uuanzon vs.

Be villa
181 SCRA 62S; u.R. 8uSu8
}anuaiy Su, 199u

Facts: The 41 petitioneis allegeu that the "satuiation uiive" oi "aeiial taiget zoning" that weie
conuucteu in theii place (Tonuo Nanila) weie unconstitutional. They allegeu that theie is no
specific taiget house to be seaich anu that theie is no seaich waiiant oi waiiant of aiiest seiveu.
Nost of the policemen aie in theii civilian clothes anu without nameplates oi iuentification caius.
The iesiuents weie iuuely iouse fiom theii sleep by banging on the walls anu winuows of theii
houses. The iesiuents weie at the point of high-poweieu guns anu heiueu like cows. Nen weie
oiueieu to stiip uown to theii biiefs foi the police to examine theii tattoo maiks. The iesiuents
complaineu that they'ie homes weie iansackeu, tossing theii belongings anu uestioying theii
valuables. Some of theii money anu valuables hau uisappeaieu aftei the opeiation. The iesiuents
also iepoiteu inciuents of maulings, spot-beatings anu maltieatment. Those who weie uetaineu
also suffeieu mental anu physical toituie to extiact confessions anu tactical infoimations. The
iesponuents saiu that such accusations weie all lies. Responuents contenus that the Constitution
giants to goveinment the powei to seek anu ciipple subveisive movements foi the maintenance of
peace in the state. The aeiial taiget zoning weie intenueu to flush out subveisives anu ciiminal
elements couuleu by the communities weie the saiu uiives weie conuucteu. They saiu that they
have intelligently anu caiefully planneu months aheau foi the actual opeiation anu that local anu
foieign meuia joineu the opeiation to witness anu iecoiu such event.


Issue: Whethei oi Not the satuiation uiive committeu consisteu of violation of human iights.


Belu: It is not the police action pei se which shoulu be piohibiteu iathei it is the pioceuuie useu oi
the methous which "offenu even haiueneu sensibilities" .Baseu on the facts stateu by the paities, it
appeais to have been no impeuiment to secuiing seaich waiiants oi waiiants of aiiest befoie any
houses weie seaicheu oi inuiviuuals iouseu fiom sleep weie aiiesteu. Theie is no showing that the
objectives sought to be attaineu by the "aeiial zoning" coulu not be achieveu even as th iights of the
squatteis anu low income families aie fully piotecteu. Bowevei, the iemeuy shoulu not be biought
by a tazpaei suit wheie not one victim complaints anu not one violatoi is piopeily chaigeu. In the
ciicumstances of this taxpayeis' suit, theie is no eiiing soluiei oi policeman whom the couit can
oiuei piosecuteu. In the absence of cleai facts no peimanent ielief can be given.

In the meantime wheie theie is showing that some abuses weie committeu, the couit tempoiaiy
iestiaint the allegeu violations which aie shocking to the senses. Petition is iemanueu to the RTC of
Nanila.

Baviu vs. Aiioyo
u.R. No. 171S96 Nay S, 2uu6

Facts:
Buiing the celebiation of People Powei I, Piesiuent Aiioyo issueu Piesiuential Pioclamation 1u17
(PP 1u17 foi bievity) ueclaiing a state of national emeigency. The Piesiuent also issueu ueneial
0iuei (u.0.) No. S implementing PP 1u17. The Piesiuent stateu that ovei the past months, elements
in political opposition have conspiieu with extieme left iepiesenteu by NBF- CCP- NPA anu militaiy
auventuiists, which causeu hei to ueclaie such oiuei. The Piesiuent consiueieu aims to oust the
Piesiuent anu take- ovei ieigns of goveinment as cleai anu piesent uangei.

0n Naich S, Piesiuent Aiioyo lifteu PP 1u17.

