v. &l0ala5 (e0. DE!
1$ne 1(, 1997, Men&o6a, 1.
Facts:
CMTCs tmber concesson was approved by
Marcos after t was prevousy canceed;
however, sad concesson, operatng on TLA no.
106, was under another concesson (TLA no. 360)
operated by FLDC - after ssuance by Mnstry of
Natona Resources. TLA no. 360 was gven
prmacy over the TLA no. 106 aegedy because
of Marcos sster who was behnd FLDC. Two
years ater, however, on |une 1986, Mnstry head
suspended TLA no. 360 and canceed the cense
of FLDC (because n spte of prevous suspenson
order, oggng st contnued). CMTC, earnng of
the canceaton, sought to revadate TLA no. 106
by wrtng a etter to the sad government
agency.
DENR decared TLA no. 106 as no onger havng
force and effect, the petton beng barred
because of atches: CMTC dd not mmedatey fe
an opposton when FLDC was awarded the sad
concesson and because t had wated for two
years before fng such a petton. In an appea to
the Offce of the Presdent and after ts second
moton for reconsderaton, CMTC cams that t
had wrtten a etter dated on the day to oppose
FLDCs grant of TLA. The Offce of the Presdent,
however, agan dened the petton on the bass
of a "new pocy of consderaton on forest
conservaton and protecton."
CMTC appeas to the SC sayng that there were
no atches and that the new pubc consderaton
averred to by the Offce of the Presdent dened
the CMTC due process. There beng no tota og
ban n the country (Congress st needng to
make an announcement regardng the ssue), any
notce to ths effect "must be stated n good form,
not mped"; and that n any case, any new pocy
consderaton shoud be prospectve n
appcaton and cannot affect pettoners vested
rghts n ts TLA no. 106.
*ain Issue/ Held/atio:
WON the new pocy of forest conservaton and
protecton coud affect the prevous TLAs
mentoned.
As evdenced by reports, t woud seem that
CMTC was one of those whose TLAs were
termnated n 1983, a year before ts concesson
was awarded to FLDC. Snce pettoner faed to
protest the grant of concesson wthn a
"reasonabe tme", acton s barred by atches.
"because executve evauaton of tmber censes
and ther consequent canceaton n the process
of formuatng poces wth regard to the
utzaton of tmber ands s a prerogatve of the
executve department and n the absence of
evdence showng grave abuse of dscreton
courts w not nterfere wth the exercse of that
dscreton."
Pubc respondents heren, upon whose shouders
rests the task of mpementng the pocy to
deveop and conserve the country's natura
resources, have ndcated an ongong department
evauaton of a tmber cense agreements
entered nto, and permts or censes ssued,
under the prevous dspensaton. . . .
The ongong admnstratve reassessment s
apparenty n response to the renewed and
growng goba concern over the despoaton of
forest ands and the utter dsregard of ther
cruca roe n sustanng a baanced ecoogca
system. The egtmacy of such concern can
hardy be dsputed, most especay n ths
country. . . .
Thus, whe the admnstraton grappes wth the
compex and mutfarous probems caused by
unbrded expotaton of these resources, the
|udcary w stand cear. . . . More so where, as n
the present case, the nterests of a prvate
oggng company are ptted aganst that of the
pubc at arge on the pressng pubc pocy ssue
of forest conservaton. . . . Tmber censes,
permts and cense agreements are the prncpa
nstruments by whch the State reguates the
utzaton and dsposton of forest resources to
the end that pubc wefare s promoted. And t
can hardy be gansad that they merey evdence
a prvege granted by the State to quafed
enttes, and do not vest n the atter a permanent
or rrevocabe rght to the partcuar concesson
area and the forest products theren. They may
be vady amended, modfed, repaced or
rescnded by the Chef Executve when natona
nterests so requre. Thus, they are not deemed
contracts wthn the purvew of the due process of
aw cause.
Guingona v. Carague
0)r#l 22, 1991, 9an%a+%o, 1.
Facts:
The 1990 budget conssted of P98.4B n
automatc appropraton (86.8 gong to debt
servce) and P155.3 from the Genera
Appropratons Act or a tota of P233.5B; ony
P27B was aotted for DECS. Pettoners, as
members of the Senate, queston the
consttutonaty of the automatc appropraton
for debt servce n the sad budget as provded for
by Presdenta Decrees 81, 117, and 1967.
Pettoners aege that the aotted budget runs
contrary to Sec. 5(5), Art. XIV of the Consttuton.
And as provded by Art. 7 of the Cv Code, when
statutes run contrary to the Consttuton, t sha
be vod.
They further contend that the Presdenta
Decrees are no onger operatve snce they
became f$n%t$s of#%#o after Presdent Marcos was
ousted. Wth a new congress repacng the one
man-egsature, new egsaton regardng
appropraton shoud be passed. Current
appropraton, operatng on no aws therefore,
Moreover, they content that assumng arguendo
that the sad decrees dd not expre wth the
ouster of Marcos, after adopton of the 1987
Consttuton, sad decrees were nconsstent wth
Sec. 24, Artce VI of the Consttuton whch stated
that:
Sec. 24. A appropraton, revenue or
tarff bs, bs authorzng ncrease of the
pubc debt, bs of oca appcaton, and
prvate bs sha orgnate excusvey n
the House of Representatves, but the
Senate may propose or concur wth
amendments.
whereby bs have to be approved by the
Presdent, 10 then a aw must be passed by
Congress to authorze sad automatc
appropraton. Further, pettoners state sad
decrees voate Secton 29(1) of Artce VI of the
Consttuton whch provdes as foows
Sec. 29(1). No money sha be pad out
of the Treasury except n pursuance of an
appropraton made by aw.
They assert that there must be defnteness,
certanty and exactness n an appropraton, 11
otherwse t s an undue deegaton of egsatve
power to the Presdent who determnes n
advance the amount approprated for the debt
servce.
SoGen argues, on the other hand, that automatc
appropraton provdes fexbty: ". . . Frst, for
exampe, t enabes the Government to take
advantage of a favorabe turn of market
condtons by redeemng hgh nterest securtes
and borrowng at ower rates, or to shft from
short-term to ong-term nstruments, or to enter
nto arrangements that coud ghten our
outstandng debt burden debt-to-equty, debt-to-
asset, debt-to-debt or other such schemes.
Second, the automatc appropraton obvates the
serous dffcutes n debt servcng arsng from
any devaton from what has been prevousy
programmed. The annua debt servce estmates,
whch are usuay made one year n advance, are
based on a mathematca set or matrx or, n
ayman's parance, `basket' of foregn exchange
and nterest rate assumpton's whch may
sgnfcanty dffer from actua rates not even n
proporton to changes on the bass of the
assumptons. Absent an automatc appropraton
cause, the Phppne Government has to awat
and depend upon Congressona acton, whch by
the tme ths comes, may no onger be responsve
to the ntended condtons whch n the meantme
may have aready drastcay changed. In the
meantme, aso, deayed payments and
arrearages may have supervened, ony to worsen
our debt servce-to-tota expendture rato n the
budget due to penates and/or demand for
mmedate-payment even before due dates.
Ceary, the cam that payment of the oans and
ndebtedness s condtoned upon the
contnuance of the person of Presdent Marcos
and hs egsatve power goes aganst the ntent
and purpose of the aw. The purpose s foreseen
to subsst wth or wthout the person of Marcos."
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON appropraton of P86.8B for debt servce
as compared to ts appropraton of P27.7B for
educaton n voaton of Sec. 5(5), Artce XIV of
the Consttuton.
