Case Digest: Republic v.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 155832 : December 7, 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

v. SANDIGANBAYAN (Fourth Division) and
IMELDA R. MARCOS,Respondents.

FACTS:

On February 28, 1986, immediately after

assuming power, President Corazon C. Aquino
issued Executive Order 1, creating the PCGG.She
empowered the PCGG to recover all ill-gotten
wealth allegedly amassed by former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his family, and close
associates during his 20-year regime.

PCGG Commissioner Raul Daza gave lawyers Jose

Tan Ramirez and Ben Abella PCGG Region VIII Task
Force Head and Co-Deputy, respectively, written
authority to sequester any property, documents,
money, and other assets in Leyte, belonging to
former First Lady Imelda
R. Marcos,Benjamin Romualdez,
Alfredo Romualdez, and their agents. On March
18, 1986, Attys. Ramirez and Abella issued a
sequestration order against
the Marcoses Olot, Tolosa, Leyte property (lot
Resthouse).

On August 10, 2001, Mrs. Marcos filed a motion to

quash the sequestration order against
the Olot Resthouse,claiming that such order,
issued only by Attys. Ramirez and Abella, was
void for failing to observe Sec. 3 of the PCGG
Rules and Regulations. The rules required the
signatures of at least two PCGG Commissioners.
Mrs. Marcos filed a Supplement to her earlier
motion, claiming no prima facie evidence that
the Olot Resthouse constituted ill-gotten
wealth.She pointed out that the property is the
ancestral home of her family. The Republic
countered that Mrs. Marcos was already stopped
from questioning the order.

On February 28, 2002 the Sandiganbayan issued

the assailed Resolution, granting the motion to
quash and ordering the full restoration of
the Olot Resthouse to Mrs.
Marcos.The Sandiganbayan ruled that the
sequestration order was void because it was
signed, not by PCGG Commissioners, but by mere
PCGG agents.

ISSUE: Whether or not the March 18, 1986

sequestration order against the Olot Resthouse,
issued by PCGG agents before the enactment of
the PCGG rules, was validly issued.

HELD:

POLITICAL LAW

Under Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution,

an order of sequestration may only issue upon a
showing "of a prima facie case" that the
properties are ill-gotten wealth under Executive
Orders 1 and 2. When a court nullifies an order of
sequestration for having been issued without a
prima facie case, the Court does not substitute its
judgment for that of the PCGG but simply applies
the law.

The Republics supposed evidence does not show

how the Marcoses acquired the sequestered
property, what makes it "ill-gotten wealth," and
how former President Marcos intervened in its
acquisition. Taking the foregoing view, the
resolution of the issue surrounding the character
of the property sequestered whether or not it
could prima facie be considered ill-gotten should
be necessary.

Although the two PCGG lawyers issued the

sequestration order in this case on March 18,
1986, before the passage of Sec. 3 of the PCGG
Rules, such consideration is immaterial following
the above ruling.

Finally, Mrs Marcos is not estopped from

questioning the order because a void order
produces no effect and cannot be validated under
the doctrine of estoppel.

DISMISSED

People of the Philippines vs

Loreta Gozo

53 SCRA 476 Political Law Sovereignty

Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot which was located inside
the US Naval Reservation which is within the territorial
jurisdiction of Olongapo City. Upon the advice of an assistant in
the Mayors Office and some neighbors, she demolished the
house standing thereon without acquiring the necessary permits
and then later on erected another house. She was then charged
by the City Engineers Office for violating a municipal
order which requires her to secure permits for any demolition
and/or construction within the City. She was convicted in
violation thereof by the lower court. She appealed and
countered that the City of Olongapo has no administrative
jurisdiction over the said lot because it is within a Naval Base of
a foreign country.

ISSUE: Is the Municipal Ordinance enforceable within the US

Naval Base?

HELD: Yes. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its

sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or
divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses
committed therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United
States Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive
jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine Government retains
not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all such ceded
rights as the United States Military authorities for reasons of
their own decline to make use of (Military Bases Agreement).
Hence, in the exercise of its sovereignty, the State through the
City of Olongapo does have administrative jurisdiction over the
lot located within the US Naval Base.
Tanada v. Angara
Facts
On April 15, 1994, the Philippine Government represented by its
Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry signed the Final Act
binding the Philippine Government to submit to its respective competent
authorities the WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreements to seek
approval for such. On December 14, 1994, Resolution No. 97 was
adopted by the Philippine Senate to ratify the WTO Agreement.
This is a petition assailing the constitutionality of the WTO agreement as
it violates Sec 19, Article II, providing for the development of a self reliant
and independent national economy, and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII,
providing for the Filipino first policy.

Issue
Whether or not the Resolution No. 97 ratifying the WTO Agreement is
unconstitutional

Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled the Resolution No. 97 is not unconstitutional.
While the constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods,
services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need
for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality
and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino interests only against
foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words,
the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationalist policy.
Furthermore, the constitutional policy of a self-reliant and independent
national economy does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign
investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither economic
seclusion nor mendicancy in the international community.
The Senate, after deliberation and voting, gave its consent to the WTO
Agreement thereby making it a part of the law of the land. The
Supreme Court gave due respect to an equal department in government.
It presumes its actions as regular and done in good faith unless there is
convincing proof and persuasive agreements to the contrary. As a result,
the ratification of the WTO Agreement limits or restricts the absoluteness
of sovereignty. A treaty engagement is not a mere obligation but creates
a legally binding obligation on the parties. A state which has contracted
valid international obligations is bound to make its legislations such
modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the
obligations undertaken.
Bayan vs Zamora
G. R. No. 138570
October 10, 2000

Bayan vs Zamora

Facts:

The United States panel met with the Philippine panel to discussed, among
others, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). This
resulted to a series of conferences and negotiations which culminated on
January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos approved the
VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United States
Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.
Pres. Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA on October 5, 1998 and on May 27,
1999, the senate approved it by (2/3) votes.

Cause of Action:

Petitioners, among others, assert that Sec. 25, Art XVIII of the 1987
constitution is applicable and not Section 21, Article VII.

Following the argument of the petitioner, under they provision cited, the
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities may be allowed in the
Philippines unless the following conditions are sufficiently met:
a) it must be a treaty,
b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the
votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by
congress, and
c) recognized as such by the other contracting state.

Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section 21 Article VII is

applicable so that, what is requires for such treaty to be valid and effective
is the concurrence in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the
senate.

ISSUE:

Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Art VII or of Section
25, Article XVIII of the Constitution?

HELD:
Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving
foreign military bases, troops or facilities should apply in the instant case.
To a certain extent and in a limited sense, however, the provisions of
section 21, Article VII will find applicability with regard to the issue and for
the sole purpose of determining the number of votes required to obtain the
valid concurrence of the senate.

The Constitution, makes no distinction between transient and

permanent. We find nothing in section 25, Article XVIII that requires
foreign troops or facilities to be stationed or placed permanently in the
Philippines.

It is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an

executive agreement because, under international law, an executive
agreement is as binding as a treaty.