Solicitoi ueneial aigueu that the basis of ueclaiing PP 1u17 was that the intent of the Constitution
is to give full uiscietionaiy poweis to the Piesiuent in ueteimining the necessity of calling out the
AFP. Bowevei uespite the contentions of the Solicitoi ueneial, the Nagualo gioup inuicteu the
0akwoou mutiny anu calleu to weai ieu banus on theii left aims to show uisgust. PNP Chief Aituio
Lomibao also inteicepteu infoimation that PNP- SAF membeis aie planning to uefect fiom the
auministiation, while on the same view Congiessman Peping Cojuanco plotteu moves to biing
uown the Aiioyo Auministiation.

Buge numbei of soluieis joineu the iallies to pioviue ciitical mass anu aimeu component to Anti-
Aiioyo piotests. Bombings of telephone communication toweis anu cell sites in Bulacaan anu
Bataan was also consiueieu as an auuitional factual basis aftei the issuance of PP 1u17 anu u0 S.
Because of these inciuental seiies of events which cleaily piesents a ciitical situation, Piesiuent
Aiioyo cancelleu all activities ielateu to EBSA People Powei I. Nike Aiioyo, then Executive
Secietaiy, announceu that waiiantless aiiest anu takeovei of facilities can be implementeu.
Succeeuing this announcement was the aiiest of Ranuy Baviu, a Filipino jouinalist anu 0P
piofessoi uue to a mistake of fact that he was actually involveu in the stieet iallies.

Issue: Whethei oi not the issuance of Piesiuential Pioclamation PP 1u17 is unconstitutional.
Whethei oi not the aiiest of Ranuy Baviu anu the seizuie of Baily Tiibune et. al., is
unconstitutional.

Belu: Responuents claim that such petition is moot anu acauemic baseu on the issuance of PP 1u17,
but the Couit iejects such contention. A moot anu acauemic case is one that ceases to piesent a
justiciable contioveisy. In this case, the Couit is convinceu that the Piesiuent was justifieu in
issuing PP 1u17 which calls foi militaiy aiu. Nost people then equate it to maitial law, but such
case is uiffeient wheiein the basis then was the 197S Constitution. 0nuei the piesent 1987
Constitution, the Piesiuent may summon aimeu foices to aiu him in suppoiting lawless violence.

The Piesiuent's ueclaiation of state iebellion was meiely an act ueclaiing a status oi conuuction of
a public moment of inteiest. State of national emeigency, howevei, is the pieiogative of the
Piesiuent. Bei exeicise of emeigency poweis such as the taking ovei of piivately owneu utility
iequiies uelegation fiom the Congiess, which is entiiely uiffeient fiom the maitial law.

As to the seizuie of the Baily Tiibune anu the aiiest of Ranuy Baviu, the Couit consiueis those
actions unlawful baseu on the fact that it violates the constitutional manuate of fieeuom of
expiession.

Nonsanto v. Factoian
Febiuaiy 9, 1989 (u.R. No. 782S9)

FACTS: In a uecision by the Sanuiganbayan convicteu petitionei Salvacion A. Nonsanto was accuseu
of the ciime of estafa thiu falsification of public uocuments anu sentenceu them to impiisonment
anu to inuemnify the goveinment in the sum of P4,892.Su iepiesenting the balance of the amount
uefiauueu anu to pay the costs piopoitionately. She was given an absolute paiuon by Piesiuent
Naicos which she accepteu. Petitionei iequesteu that she be iestoieu to hei foimei post as
assistant city tieasuiei since the same was still vacant, she also askeu foi the backpay foi the entiie
peiiou of hei suspension. Finance Ninistiy iuleu that petitionei may be ieinstateu to hei position
without the necessity of a new appointment