The State sha assgn the hghest
budgetary prorty to educaton and
ensure that teachng w attract and
retan ts rghtfu share of the best
avaabe taents through adequate
remuneraton and other means of |ob
satsfacton and fufment.
The Court dsagrees that Congress hands are
hamstrung by the provson provded. There are
other mperatves of natona nterest that t must
attend to; the amount aotted to educaton,
27.8B, s the hghest n a department budgets
thereby compyng wth the mandate of havng
the hghest prorty as stated above. The
enormous natona debt, ncurred by the prevous
admnstraton, however, st needs to be pad.
Not ony for the sake of honor but because the
natona economy s tsef at stake. Thus, f
Congress aotted more for debt servce such an
appropraton cannot be consdered by ths Court
as unconsttutona.
(2) WON the Presdenta Decrees are st
operatve, and f they are, do they voate Sec. 29
(1), Artce VI of the Consttutona.
Yes, they are st operatve. The transtory
provson provded n Sec. 3, Artce XVIII of the
Consttuton recognzes that:
A exstng aws, decrees, executve
orders, procamatons, etters of
nstructons and other executve
ssuances not nconsstent wth the
Consttuton sha reman operatve unt
amended, repeaed or revoked.
Ths transtory provson of the Consttuton has
precsey been adopted by ts framers to preserve
the soca order so that egsaton by the then
Presdent Marcos may be recognzed. Such aws
are to reman n force and effect uness they are
nconsstent wth the Consttuton or are
otherwse amended, repeaed or revoked.
We-known s the rue that repea or amendment
by mpcaton s frowned upon. Equay
fundamenta s the prncpe that constructon of
the Consttuton and aw s generay apped
prospectvey and not retrospectvey uness t s
so ceary stated.
(3) WON there was undue deegaton of
egsatve power by automatc appropraton.
No. The egsatve ntenton n R.A. No. 4860, as
amended, Secton 31 of P.D. No. 1177 and P.D.
No. 1967 s that the amount needed shoud be
automatcay set asde n order to enabe the
Repubc of the Phppnes to pay the prncpa,
nterest, taxes and other norma bankng charges
on the oans, credts or ndebtedness ncurred as
guaranteed by t when they sha become due
wthout the need to enact a separate aw
appropratng funds therefore as the need arses.
The purpose of these aws s to enabe the
government to make prompt payment and/or
advances for a oans to protect and mantan the
credt standng of the country.
Athough the sub|ect presdenta decrees do not
state specfc amounts to be pad, necesstated
by the very nature of the probem beng,
addressed, the amounts nevertheess are made
certan by the egsatve parameters provded n
the decrees. The Executve s not of unmted
dscreton as to the amounts to be dsbursed for
debt servcng. The mandate s to pay ony the
prncpa, nterest, taxes and other norma
bankng charges on the oans, credts or
ndebtedness, or on the bonds, debentures or
securty or other evdences of ndebtedness sod
n nternatona markets ncurred by vrtue of the
aw, as and when they sha become due. No
uncertanty arses n executve mpementaton as
the mt w be the exact amounts as shown by
the books of the Treasury.
Cru,5 Dissenting-
He sees that an essenta requrement for
vad appropraton s that the sum authorzed
for reease shoud be determnate or
determnabe. The Presdenta Decrees do not
satsfy ths requrement. As to the ponencas
reference to "egsatve parameters provded
by aw", Cruz says no such reguatory
boundares exst.
Pa+illa5 Dissenting-
He agrees wth Cruz but furthers the
argument by sayng that Sec. 29(1)Artce VI
mpes that a aw enacted by Congress (and
approved by the Presdent) appropratng a
partcuar sum or sums must be made before
payment from the Treasury can be made.
Laws shoud be construed n ght of current
aws and not those made by a one-man
egsatve branch.
Besdes, these decrees ssued by Presdent
Marcos reatve to debt servce were taored for
the perods covered by sad decrees. Today t s
Congress that shoud determne and approve the
proper appropratons for debt servcng, as ths s
a matter of pocy that, n my opnon, pertans to
the egsatve department, as the pocy-
Paras, :#ssent#ng@ Any aw that undermnes our
economy and therefore our securty s per se
unconsttutona.
#ana+a v. &ngara
Ma+ 2, 1997, Pangan#/an, 1.
Facts:
The Phppnes, by ratfcaton of the Presdent
and concurrence of the Senate became a
member of the WTO. Pettoners argue that the
etter, sprt and ntent of the Consttuton
mandatng "economc natonasm" are voated
by the "party provsons" and "natona
treatment" causes scattered n the agreement,
annexes and other parts of the treaty. These
aegedy pace foregn natonas on equa footng
as Fpnos n contraventon of the Consttutons
Fpno-frst pocy. Man provsons whch are
supposedy voated by the WTO agreement are
the foowng:
(1) Art II, Sec. 19 - Sef-reant, ndependent
economy.
(2) Art. XII Sec. 10 - Capta owned by Fpnos;
grants, prveges, concessons for natona
economy gves preference to quafed Fpnos.
(3) Art. XII Sec. 12 - Preferenta use of Fpno
abor, matera and goods.
These provsons are aegedy desecrated n the
areas of nvestment measures, trade seected
aspects of IPR, and n the Genera Agreement on
Trade n Servces.
The SoGen, on the other hand, argues (a) that
the charter provsons are not sef-executng and
are mere genera poces; (b) that the provsons
shoudnt be read n soaton but n con|uncton
wth Art. XII Sec. 1 and 13, whch when read
propery as a whoe, ensures that the WTO
agreement doesnt voate the Consttuton; and
(c) that WTO contans suffcent provsons to
protect deveopng countres ke the Phppnes
from the harshness of trade berazaton.
By prayng for the nufcaton of the Phppne
ratfcaton of the WTO Agreement, pettoners
are nvokng ths Court's consttutonay mposed
duty "to determne whether or not there has been
grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or
excess of |ursdcton" on the part of the Senate n
gvng ts concurrence theren va Senate
Resouton No. 97.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the petton presents a |ustcabe
controversy?
In seekng to nufy an act of the Phppne
Senate on the ground that t contravenes the
Consttuton, the petton no doubt rases a
|ustcabe controversy. Where an acton of the
egsatve branch s serousy aeged to have
nfrnged the Consttuton, t becomes not ony
the rght but n fact the duty of the |udcary to
sette the dspute. "The queston thus posed s
|udca rather than potca. The duty (to
ad|udcate) remans to assure that the supremacy
of the Consttuton s uphed."
(2) WON the WTO agreement and ts three
annexes contravene the respectve provsons n
the Consttuton.
:e%larat#on of Pr#n%#)les Not Self-E,e%$t#ng
By ts very tte, Artce II of the Consttuton s a
"decaraton of prncpes and state poces." The
counterpart of ths artce n the 1935
Consttuton 21 s caed the "basc potca creed
of the naton" by Dean Vcente Snco. These
prncpes n Artce II are not ntended to be sef-
executng prncpes ready for enforcement
through the courts. They are used by the
|udcary as ads or as gudes n the exercse of ts
power of |udca revew, and by the egsature n
ts enactment of aws. As hed n the eadng case
of ?#los/a+an, 7n%or)orate& *s. Morato, the
prncpes and state poces enumerated n Artce
II and some sectons of Artce XII are not "sef-
executng provsons, the dsregard of whch can
gve rse to a cause of acton n the courts. They
do not embody |udcay enforceabe
consttutona rghts but gudenes for
egsaton."
E%onom#% Nat#onal#sm Sho$l& -e >ea& .#th 2ther
Const#t$t#onal Man&ates to atta#n -alan%e&
:e*elo)ment of
E%onom+
As ponted out by the Soctor Genera, Sec. 1
ays down the basc goas of natona economc
deveopment, as foows: (1) A more equtabe
dstrbuton of opportuntes, ncome and weath;
(2) A sustaned ncrease n the amount of goods
and servces provded by the naton for the
beneft of the peope; and (3) An expandng
productvty as the key to rasng the quaty of
fe for a especay the underprveged.
Wth these goas n context, the Consttuton then
ordans the deas of economc natonasm (1) by
expressng preference n favor of quafed
Fpnos "n the grant of rghts, prveges and
concessons coverng the natona economy and
patrmony" and n the use of "Fpno abor,
domestc materas and ocay-produced goods";
(2) by mandatng the State to "adopt measures
that hep make them compettve; and (3) by
requrng the State to "deveop a sef-reant and
ndependent natona economy effectvey
controed by Fpnos." In smar anguage, the
Consttuton takes nto account the reates of the
outsde word as t requres the pursut of "a trade
pocy that serves the genera wefare and utzes
a forms and arrangements of exchange on the
bass of equaty and recprocty"; and speaks of
ndustres "whch are compettve n both
domestc and foregn markets" as we as of the
protecton of "Fpno enterprses aganst unfar
foregn competton and trade practces."
It s true that n the recent case of Man#la Pr#n%e
8otel *s. 9o*ernment Ser*#%e 7ns$ran%e S+stem,
et al., ths Court hed that "Sec. 10, second par.,
Art. XII of the 1987 Consttuton s a mandatory,
postve command whch s compete n tsef and
whch needs no further gudenes or
mpementng aws or rues for ts enforcement.
From ts very words the provson does not
requre any egsaton to put t n operaton. It s
per se |udcay enforceabe." However, as the
consttutona provson tsef states, t s
enforceabe ony n regard to "the grants of
rghts, prveges and concessons coverng
natona economy and patrmony" and not to
every aspect of trade and commerce. It refers to
exceptons rather than the rue. The ssue here s
not whether ths paragraph of Sec. 10 of Art. XII s
sef-executng or not. Rather, the ssue s
whether, as a rue, there are enough baancng
provsons n the Consttuton to aow the Senate
to ratfy the Phppne concurrence n the WTO
Agreement. And we hod that there are.
A tod, whe the Consttuton ndeed mandates a
bas n favor of Fpno goods, servces, abor and
enterprses, at the same tme, t recognzes the
need for busness exchange wth the rest of the
word on the bases of equaty and recprocty and
mts protecton of Fpno enterprses ony
aganst foregn competton and trade practces
that are unfar. In other words, the Consttuton
dd not ntend to pursue an soatonst pocy. It
dd not shut out foregn nvestments, goods and
servces n the deveopment of the Phppne
economy. Whe the Consttuton does not
encourage the unmted entry of foregn goods,
servces and nvestments nto the country, t does
not prohbt them.
A"2 >e%ogn#6es Nee& to Prote%t Aea=
E%onom#es
Upon the other hand, respondents mantan that
the WTO tsef has some but-n advantages to
protect weak and deveopng economes, whch
comprse the vast ma|orty of ts members. Unke
n the UN where ma|or states have permanent
seats and veto powers n the Securty Counc, n
the WTO, decsons are made on the bass of
soveregn equaty, wth each member's vote
equa n weght to that of any other. There s no
WTO equvaent of the UN Securty Counc.
Hence, poor countres can protect ther common
nterests more effectvey through the WTO than
through one-on-one negotatons wth deveoped
countres. Wthn the WTO, deveopng countres
can form powerfu bocs to push ther economc
agenda more decsvey than outsde the
Organzaton. Ths s not merey a matter of
practca aances but a negotatng strategy
rooted n aw. Thus, the basc prncpes
underyng the WTO Agreement recognze the
need of deveopng countres ke the Phppnes
to "share n the growth n nternatona trade
commensurate wth the needs of ther economc
deveopment."
Const#t$t#on :oes Not >$le 2$t ;ore#gn
Com)et#t#on
Furthermore, the consttutona pocy of a "sef-
reant and ndependent natona economy" does
not necessary rue out the entry of foregn
nvestments, goods and servces. It contempates
nether "economc secuson" nor "mendcancy n
the nternatona communty." As expaned by
Consttutona Commssoner Bernardo Vegas,
sponsor of ths consttutona pocy:
"Economc sef reance s a prmary ob|ectve of a
deveopng country that s keeny aware of
overdependence on externa assstance for even
ts most basc needs. It does not mean autarky or
economc secuson; rather, t means avodng
mendcancy n the nternatona communty.
Independence refers to the freedom from undue
foregn contro of the natona economy,
especay n such strategc ndustres as n the
deveopment of natura resources and pubc
uttes."
The WTO reance on "most favored naton,"
"natona treatment," and "trade wthout
dscrmnaton" cannot be struck down as
unconsttutona as n fact they are rues of
equaty and recprocty that appy to a WTO
members. Asde from envsonng a trade pocy
based on "equaty and recprocty," the
fundamenta aw encourages ndustres that are
"compettve n both domestc and foregn
markets," thereby demonstratng a cear pocy
aganst a shetered domestc trade envronment,
but one n favor of the gradua deveopment of
robust ndustres that can compete wth the best
n the foregn markets. Indeed, Fpno managers
and Fpno enterprses have shown capabty
and tenacty to compete nternatonay. And
gven a free trade envronment, Fpno
entrepreneurs and managers n Hongkong have
demonstrated the Fpno capacty to grow and to
prosper aganst the best offered under a pocy of
assez fare.
Const#t$t#on ;a*ors Cons$mers, Not 7n&$str#es or
Enter)r#ses
The Consttuton has not reay shown any
unbaanced bas n favor of any busness or
enterprse, nor does t contan any specfc
pronouncement that Fpno companes shoud be
pampered wth a tota proscrpton of foregn
competton.
Oposa v. 'a0toran
Facts:
Pettoners, mnors represented by ther parents,
fed a compant n the RTC; t was a taxpayers
cass sut representng themseves, the countess
muttudes, and future generatons of those who
are entted to the benefts of the countrys vrgn
tropca forests.
The pantffs compant was specfed as foows:
that a baanced and heathfu ecoogy n the
Phppnes s evdenced by 54% forest cover and
46% everythng ese.
Twenty fve years ago, tropca vrgn forests
amounted to 53% of our and area but n 1987,
satete mages showed that ony four percent of
the and was covered by forests. Recent surveys,
n the meantme, show that ony 2.8% of the
countrys and area s composed of tropca vrgn
ranforests.
Pubc records revea that at the present rate of
deforestaton, the Phppne Isands w be bereft
of natona resources after the end of the decade,
f not earer. Pantffs assert ther consttutona
rght to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy and
cam that they are entted to protecton of ths
rght by the State n ts capacty as )arens
)atr#ae.