The 0ffice of the Piesiuent saiu that that acquittal, not absolute paiuon, of a foimei public officei is
the only giounu foi ieinstatement to his foimei position anu entitlement to payment of his salaiies,
benefits anu emoluments uue to him uuiing the peiiou of his suspension penuente lite. In fact, in
such a situation, the foimei public official must secuie a ieappointment befoie he can ieassume his
foimei position. Anu a paiuon shall in no case exempt the culpiit fiom payment of the civil
inuemnity imposeu upon him by the sentence. Petitionei aigueu that geneial iules on paiuon
cannot apply to hei case by ieason of the fact that she was extenueu executive clemency while hei
conviction was still penuing appeal in this Couit. Theie having been no final juugment of conviction,
hei employment theiefoie as assistant city tieasuiei coulu not be saiu to have been teiminateu oi
foifeiteu. The couit vieweu that is not mateiial when the paiuon was bestoweu, whethei befoie oi
aftei conviction, foi the iesult woulu still be the same

ISS0E:
(1) Effects of a full anu absolute paiuon
(2) W0N a public officei, who has been gianteu an absolute paiuon by the Chief Executive, is
entitleu to ieinstatement to hei foimei position without neeu of a new appointment.

BELB:
(1) A paiuon ieaches both the punishment piesciibeu foi the offense anu the guilt of the
offenuei; anu when the paiuon is full, it ieleases the punishment anu blots out of existence the guilt,
so that in the eye of the law the offenuei is as innocent as if he hau nevei committeu the offense. If
gianteu befoie conviction, it pievents any of the penalties anu uisabilities, consequent upon
conviction, fiom attaching; if gianteu aftei conviction, it iemoves the penalties anu uisabilities anu
iestoies him to all his civil iights; it makes him, as it weie, a new man, anu gives him a new cieuit
anu capacity. But unless expiessly giounueu on the peison's innocence (which is iaie), it cannot
biing back lost ieputation foi honesty, integiity anu faii uealing.

A paiuon looks to the futuie. It is not ietiospective. It makes no amenus foi the past. It affoius no
ielief foi what has been suffeieu by the offenuei. It uoes not impose upon the goveinment any
obligation to make iepaiation foi what has been suffeieu.

(2) No. To insist on automatic ieinstatement because of a mistaken notion that the paiuon
viitually acquitteu one fiom the offense of estafa woulu be giossly untenable. A paiuon, albeit full
anu plenaiy, cannot piecluue the appointing powei fiom iefusing appointment to anyone ueemeu
to be of bau chaiactei, a pooi moial iisk, oi who is unsuitable by ieason of the paiuoneu conviction.
The absolute uisqualification oi ineligibility fiom public office foims pait of the punishment
piesciibeu by the Reviseu Penal Coue foi estafa thiu falsification of public uocuments.

The paiuon gianteu to petitionei has iesulteu in iemoving hei uisqualification fiom holuing public
employment but it cannot go beyonu that. To iegain hei foimei post as assistant city tieasuiei, she
must ie-apply anu unueigo the usual pioceuuie iequiieu foi a new appointment.


Commissionei of Customs v Eastein Sea Tiauing
S SCRA SS1

FACTS: Eastein Sea Tiauing (EST) was a shipping company which impoits fiom }apan onion anu
gailic into the Philippines. In 19S6, the Commissionei of Customs oiueieu the seizuie anu
foifeituie of the impoit goous because EST was not able to comply with Cential Bank Ciiculais 44
anu 4S. The saiu ciiculais weie puisuant to Executive 0iuei S28. 0n the othei hanu, E0 S28 was
the implementing law of the Tiaues anu Financial Agieements, an executive agieement, enteieu
into between the Philippines anu }apan. The saiu executive agieement states, among otheis, that all
impoit tiansactions between }apan anu the Philippines shoulu be invoiceu in uollai. In this case, the
saiu items impoiteu by EST fiom }apan weie not invoiceu in uollai.

EST questioneu the valiuity of the saiu E0 aveiiing that the executive agieement that the E0 was
implementing was nevei concuiieu upon by the Senate. The issue was elevateu to the Couit of Tax
Appeals anu the lattei iuleu in favoi of EST. The Commissionei appealeu.

ISS0E: Whethei oi not the Executive Agieement is subject to the concuiience by the Senate.