The compant was fed aganst Factoran, then
head of the DENR; t woud order the DENR to
cance a exstng tmber censng agreements
(TLAs) n the country, and cease and desst from
acceptng, processng, renewng, and approvng
TLAs. The tra court dsmssed the compant and
the |udge stated that the reef sought for
(canceaton of TLAs) cannot be done because t
woud not aow due process. The amended
petton to the SC repeated ts earer rght to a
sound envronment, and added that (a) TLAs
were not contracts and even f they were
consdered protected by the non-mparment
cause, the State may st revoke such
agreements when pubc nterest demands t; and
(b) n grantng more TLAs to cover more areas of
and than what s avaabe s an act consttutng
grave abuse of dscreton, and s therefore
sub|ect to |udca scrutny.
Issues/ Held/atio:
The pettoners, mnors assert that they represent
ther generaton as we as generatons yet
unborn. We fnd no dffcuty n rung that they
can, for themseves, for others of ther generaton
and for the succeedng generatons, fe a cass
sut. Ther personaty to sue n behaf of the
succeedng generatons can ony be based on the
concept of ntergeneratona responsbty nsofar
as the rght to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy s
concerned. Such a rght, as herenafter
expounded, consders the "rhythm and harmony
of nature." Nature means the created word n ts
entrety. Such rhythm and harmony ndspensaby
ncude, nter aa, the |udcous dsposton,
utzaton, management, renewa and
conservaton of the country's forest, mnera,
and, waters, fsheres, wdfe, off-shore areas
and other natura resources to the end that ther
exporaton, deveopment and utzaton be
equtaby accessbe to the present as we as
future generatons. Needess to say, every
generaton has a responsbty to the next to
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the fu
en|oyment of a baanced and heathfu ecoogy.
Put a tte dfferenty, the mnors' asserton of
ther rght to a sound envronment consttutes, at
the same tme, the performance of ther
obgaton to ensure the protecton of that rght
for the generatons to come.
(2) Is there a specfc rght voated that woud
serve a the pettoners cause of acton?
Yes. Sec. 16, Artce II of the Consttuton provdes
the rght. A cause of acton s therefore present
but as far as canceaton of TLAs s concerned,
there s a need to mpead the guarantees of the
same for they are ndspensabe partes.
(3) Are the TLAs contracts? Are they protected by
the non-mparment cause?
No. Even f a aw s passed mandatng
canceaton/modfcaton of the TLAs, the same
cannot be stgmatzed as a voaton of non-
mparment cause because t s wthn the States
exercse of poce power to protect ts ecoogy.
'eli0iano5 Con0urring-
Athough the pettoners are n fact entted to
a baanced and heathfu ecoogy as stressed
by the Consttutona rght, one cannot
cassfy such a rght as "specfc" wthout
dong excessve voence to the anguage. The
mpcatons of makng the Sectons n Artce
II sef-executory are not the sub|ect of ths
case. Pettoners shoud seek a specfc ega
rght. It s hs understandng that the Courts
decson mpes that wthn the coecton of
statutes, there s a specfc rght whch the
pettoners can use.
C*ave, v. P*il. Estates &ut*orit1
FJ
Facts:
PEA, as authorzed by ts charter created by
Marcos, was mandated to recam and, deveop,
mprove, etc. se, and ease these recamed
ands. Durng the tme of Cory, more and was
transferred to PEA under ts name. Transfer
Certfcate of Ttes of the then recamed
Freedom Isands were gven to PEA durng ths
tme. Durng Ramos tenure as Presdent, PEA,
entered nto a |ont venture agreement (|VA) wth
AMARI, a prvate corporaton wthout pubc
bddng. The |VA ntended to deveop the
recamed Freedom Isands and recam an
addtona 250 hectares surroundng sad sands.
In 1996, Senate Presdent Maceda, n a prveged
90
As you gather from the ast few deporabe dgests (and
ths ast one) . Ive run out of |uce. Fee free to
fx/update/mock them at your convenence. - Mars.
speech, caed the |VA "the grandmother of a
scams." An nvestgaton ensued wth the report
concudng the foowng:
(1) The ands beng sod to AMARI were ands of
the pubc doman whch the government has not
yet cassfed as aenabe, and therefore the PEA
has no authorty to se yet.
(2) Transfer Certfcate of Ttes of the Freedom
Isands are then vod; and the
(3) |VA entered nto s ega.
In 1997, a Lega Task Force was formed by the
Presdent to study the |VA; but contrary to the
Senate nvestgaton that decred the |VA, the
task force uphed ts egaty. Ths prompted
Chavez, n 1998, to fe sut as a taxpayer,
contendng the foowng:
Pettoner contends the government stands to
ose bons of pesos n the sae by PEA of the
recamed ands to AMARI. Pettoner prays that
PEA pubcy dscose the terms of any
renegotaton of the |VA, nvokng Secton 28,
Artce II, and Secton 7, Artce III, of the 1987
Consttuton on the rght of the peope to
nformaton on matters of pubc concern.
Pettoner assas the sae to AMARI of ands of the
pubc doman as a batant voaton of Secton 3,
Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton prohbtng the
sae of aenabe ands of the pubc doman to
prvate corporatons. Fnay, pettoner asserts
that he seeks to en|on the oss of bons of
pesos n propertes of the State that are of pubc
domnon.
The Amended |VA, however, pushed through after
beng sgned by PEA and AMARI, wth the
approva of then Presdent Estrada. After such a
maneuver, Chavez prayed that the renegotated
contract be decared nu and vod based on
consttutona and statutory grounds.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the case s academc and moot after
subsequent events.
Respondents - Yes; satsfed pettoners prayer
for dscosure of renegotatons; moot, because
aready sgned.
Pettoners - counters that PEA and AMARI cannot
avod the consttutona ssue by smpy fast-
trackng the sgnng and approva of the
Amended |VA before the Court coud act on the
ssue. Presdenta approva does not resove the
consttutona ssue or remove t from the ambt
of |udca revew.
Court - PEA and AMARI have st to mpement
the Amended |VA. The prayer to en|on the
sgnng of the Amended |VA on consttutona
grounds necessary ncudes preventng ts
mpementaton f n the meantme PEA and
AMARI have sgned one n voaton of the
Consttuton. Pettoners prncpa bass n
assang the renegotaton of the |VA s ts
voaton of Secton 3, Artce XII of the
Consttuton, whch prohbts the government
from aenatng ands of the pubc doman to
prvate corporatons. If the Amended |VA ndeed
voates the Consttuton, t s the duty of the
Court to en|on ts mpementaton, and f aready
mpemented, to annu the effects of such
unconsttutona contract.
Aso, the nstant petton s a case of frst
mpresson. A prevous decsons of the Court
nvovng Secton 3, Artce XII of the 1987
Consttuton, or ts counterpart provson n the
1973 Consttuton, covered agrcutura ands sod
to prvate corporatons whch acqured the ands
from prvate partes. The transferors of the
prvate corporatons camed or coud cam the
rght to |udca confrmaton of ther mperfect
ttes under Tte II of Commonweath Act. 141
("CA No. 141" for brevty). In the nstant case,
AMARI seeks to acqure from PEA, a pubc
corporaton, recamed ands and submerged
areas for non-agrcutura purposes by purchase
under PD No. 1084 (charter of PEA) and Tte III of
CA No. 141. Certan undertakngs by AMARI
under the Amended |VA consttute the
consderaton for the purchase. Nether AMARI
nor PEA can cam |udca confrmaton of ther
ttes because the ands covered by the Amended
|VA are newy recamed or st to be recamed.
|udca confrmaton of mperfect tte requres
open, contnuous, excusve and notorous
occupaton of agrcutura ands of the pubc
doman for at east thrty years snce |une 12,
1945 or earer. Besdes, the deadne for fng
appcatons for |udca confrmaton of mperfect
tte expred on December 31, 1987.
Lasty, there s a need to resove mmedatey the
consttutona ssue rased n ths petton because
of the possbe transfer at any tme by PEA to
AMARI of tte and ownershp to portons of the
recamed ands. Under the Amended |VA, PEA s
obgated to transfer to AMARI the atters
seventy percent proportonate share n the
recamed areas as the recamaton progresses.
The Amended |VA even aows AMARI to
mortgage at any tme the entre recamed area
to rase fnancng for the recamaton pro|ect.
(2) WON the petton shoud be dsmssed
because |udca herarchy wasnt respected.
PEA and AMARI cam pettoner gnored the
|udca herarchy by seekng reef drecty from
the Court. The prncpe of herarchy of courts
appes generay to cases nvovng factua
questons. As t s not a trer of facts, the Court
cannot entertan cases nvovng factua ssues.
The nstant case, however, rases consttutona
ssues of transcendenta mportance to the pubc.
The Court can resove ths case wthout
determnng any factua ssue reated to the case.
Aso, the nstant case s a petton for mandamus
whch fas under the orgna |ursdcton of the
Court under Secton 5, Artce VIII of the
Consttuton. We resove to exercse prmary
|ursdcton over the nstant case.
(3) WON the petton shoud be dsmssed
because of non-exhauston of admnstratve
remedes.
Respondent - they ddnt ask us for the
nformaton before proceedng to Court to ssue a
mandamus; ths s n voaton of the rue of
mandamus. Tanada v. Tuvera s dfferent from
the current stuaton because there, the ExecDept
had an affrmatve statutory duty to pubsh the
Presdent Decrees and thus, the mandamus was
warranted. In the nstant case, PEA has no
affrmatve duty to dscose such nformaton.
Court - The orgna |VA sought to dspose to
AMARI pubc ands hed by PEA, a government
corporaton. Under Secton 79 of the Government
Audtng Code, the dsposton of government
ands to prvate partes requres pubc bddng.
PEA was under a postve ega duty to dscose to
the pubc the terms and condtons for the sae of
ts ands. The aw obgated PEA to make ths
pubc dscosure even wthout demand from
pettoner or from anyone. PEA faed to make
ths pubc dscosure because the orgna |VA,
ke the Amended |VA, was the resut of a
negotated contract, not of a pubc bddng.
Consderng that PEA had an affrmatve statutory
duty to make the pubc dscosure, and was even
n breach of ths ega duty, pettoner had the
rght to seek drect |udca nterventon.
Moreover, and ths aone s determnatve of ths
ssue, the prncpe of exhauston of
admnstratve remedes does not appy when the
ssue nvoved s a purey ega or consttutona
queston. The prncpa ssue n the nstant case s
the capacty of AMARI to acqure ands hed by
PEA n vew of the consttutona ban prohbtng
the aenaton of ands of the pubc doman to
prvate corporatons. We rue that the prncpe of
exhauston of admnstratve remedes does not
appy n the nstant case.
(4) Do pettoners have standng?
PEA argues that pettoner has no standng to
nsttute mandamus proceedngs to enforce hs
consttutona rght to nformaton wthout a
showng that PEA refused to perform an
affrmatve duty mposed on PEA by the
Consttuton. PEA aso cams that pettoner has
not shown that he w suffer any concrete n|ury
because of the sgnng or mpementaton of the
Amended |VA. Thus, there s no actua
controversy requrng the exercse of the power of
|udca revew.
The pettoner has standng to brng ths
taxpayers sut because the petton seeks to
compe PEA to compy wth ts consttutona
dutes. There are two consttutona ssues
nvoved here. Frst s the rght of ctzens to
nformaton on matters of pubc concern. Second
s the appcaton of a consttutona provson
ntended to nsure the equtabe dstrbuton of
aenabe ands of the pubc doman among
Fpno ctzens. The thrust of the frst ssue s to
compe PEA to dscose pubcy nformaton on
the sae of government ands worth bons of
pesos, nformaton whch the Consttuton and
statutory aw mandate PEA to dscose. The
thrust of the second ssue s to prevent PEA from
aenatng hundreds of hectares of aenabe ands
of the pubc doman n voaton of the
Consttuton, compeng PEA to compy wth a
consttutona duty to the naton.
Moreover, the petton rases matters of
transcendenta mportance to the pubc. In
Chavez v. PCGG,|28| the Court uphed the rght of
a ctzen to brng a taxpayers sut on matters of
transcendenta mportance to the pubc, thus -
"Besdes, pettoner emphaszes, the matter of
recoverng the -gotten weath of the Marcoses s
an ssue of transcendenta mportance to the
pubc. He asserts that ordnary taxpayers have
a rght to ntate and prosecute actons
questonng the vadty of acts or orders of
government agences or nstrumentates, f the
ssues rased are of paramount pubc nterest,
and f they mmedatey affect the soca,
economc and mora we beng of the peope.
Moreover, the mere fact that he s a ctzen
satsfes the requrement of persona nterest,
when the proceedng nvoves the asserton of a
pubc rght, such as n ths case. He nvokes
severa decsons of ths Court whch have set
asde the procedura matter of ocus stand, when
the sub|ect of the case nvoved pubc nterest.
Further, n Abano v. Reyes, we sad that whe
expendture of pubc funds may not have been
nvoved under the questoned contract for the
deveopment, management and operaton of the
Mana Internatona Contaner Termna, pubc
nterest |was| defntey nvoved consderng the
mportant roe |of the sub|ect contract| . . . n the
economc deveopment of the country and the
magntude of the fnanca consderaton
nvoved. We concuded that, as a consequence,
the dscosure provson n the Consttuton woud
consttute suffcent authorty for uphodng the
pettoner's standng.
Smary, the nstant petton s anchored on the
rght of the peope to nformaton and access to
offca records, documents and papers - a rght
guaranteed under Secton 7, Artce III of the 1987
Consttuton. Pettoner, a former soctor genera,
s a Fpno ctzen. Because of the satsfacton of
the two basc requstes ad down by decsona
aw to sustan pettoner's ega standng, .e. (1)
the enforcement of a pubc rght (2) espoused by
a Fpno ctzen, we rue that the petton at bar
shoud be aowed."
(5) Whether the consttutona rght to
nformaton ncudes offca nformaton on on-
gong negotatons before a fna agreement.
Secton 7, Artce III of the Consttuton expans
the peopes rght to nformaton on matters of
pubc concern n ths manner:
Sec. 7. The rght of the peope to
nformaton on matters of pubc concern
sha be recognzed. Access to offca
records, and to documents, and papers
pertanng to offca acts, transactons, or
decsons, as we as to government
research data used as bass for pocy
deveopment, sha be afforded the ctzen,
sub|ect to such mtatons as may be
provded by aw."
The State pocy of fu transparency n a
transactons nvovng pubc nterest renforces
the peopes rght to nformaton on matters of
pubc concern. Ths State pocy s expressed n
Secton 28, Artce II of the Consttuton, thus:
Sec. 28. Sub|ect to reasonabe condtons
prescrbed by aw, the State adopts and
mpements a pocy of fu pubc
dscosure of a ts transactons nvovng
pubc nterest."