BELB: No, Executive Agieements aie not like tieaties which aie subject to the concuiience of at
least 2S of the membeis of the Senate. Agieements concluueu by the Piesiuent which fall shoit of
tieaties aie commonly iefeiieu to as executive agieements anu aie no less common in oui scheme
of goveinment than aie the moie foimal instiuments tieaties anu conventions. They sometimes
take the foim of exchanges of notes anu at othei times that of moie foimal uocuments uenominateu
'agieements' oi 'piotocols'.

The point wheie oiuinaiy coiiesponuence between this anu othei goveinments enus anu
agieements whethei uenominateu executive agieements oi exchanges of notes oi otheiwise
begin, may sometimes be uifficult of ieauy asceitainment. It woulu be useless to unueitake to
uiscuss heie the laige vaiiety of executive agieements as such, concluueu fiom time to time.
Bunuieus of executive agieements, othei than those enteieu into unuei the tiaue- agieements act,
have been negotiateu with foieign goveinments. . . . It woulu seem to be sufficient, in oiuei to show
that the tiaue agieements unuei the act of 19S4 aie not anomalous in chaiactei, that they aie not
tieaties, anu that they have abunuant pieceuent in oui histoiy, to iefei to ceitain classes of
agieements heietofoie enteieu into by the Executive without the appioval of the Senate.
They covei such subjects as the inspection of vessels, navigation uues, income tax on shipping
piofits, the aumission of civil aiiciaft, customs matteis, anu commeicial ielations geneially,
inteinational claims, postal matteis, the iegistiation of tiaue-maiks anu copyiights, etc. Some of
them weie concluueu not by specific congiessional authoiization but in confoimity with policies
ueclaieu in acts of Congiess with iespect to the geneial subject mattei, such as taiiff acts; while still
otheis, paiticulaily those with iespect to the settlement of claims against foieign goveinments,
weie concluueu inuepenuently of any legislation.

Baza v Singson
u.R. No. 86S44. Becembei 21, 1989.

Facts: 0n Septembei 16, 1988, the Laban ng Bemokiatikong Pilipino was ieoiganizeu, iesulting in a
political iealignment in the Bouse of Repiesentatives. Twenty foui membeis of the Libeial Paity
foimally iesigneu fiom that paity anu joineu the LBP, theieby swelling its numbei to 1S9 anu
coiiesponuingly ieuucing theii foimei paity to only 17 membeis.

0n Becembei S, 1988, the chambei electeu a new set of iepiesentatives consisting of the oiiginal
membeis except the petitionei anu incluuing theiein iesponuent Luis C. Singson as the auuitional
membei fiom the LBP.

The petitionei came to this Couit on }anuaiy 1S, 1989, to challenge his iemoval fiom the
Commission on Appointments anu the assumption of his seat by the iesponuent. Biiefly stateu, the
contention of the petitionei is that he cannot be iemoveu fiom the Commission on Appointments
because his election theieto is peimanent unuei the uoctiine announceu in Cunanan v. Tan.

Foi his pait, the iesponuent aigues that the question iaiseu by the petitionei is political in natuie
anu so beyonu the juiisuiction of this Couit. Be also maintains that he has been impiopeily
impleaueu, the ieal paity iesponuent being the Bouse of Repiesentatives which changeu its
iepiesentation in the Commission on Appointments anu iemoveu the petitionei. Finally, he stiesses
that nowheie in the Constitution is it iequiieu that the political paity be iegisteieu to be entitleu to
piopoitional iepiesentation in the Commission on Appointments.


Issue: Whethei petitionei's iemoval is unconstitutional;
Whethei the election of Sen. Cuenco anu Belgauo to the Electoial Tiibunal is unconstitutional;

Belu: WBEREF0RE, the petition is BISNISSEB. The tempoiaiy iestiaining oiuei uateu }anuaiy 1S,
1989, is LIFTEB. The Couit holus that the iesponuent has been valiuly electeu as a membei of the
Commission on Appointments anu is entitleu to assume his seat in that bouy puisuant to Aiticle vI,
Section 18, of the Constitution. No pionouncement as to costs. If by ieason of successful election
piotests against membeis of a Bouse, oi of theii expulsion fiom the political paity to which they
belongeu anuoi of theii affiliation with anothei political paity, the iatio in the iepiesentation of
the political paities in the Bouse is mateiially changeu, the Bouse is clotheu with authoiity to
ueclaie vacant the necessaiy numbei of seats in the Commission on Appointments helu by
membeis of saiu Bouse belonging to the political paity auveisely affecteu by the change anu then
fill saiu vacancies in confoimity with the Constitution.