These twn provsons of the Consttuton seek to
promote transparency n pocy-makng and n the
operatons of the government, as we as provde
the peope suffcent nformaton to exercse
effectvey other consttutona rghts. These twn
provsons are essenta to the exercse of
freedom of expresson. If the government does
not dscose ts offca acts, transactons and
decsons to ctzens, whatever ctzens say, even
f expressed wthout any restrant, w be
specuatve and amount to nothng. These twn
provsons are aso essenta to hod pubc
offcas "at a tmes x x x accountabe to the
peope,"|29| for uness ctzens have the proper
nformaton, they cannot hod pubc offcas
accountabe for anythng. Armed wth the rght
nformaton, ctzens can partcpate n pubc
dscussons eadng to the formuaton of
government poces and ther effectve
mpementaton. An nformed ctzenry s
essenta to the exstence and proper functonng
of any democracy. As expaned by the Court n
Vamonte v. Bemonte, |r.
"An essenta eement of these freedoms s to
keep open a contnung daogue or process of
communcaton between the government and the
peope. It s n the nterest of the State that the
channes for free potca dscusson be
mantaned to the end that the government may
perceve and be responsve to the peopes w.
Yet, ths open daogue can be effectve ony to
the extent that the ctzenry s nformed and thus
abe to formuate ts w ntegenty. Ony when
the partcpants n the dscusson are aware of the
ssues and have access to nformaton reatng
thereto can such bear frut."
PEA asserts, ctng Chavez v. PCGG,|31| that n
cases of on-gong negotatons the rght to
nformaton s mted to "defnte propostons of
the government." PEA mantans the rght does
not ncude access to "ntra-agency or nter-
agency recommendatons or communcatons
durng the stage when common assertons are
st n the process of beng formuated or are n
the exporatory stage."
Aso, AMARI contends that pettoner cannot
nvoke the rght at the pre-decsona stage or
before the cosng of the transacton.
AMARI argues there must frst be a consummated
contract before pettoner can nvoke the rght.
Requrng government offcas to revea ther
deberatons at the pre-decsona stage w
degrade the quaty of decson-makng n
government agences. Government offcas w
hestate to express ther rea sentments durng
deberatons f there s mmedate pubc
dssemnaton of ther dscussons, puttng them
under a knds of pressure before they decde.
We must frst dstngush between nformaton the
aw on pubc bddng requres PEA to dscose
pubcy, and nformaton the consttutona rght
to nformaton requres PEA to reease to the
pubc. Before the consummaton of the
contract, PEA must, on ts own and wthout
demand from anyone, dscose to the pubc
matters reatng to the dsposton of ts property.
These ncude the sze, ocaton, technca
descrpton and nature of the property beng
dsposed of, the terms and condtons of the
dsposton, the partes quafed to bd, the
mnmum prce and smar nformaton. PEA
must prepare a these data and dscose them to
the pubc at the start of the dsposton process,
ong before the consummaton of the contract,
because the Government Audtng Code requres
pubc bddng. If PEA fas to make ths
dscosure, any ctzen can demand from PEA ths
nformaton at any tme durng the bddng
process.
Informaton, however, on on-gong evauaton or
revew of bds or proposas beng undertaken by
the bddng or revew commttee s not
mmedatey accessbe under the rght to
nformaton. Whe the evauaton or revew s
st on-gong, there are no "offca acts,
transactons, or decsons" on the bds or
proposas. However, once the commttee makes
ts offca recommendaton, there arses a
"defnte proposton" on the part of the
government. From ths moment, the pubcs
rght to nformaton attaches, and any ctzen can
access a the non-propretary nformaton eadng
to such defnte proposton. In Chavez v. PCGG,
the Court rued as foows:
"Consderng the ntent of the framers of the
Consttuton, we beeve that t s ncumbent upon
the PCGG and ts offcers, as we as other
government representatves, to dscose suffcent
pubc nformaton on any proposed settement
they have decded to take up wth the ostensbe
owners and hoders of -gotten weath. Such
nformaton, though, must pertan to defnte
propostons of the government, not necessary
to ntra-agency or nter-agency recommendatons
or communcatons durng the stage when
common assertons are st n the process of
beng formuated or are n the "exporatory"
stage. There s need, of course, to observe the
same restrctons on dscosure of nformaton n
genera, as dscussed earer - such as on matters
nvovng natona securty, dpomatc or foregn
reatons, ntegence and other cassfed
nformaton."
Contrary to AMARIs contenton, the
commssoners of the 1986 Consttutona
Commsson understood that the rght to
nformaton "contempates ncuson of
negotatons eadng to the consummaton of the
transacton." Certany, a consummated contract
s not a requrement for the exercse of the rght
to nformaton. Otherwse, the peope can never
exercse the rght f no contract s consummated,
and f one s consummated, t may be too ate for
the pubc to expose ts defects.
Requrng a consummated contract w keep the
pubc n the dark unt the contract, whch may
be grossy dsadvantageous to the government or
even ega, becomes a fat accomp. Ths
negates the State pocy of fu transparency on
matters of pubc concern, a stuaton whch the
framers of the Consttuton coud not have
ntended. Such a requrement w prevent the
ctzenry from partcpatng n the pubc
dscusson of any proposed contract, effectvey
truncatng a basc rght enshrned n the B of
Rghts. We can aow nether an emascuaton of
a consttutona rght, nor a retreat by the State of
ts avowed "pocy of fu dscosure of a ts
transactons nvovng pubc nterest."
The rght covers three categores of nformaton
whch are "matters of pubc concern," namey:
(1) offca records; (2) documents and papers
pertanng to offca acts, transactons and
decsons; and (3) government research data
used n formuatng poces. The frst category
refers to any document that s part of the pubc
records n the custody of government agences or
offcas. The second category refers to
documents and papers recordng, evdencng,
estabshng, confrmng, supportng, |ustfyng or
expanng offca acts, transactons or decsons
of government agences or offcas. The thrd
category refers to research data, whether raw,
coated or processed, owned by the government
and used n formuatng government poces.
The nformaton that pettoner may access on the
renegotaton of the |VA ncudes evauaton
reports, recommendatons, ega and expert
opnons, mnutes of meetngs, terms of reference
and other documents attached to such reports or
mnutes, a reatng to the |VA. However, the
rght to nformaton does not compe PEA to
prepare sts, abstracts, summares and the ke
reatng to the renegotaton of the |VA. The rght
ony affords access to records, documents and
papers, whch means the opportunty to nspect
and copy them. One who exercses the rght
must copy the records, documents and papers at
hs expense. The exercse of the rght s aso
sub|ect to reasonabe reguatons to protect the
ntegrty of the pubc records and to mnmze
dsrupton to government operatons, ke rues
specfyng when and how to conduct the
nspecton and copyng.
The rght to nformaton, however, does not
extend to matters recognzed as prveged
nformaton under the separaton of powers. The
rght does not aso appy to nformaton on
mtary and dpomatc secrets, nformaton
affectng natona securty, and nformaton on
nvestgatons of crmes by aw enforcement
agences before the prosecuton of the accused,
whch courts have ong recognzed as
confdenta. The rght may aso be sub|ect to
other mtatons that Congress may mpose by
aw.
There s no cam by PEA that the nformaton
demanded by pettoner s prveged nformaton
rooted n the separaton of powers. The
nformaton does not cover Presdenta
conversatons, correspondences, or dscussons
durng cosed-door Cabnet meetngs whch, ke
nterna deberatons of the Supreme Court and
other coegate courts, or executve sessons of
ether house of Congress, are recognzed as
confdenta. Ths knd of nformaton cannot be
pred open by a co-equa branch of government.
A frank exchange of exporatory deas and
assessments, free from the gare of pubcty and
pressure by nterested partes, s essenta to
protect the ndependence of decson-makng of
those tasked to exercse Presdenta, Legsatve
and |udca power. Ths s not the stuaton n the
nstant case.
We rue, therefore, that the consttutona rght to
nformaton ncudes offca nformaton on on-
gong negotatons before a fna contract. The
nformaton, however, must consttute defnte
propostons by the government and shoud not
cover recognzed exceptons ke prveged
nformaton, mtary and dpomatc secrets and
smar matters affectng natona securty and
pubc order. Congress has aso prescrbed other
mtatons on the rght to nformaton n severa
egsatons.
(6) Whether stpuatons n the Amended |VA for
the transfer to AMARI of ands, recamed or to be
recamed, voate the Consttuton.
We can now summarze our concusons as
foows:
1. The 157.84 hectares of recamed ands
comprsng the Freedom Isands, now covered by
certfcates of tte n the name of PEA, are
aenabe ands of the pubc doman. PEA may
ease these ands to prvate corporatons but may
not se or transfer ownershp of these ands to
prvate corporatons. PEA may ony se these
ands to Phppne ctzens, sub|ect to the
ownershp mtatons n the 1987 Consttuton
and exstng aws.
2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of
Mana Bay reman naenabe natura resources
of the pubc doman unt cassfed as aenabe
or dsposabe ands open to dsposton and
decared no onger needed for pubc servce. The
government can make such cassfcaton and
decaraton ony after PEA has recamed these
submerged areas. Ony then can these ands
quafy as agrcutura ands of the pubc doman,
whch are the ony natura resources the
government can aenate. In ther present state,
the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are
naenabe and outsde the commerce of man.
3. Snce the Amended |VA seeks to transfer to
AMARI, a prvate corporaton, ownershp of 77.34
hectares|110| of the Freedom Isands, such
transfer s vod for beng contrary to Secton 3,
Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton whch
prohbts prvate corporatons from acqurng any
knd of aenabe and of the pubc doman.
4. Snce the Amended |VA aso seeks to transfer
to AMARI ownershp of 290.156 hectares|111| of
st submerged areas of Mana Bay, such transfer
s vod for beng contrary to Secton 2, Artce XII
of the 1987 Consttuton whch prohbts the
aenaton of natura resources other than
agrcutura ands of the pubc doman. PEA may
recam these submerged areas. Thereafter, the
government can cassfy the recamed ands as
aenabe or dsposabe, and further decare them
no onger needed for pubc servce. St, the
transfer of such recamed aenabe ands of the
pubc doman to AMARI w be vod n vew of
Secton 3, Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton
whch prohbts prvate corporatons from
acqurng any knd of aenabe and of the pubc
doman.
Ceary, the Amended |VA voates garngy
Sectons 2 and 3, Artce XII of the 1987
Consttuton. Under Artce 1409|112| of the Cv
Code, contracts whose "ob|ect or purpose s
contrary to aw," or whose "ob|ect s outsde the
commerce of men," are "nexstent and vod from
the begnnng." The Court must perform ts duty
to defend and uphod the Consttuton, and
therefore decares the Amended |VA nu and vod
ab nto.
Seventh ssue: whether the Court s the proper
forum to rase the ssue of whether the Amended
|VA s grossy dsadvantageous to the
government.
Consderng that the Amended |VA s nu and
vod ab nto, there s no necessty to rue on ths
ast ssue. Besdes, the Court s not a trer of
facts, and ths ast ssue nvoves a determnaton
of factua matters.
WHEREFORE, the petton s GRANTED. The
Pubc Estates Authorty and Amar Coasta Bay
Deveopment Corporaton are PERMANENTLY
EN|OINED from mpementng the Amended |ont
Venture Agreement whch s hereby decared
NULL and VOID ab nto.
&!G&& vs. ELEC#O&L CO""I((IO!
G !O. 1H1MF8 "a1 M5 IJJ8
Petitioner- |ose A. Angara
espon+ent- eectora Commsson, pedro
Ynsua, Mgue Casto, and Donso C. Mayor
!ature o/ t*e Case- orgna acton n the SC.
Prohbton (Wrt of Prohbton to restran and
prohbt the Eectora Comsson from takng
further cognzance of the protest fed by Pedro
Ynsua aganst the eecton of pettoner as
member of Natona Assemby for the 1
st
dstrct
of the Provnce of Tayabas
Issue-
Ponente- Laure, |.
Facts:
1) Sept 17, 1935: eectons-|ose Angara,
Pedro Ynsua, Mgue Casto and Donso
Mayor were canddates
2) Oct 7, 1935: Provnca Board of
canvassers, procamed Angara as
member-eect of NA for sad dstrct
3) Nov 15, 1935: pettoner took hs oath
4) Dec 3, 1935: NA passed a resouton
confrmng hs beng eected as member of
NA
5) Dec 8, 1935: Pedro Ynsua fed before the
EC a "moton of Protest" aganst the
eecton of pettoner and that he be
decared wnner or the eecton of sad
poston be nufed
6) Dec 9, 1935: EC adopted a resouton that
no protests woud be consdered anymore
7) Dec 20, 1935: pettoner fed before the
EC "moton to Dsmss the Protest"
aegng
a) Res. NO 8- adopted n egtmate
exercse of Consttutona prerogatve
of the NA to prescrbe perod durng
whch protests shoud be presented
b) Aforesad resouton-accepted the
mtaton of sad perod
c) Protest n queston has been fed out
of prescrbed perod
8) Dec 27, 1935: Pedro Ynsua fed " Answer
to Moton for Dsmssa"-aegng no
barrng of presentaton of protest aganst
eecton of member after confrmaton by
NA
9) Dec 31, 1935: Angara fed hs repy
10) Case submtted for decson -EC
promugated a resouton-|anuary 23,
1936 denyng pettoners Moton to
Dsmss Protest
WHY THE NEED TO ISSUE THE WRIT (accordng to
pettoner)
a) Consttuton confers excusve |ursdcton
upon EC as regards to merts of contested
eectons to the NA
b) Const excudes power to reguate the
proceedngs of sad eecton contests--
reserved to the egsatve department or
the NA
c) EC can reguate proceedngs ony f NA
have not avaed of ts prmary power to
reguate such proceedngs
d) Res No.8 of NA s vad and shoud be
respected and obeyed
e) Par 13 of Sect 1 of ordnance, Par 6 of Art
VII - Tydngs-mcduffe Law, Sec 1 and 3
Art VIII of Const-SC-|ursdcton to pass
upon the fundamenta questons heren
rased because t nvoves nterpretaton of
the consttuton of the Phs
11) Feb 25, 1936: Soctor- genera on behaf
of SC-defenses:
a) EC has been created by the
Consttuton (nstrumentaty of the
egsatve department) wth
|ursdcton to decde "a contests
reatng to eecton, returns and
dsquafcatons of members of NA
b) Dec 9, 1935: fxng the date of ast day
of fng of protests-egtmate
exercse of the mped powers granted
by the Consttuton
c) |an 23, 1936: res. Overrung moton of
pettoner to dsmss eecton protest
and takng cognzance of the sad
protest-acted n egtmate exercse of
quas-|udca functons
d) Resouton of NA (dec 3, 1936)-
confrmng eecton of members of NA
coud not deprve the EC of ts
|ursdcton to take cognzance of
eecton protests fed wthn set date
e) EC s a body vested wth quas-|udca
functons-not an nferor trbuna or a
corporaton or board
ANSWER OF PEDRO YNSUA:
a) At the tme of approva of Rues of EC (dec
9, 1935) there was no exstng aw fxng
the perod wthn whch protests aganst
eecton of members of NA shoud be fed
-Dec 9, 1935-set ast day of fng
b) Respondent presented hs moton before
dec 9, 1935
c) EC acqured |ursdcton over protest fed
d) Confrmaton of NA not requred by aw/
const -ths does not operate to mt the
perod wthn whch protests shoud be
fed as to deprve EC of |ursdcton over
protests fed
e) EC s an ndependent entty created by
Const endowed wth quas-|udca
functon-decsons are fna and
unappeaabe
f) It s a consttutona creaton and s not an
nferor trbuna
g) Par 6 of Art 7 of TMD has an appcaton to
the case at bar
MARCH 13, 1936: case argued: ssuance of
premnary wrt of prohbton aganst the
respondent EC was dened
MARCH 21, 1936- resouton of the court
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED IN THE CASE AT BAR:
1) Has the Supreme Court |ursdcton over
the EC/
2) Has the EC acted wthout or n excess of
|ursdcton n assumng to take
cognzance of the protest fed aganst the
eecton of pettoner notwthstandng
prevous confrmaton of such eecton by
resouton of NA?