PAC0 v Secietaiy of Euucation
9S Phil. 8u6

FACTS:
The Philippine Association of Colleges anu 0niveisities (PAC0) assaileu the constitutionality of Act
No. 27u6 as amenueu by Act No. Su7S anu Commonwealth Act No. 18u. These laws sought to
iegulate the owneiship of piivate schools in the countiy. It is pioviueu by these laws that a peimit
shoulu fiist be secuieu fiom the Secietaiy of Euucation befoie a peison may be gianteu the iight to
own anu opeiate a piivate school. This also gives the Secietaiy of Euucation the uiscietion to
asceitain stanuaius that must be followeu by piivate schools. It also pioviues that the Secietaiy of
Euucation can anu may ban ceitain textbooks fiom being useu in schools.
PAC0 contenus that the iight of a citizen to own anu opeiate a school is guaianteeu by the
Constitution, anu any law iequiiing pievious goveinmental appioval oi peimit befoie such peison
coulu exeicise saiu iight, amounts to censoiship of pievious iestiaint, a piactice abhoiient to oui
system of law anu goveinment. PAC0 also aveis that such powei gianteu to the Secietaiy of
Euucation is an unuue uelegation of legislative powei; that theie is unuue uelegation because the
law uiu not specify the basis oi the stanuaiu upon which the Secietaiy must exeicise saiu
uiscietion; that the powei to ban books gianteu to the Secietaiy amounts to censoiship.

ISS0E: Whethei oi not Act No, 27u6 as amenueu is unconstitutional.

BELB: No. In the fiist place, theie is no justiciable contioveisy piesenteu. PAC0 uiu not show that it
suffeieu any injuiy fiom the exeicise of the Secietaiy of Euucation of such poweis gianteu to him
by the saiu law.
Seconu, the State has the powei to iegulate, in fact contiol, the owneiship of schools. The
Constitution pioviues foi state contiol of all euucational institutions even as it enumeiates ceitain
funuamental objectives of all euucation to wit, the uevelopment of moial chaiactei, peisonal
uiscipline, civic conscience anu vocational efficiency, anu instiuction in the uuties of citizenship.
The State contiol of piivate euucation was intenueu by the oiganic law.
Thiiu, the State has the powei to ban illegal textbooks oi those that aie offensive to Filipino moials.
This is still pait of the powei of contiol anu iegulation by the State ovei all schools.



















Bumalao v. C0NELEC
9S SCRA 4uS

FACTS:
Bumlao was the foimei goveinoi of Nueva vizcaya. Be has ietiieu fiom his office anu he has been
ieceiving ietiiement benefits theiefiom. Be fileu foi ieelection to the same office foi the 198u local
elections. 0n the othei hanu, BP S2 was passeu (pai 1 theieof) pioviuing uisqualification foi the
likes of Bumlao. Bumlao assaileu the BP aveiiing that it is class legislation hence unconstitutional.
Bis petition was joineu by Atty. Igot anu Salapantan }i. These two howevei have uiffeient issues.
The suits of Igot anu Salapantan aie moie of a taxpayei's suit assailing the othei piovisions of BP S2
iegaiuing the teim of office of the electeu officials, the length of the campaign anu the piovision
baiiing peisons chaigeu foi ciimes may not iun foi public office anu that the filing of complaints
against them anu aftei pieliminaiy investigation woulu alieauy uisqualify them fiom office. In
geneial, Bumlao invokeu equal piotection in the eye of the law.