ANSWERS:
1) Separaton of powers-each
department of government has
excusve cognzance of matters w/n
ts |ursdcton and supreme w/n ts
own sphere
- Checks and baances to secure
coordnaton on the varous
workngs of varous departments of
the government
- In cases of confct, the |udca
dept s the ony consttutona
organ w/c can be caed upon to
determne the proper aocaton of
powers between severa
departments and among the
ntegra or consttuent unts thereof
- But |udcary does not assert
superorty, does not nufy or
nvadate acts of egsature but
ony asserts the soemn and sacred
obgaton assgned to t by the
consttuton
- |UDICIAL SUPREMACY: power of
|udca revew under the
consttuton-mted to actua
cases and controverses
PETITIONERs VIEW:- confrmaton nufes the
power of the EC to entertan protests aganst
eecton returns and dsquafcatons submtted
after dec 3, 1935
RESPONDENTS VIEW: EC has the soe power of
reguatng ts proceedngs-Dec 9, 1935
resouton shoud be uphed
- Need for fna arbter to determne
confct of authorty between two
agences crested by the
Consttuton
DECISION FOR ISSUE # 1: SC has |ursdcton over
EC and the sub|ect matter of controversy
( Consttutona grants to EC the power of beng
the soe |udge to protests regardng eecton
returns, and quafcatons of the members of the
NA)
DECISION FOR ISSUE #2: Sec 4 of Art VI of
Consttuton (3 |ustces of Sc, 6 from NA - 3
ma|orty, 3 from that wth second argest number
of votes); soe |udge to a contests..
Orgna provson : Act of Congress of |uy
1, 1902-"Assemby sha be the |udge of
eectons, returns and quafcatons of ts
members"
HOW IT WAS CREATED: EC
Subcommttee of 5 apponted by
Commttee on Consttutona Guarantees
of consttutona Conventon (August 30,
1934)=== creaton of a Trbuna for
Consttutona Securty (hear protests n
Congress and Exec offcas-
eectons)===Commttee of Consttutona
Guarantees== reducton of egsatve
reps from 6 to 4 (sept 15, 1936)
Meanwhe:
Commttee on Legsatve Power (Sept 24,
1934)=== Eectora Commsson (6 reps)
- Eectora commsson favored:
modfed by the Sponsorshp
Commttee (adopt uncamera
rather than bcamera
egsature)=== submtted to the
conventon (Oct 26, 1934)
- Deegates Labrador and Abordo:
amend to seek restoraton of peace
and decde on contests reatng to
eectons of NA- to neutraze
potcs, non-partsan character of
the Commsson
|anuary 31, 1935: draft made for approva
Transfer of power of determnng the
eecton, return and quafcatons of the
members of the egsatve ong odged n
the eg body to an ndependent, mparta
and non-partsan trbuna
Purpose was to transfer n totaty the
powers prevousy exercsed by the
egsatve n matters pertanng to
contested eectons of ts members to an
ndependent and mparta trbuna
The grant of power to the EC to |udge a
contests reatng to the eecton, returns
and quafcatons of members of NA s
ntended to be as compete and s
unmpared as f t has remaned orgnay
n the egsature
Therefore: It cannot be that NA may
reguate the proceedngs of EC and cut off
power of the EC to ay down the perod
w/n w/c protests shoud be fed
The EC n such case woud be nvested
wth power to determne contested cases
nvovng the eecton, returns and
quafcatons of the members of the NA
not sub|ect at a tmes to the reguatve
power of NA
Ths w ead to DUAL AUTHORITY-cash
of powers from tme to tme
EC has the power and authorty
Confrmaton from the NA s not needed or
necessary-mere certfcaton from Prov
board of canvassers s suffcent to entte
a member-eect to a seat n the NA and
renders hm egbe to any offce n the
sad budy
Under the |ONES LAW- each house of the
Ph eg fxed the tme when protests
aganst eecton shoud be fed but ths
was repeaed by the Const
CONCLUSIONS
1) Government estabshed by the Const
foowng the theory of separaton of
powers (L, E, |)
2) System of checks and baances and the
overappng of functons and dutes make
dffcut the demtaton of powers granted
3) Cases of confct: the SC s the fna arbter
-ony consttutona mechansm devsed
fnay to resove the confct and aocate
consttutona boundares
4) |UDICIAL SUPREMACY: |udca revew on
actua cases and controverses-to see
that no branch or agency of government
transcends the const-source of a
authorty
5) EC s the soe |udge of a contests reatng
to eecton, returns and quafcatons of
members of NA
6) EC s an ndependent consttutona
creaton w/ specfc powers and functons
7) Under the prevang organc Law before
the present const-egsature (each
house) soe |udge to eectons
8) Present const has transferred a these
powers to EC
9) Such transfer of power was fu, cear and
compete
10) EC creatons purpose: ndependent const
organ to hande contests on eectons of
NA members mpartay and wth to
reduce f not totay avod partsan potcs
11) Sec 4 Art VI of Const repeaed Sec 18 of
|ones Law and Sec 478 Act 388
authorzng each house to prescrbe tme
and manner of fng protests/contests on
eectons of member
12) Confrmaton of NA s not essenta for
dschargng of functons and dutes
13) Confrmaton of NA does not and cannot
deprve the EC of ts ncdenta power to
prescrbe the tme w/n w/c protests
aganst eecton of any member of NA
shoud be fed
THEREFORE:
EC was actng w/n the egtmate exercse
of ts consttutona prerogatve n
assumng to take cognzance of the
protest fed by Pedro Ynsua aganst the
eecton of pettoner |ose Angara
Resouton of NA dated Dec 3, 1935
cannot n any matter to the tme of fng
protests aganst the eecton
DECISION:
The wrt of prohbton aganst the EC s hereby
DENIED wth costs aganst pettoner.
CONCURRING OPINION
&6a+ (antos5 $
- Power vested by const to EC
|udca n nature and purpose of
creaton of EC was not to erect a
body above the aw but to rase eg
eecton contests from the ayer of
potca to |ustcabe decson
- Authorty to prescrbe tme for fng
protest -EC
- Dec 3, 1935 reso dd not ban EC
from takng cognzance of the
protest

Consolidated Conti 1 Digests May 15 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consolidated Conti 1 Digests May 15 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.

and that a contrary

You might also like