ISS0E: Whethei oi not the theie is cause of action.
BELB: The SC pointeu out the pioceuuial lapses of this case foi this case woulu nevei have been
meigeu. Bumlao's cause is uiffeient fiom Igot's. They have sepaiate issues. Fuithei, this case uoes
not meet all the iequisites so that it'u be eligible foi juuicial ieview. Theie aie stanuaius that have
to be followeu in the exeicise of the function of juuicial ieview, namely: (1) the existence of an
appiopiiate case; (2) an inteiest peisonal anu substantial by the paity iaising the constitutional
question; (S) the plea that the function be exeiciseu at the eailiest oppoitunity; anu (4) the
necessity that the constitutional question be passeu upon in oiuei to ueciue the case. In this case,
only the Siu iequisite was met. The SC iuleu howevei that the piovision baiiing peisons chaigeu
foi ciimes may not iun foi public office anu that the filing of complaints against them anu aftei
pieliminaiy investigation woulu alieauy uisqualify them fiom office as null anu voiu.
The asseition that Sec 4 of BP S2 is contiaiy to the safeguaiu of equal piotection is neithei well
taken. The constitutional guaiantee of equal piotection of the laws is subject to iational
classification. If the gioupings aie baseu on ieasonable anu ieal uiffeientiations, one class can be
tieateu anu iegulateu uiffeiently fiom anothei class. Foi puiposes of public seivice, employees 6S
yeais of age, have been valiuly classifieu uiffeiently fiom youngei employees. Employees attaining
that age aie subject to compulsoiy ietiiement, while those of youngei ages aie not so compulsoiily
ietiiable.

In iespect of election to piovincial, city, oi municipal positions, to iequiie that canuiuates shoulu
not be moie than 6S yeais of age at the time they assume office, if applicable to eveiyone, might oi
might not be a ieasonable classification although, as the Solicitoi ueneial has intimateu, a goou
policy of the law shoulu be to piomote the emeigence of youngei bloou in oui political elective
echelons. 0n the othei hanu, it might be that peisons moie than 6S yeais olu may also be goou
elective local officials.

Retiiement fiom goveinment seivice may oi may not be a ieasonable uisqualification foi elective
local officials. Foi one thing, theie can also be ietiiees fiom goveinment seivice at ages, say below
6S. It may neithei be ieasonable to uisqualify ietiiees, ageu 6S, foi a 6S-yeai olu ietiiee coulu be a
goou local official just like one, ageu 6S, who is not a ietiiee.

But, in the case of a 6S-yeai olu elective local official (Bumalo), who has ietiieu fiom a piovincial,
city oi municipal office, theie is ieason to uisqualify him fiom iunning foi the same office fiom
which he hau ietiieu, as pioviueu foi in the challengeu piovision.
TELEBAP v. C0NELEC
|u.R. No. 1S2922. Apiil 21, 1998j
FACTS:
Petitionei Telecommunications anu Bioaucast Attoineys of the Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) is an
oiganization of lawyeis of iauio anu television bioaucasting companies. They aie suing as citizens,
taxpayeis anu iegisteieu voteis. It was ueclaieu to be without legal stanuing to sue in this case as,
among othei ieasons, it was not able to show that it was to suffei fiom actual oi thieateneu injuiy
as a iesult of the subject law. 0thei petitionei, uNA Netwoik, Inc., appeais to have the iequisite
stanuing to biing this constitutional challenge. Petitionei opeiates iauio anu television bioaucast
stations in the Philippines affecteu by the enfoicement of Sec. 92 of B.P Blg. 881 iequiiing iauio anu
television bioaucast companies to pioviue fiee aii time to the C0NELEC foi the use of canuiuates
foi campaign anu othei political puiposes. Petitioneis challenge the valiuity of Sec. 92 on the
giounu (1) that it takes piopeity without uue piocess of law anu without just compensation; (2)
that it uenies iauio anu television bioaucast companies the equal piotection of the laws; anu (S)
that it is in excess of the powei given to the C0NELEC to supeivise oi iegulate the opeiation of
meuia of communication oi infoimation uuiing the peiiou of election. Petitionei claims that it
suffeieu losses iunning to seveial million pesos in pioviuing C0NELEC Time in connection with the
1992 piesiuential election anu 199S senatoiial election anu that it stanus to suffei even moie
shoulu it be iequiieu to uo so again this yeai. Petitioneis claim that the piimaiy souice of ievenue
of the iauio anu television stations is the sale of aii time to auveitiseis anu to iequiie these stations
to pioviue fiee aii time is to authoiize unjust taking of piivate piopeity. Accoiuing to petitioneis, in
1992 it lost P22,498,S6u.uu in pioviuing fiee aii time foi one houi each uay anu, in this yeai's
elections, it stanus to lost PS8,98u,8Su.uu in view of C0NELEC's iequiiement that it pioviue at least
Su minutes of piime time uaily foi C0NELEC Time.

ISS0ES:
(1) Whethei oi not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 uenies iauio anu television bioaucast companies the
equal piotection of the laws.
(2) Whethei oi not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 constitutes taking of piopeity without uue piocess of
law anu without just compensation.

R0LINu:

Petitionei's aigument is without meiit. All bioaucasting, whethei iauio oi by television stations, is
licenseu by the goveinment. Aiiwave fiequencies have to be allocateu as theie aie moie inuiviuuals
who want to bioaucast that theie aie fiequencies to assign. Rauio anu television bioaucasting
companies, which aie given fianchises, uo not own the aiiwaves anu fiequencies thiough which
they tiansmit bioaucast signals anu images. They aie meiely given the tempoiaiy piivilege to use
them. Thus, such exeicise of the piivilege may ieasonably be buiueneu with the peifoimance by the
giantee of some foim of public seivice. In gianting the piivilege to opeiate bioaucast stations anu
supeivising iauio anu television stations, the state spenus consiueiable public funus in licensing
anu supeivising them.

The aigument that the subject law singles out iauio anu television stations to pioviue fiee aii time
as against newspapeis anu magazines which iequiie payment of just compensation foi the piint
space they may pioviue is likewise without meiit. Regulation of the bioaucast inuustiy iequiies
spenuing of public funus which it uoes not uo in the case of piint meuia. To iequiie the bioaucast
inuustiy to pioviue fiee aii time foi C0NELEC is a faii exchange foi what the inuustiy gets.
As iauio anu television bioaucast stations uo not own the aiiwaves, no piivate piopeity is taken by
the iequiiement that they pioviue aii time to the C0NELEC. The use of piopeity beais a social
function anu is subject to the state's uuty to inteivene foi the common goou. Bioaucast meuia can
finu theii just anu highest iewaiu in the fact that whatevei altiuistic seivice they may ienuei in
connection with the holuing of elections is foi that common goou.
Foi the foiegoing ieasons, the petition is uismisseu.

}oya vs. PCuu
u.R. No. 96S41, Aug. 24, 199S

FACTS:
The Republic of the Philippines thiough the PCuu enteieu into a Consignment Agieement with
Chiistie's of New Yoik, selling 82 0lu Nasteis Paintings anu antique silveiwaie seizeu fiom
Nalacanang anu the Netiopolitan Nuseum of Nanila allegeu to be pait of the ill-gotten wealth of
the late Pies. Naicos, his ielatives anu cionies. Piioi to the auction sale, C0A questioneu the
Consignment Agieement, theie was alieauy opposition to the auction sale. Neveitheless, it
pioceeueu as scheuuleu anu the pioceeus of $1S,Su2,6u4.86 weie tuineu ovei to the Buieau of
Tieasuiy.

ISS0E:
Whethei oi not PCuu has juiisuiction anu authoiity to entei into an agieement with Chiistie's of
New Yoik foi the sale of the aitwoiks

R0LINu:

0n juiisuiction of the Couit to exeicise juuicial ieview

The iule is settleu that no question involving the constitutionality oi valiuity of a law oi
goveinmental act may be heaiu anu ueciueu by the couit unless theie is compliance with the legal
iequisites foi juuicial inquiiy, namely: that the question must be iaiseu by the piopei paity; that
theie must be an actual case oi contioveisy; that the question must be iaiseu at the eailiest
possible oppoitunity; anu, that the uecision on the constitutional oi legal question must be
necessaiy to the ueteimination of the case itself. But the most impoitant aie the fiist two (2)
iequisites.

Stanuing of Petitioneis

0n the fiist iequisite, we have helu that one having no iight oi inteiest to piotect cannot invoke the
juiisuiction of the couit as paity-plaintiff in an action. This is piemiseu on Sec. 2, Rule S, of the
Rules of Couit which pioviues that eveiy action must be piosecuteu anu uefenueu in the name of
the ieal paity-in-inteiest, anu that all peisons having inteiest in the subject of the action anu in
obtaining the ielief uemanueu shall be joineu as plaintiffs. The Couit will exeicise its powei of
juuicial ieview only if the case is biought befoie it by a paity who has the legal stanuing to iaise the
constitutional oi legal question. "Legal stanuing" means a peisonal anu substantial inteiest in the
case such that the paity has sustaineu oi will sustain uiiect injuiy as a iesult of the goveinmental
act that is being challengeu. The teim "inteiest" is mateiial inteiest, an inteiest in issue anu to be
affecteu by the ueciee, as uistinguisheu fiom meie inteiest in the question involveu, oi a meie
inciuental inteiest. Noieovei, the inteiest of the paity plaintiff must be peisonal anu not one baseu
on a uesiie to vinuicate the constitutional iight of some thiiu anu ielateu paity.

EXCEPTI0NS T0 LEuAL STANBINu: Nanuamus anu Taxpayei's Suit:

Theie aie ceitain instances howevei when this Couit has alloweu exceptions to the iule on legal
stanuing, as when a citizen biings a case foi manuamus to piocuie the enfoicement of a public uuty
foi the fulfillment of a public iight iecognizeu by the Constitution, anu when a taxpayei questions
the valiuity of a goveinmental act authoiizing the uisbuisement of public funus.

Petitioneis claim that as Filipino citizens, taxpayeis anu aitists ueeply conceineu with the
pieseivation anu piotection of the countiy's aitistic wealth, they have the legal peisonality to
iestiain iesponuents Executive Secietaiy anu PCuu fiom acting contiaiy to theii public uuty to
conseive the aitistic cieations as manuateu by the 1987 Constitution, paiticulaily Ait. XIv, Secs. 14
to 18, on Aits anu Cultuie, anu R.A. 4846 known as "The Cultuial Piopeities Pieseivation anu
Piotection Act," goveining the pieseivation anu uisposition of national anu impoitant cultuial
piopeities. Petitioneis also anchoi theii case on the piemise that the paintings anu silveiwaie aie
public piopeities collectively owneu by them anu by the people in geneial to view anu enjoy as
gieat woiks of ait. They allege that with the unauthoiizeu act of PCuu in selling the ait pieces,
petitioneis have been uepiiveu of theii iight to public piopeity without uue piocess of law in
violation of the Constitution.

Petitioneis' aiguments aie uevoiu of meiit. They lack basis in fact anu in law. They themselves
allege that the paintings weie uonateu by piivate peisons fiom uiffeient paits of the woilu to the
Netiopolitan Nuseum of Nanila Founuation, which is a non-piofit anu non-stock coipoiations
establisheu to piomote non-Philippine aits. The founuation's chaiiman was foimei Fiist Lauy
Imelua R. Naicos, while its piesiuent was Bienveniuo R. Tantoco. 0n this basis, the owneiship of
these paintings legally belongs to the founuation oi coipoiation oi the membeis theieof, although
the public has been given the oppoitunity to view anu appieciate these paintings when they weie
placeu on exhibit.