Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
P. 1
Cases for Manifestations of Republicanism

Cases for Manifestations of Republicanism

Ratings: (0)|Views: 743|Likes:
Published by jane_caraig

More info:

Published by: jane_caraig on Aug 09, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Lim v. Executive Secretary
 2002, De Leon, Jr. J
Two years after the VFA was approved in 1999, the terrorist attacks 9/11 prompted America todeclare an international terrorist campaign. Pres. GMA pledged the countrys support to theendeavor.On January 2002, members of the USAF (United States Armed Forces) arrived in Mindanao to,along with the AFP, take part in the Balikatan 02-1 exercises. The next month, the Senate,after conducting a hearing on the military exercise, approved the Draft Terms of Referenceupon presentation by then VP Guingona.Petitioners Lim and Ersando filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition attacking theconstitutionality of the joint exercise. They filed suit as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers. Twoparty-list intervenors, SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG MANGAGAWA, aver that some of theirmembers are residents of Zamboanga and Sulu and thus are directly affected by operationsconducted in Mindanao.They argue (a) that the Abu-Sayyaf bandits do not constitute an external armed force and thus,the Philippines is not subject to armed external attack contemplated in the MDT (mutualdefense treaty) of 1951 to warrant US military assistance. They also claim that the VFA signed in1999 does not authorize US soldiers to engage in combat operations in Philippine territory, noteven to fire back if fired upon.
(1) WON petitioners have legal standing.No. They cannot file suit as taxpayers because the military exercise does not involve Congresstaxing or spending powers. Being lawyers does not invest them with personality to initiate thecase and they have failed to demonstrate the requisite of suffering proximate injury. Issuesraised premature and based on a fear of future violations of the Terms of Reference.(2) WON the Balikatan exercises violate the Constitution.No. Petitioners claim that it violates the Renunciation Clause of the Constitution (ThePhilippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy) but neither the MDT nor the VFAallow foreign troops to engage in an offensive war on Philippine territory. The VFA permits theUSAF to engage, on an impermanent basis, in activities. The word was used to give leeway innegotiation by both parties. In this manner, the US may sojourn in the Philippines for purposesother than military. Combat-related activities, as opposed to combat, are authorized by theMDT and the VFA.
A lot of dissenting opinions. Too lazy. Will get back to them when I have time.
Although international laws are adhered to, as expressed by the Indoctrination Clause, it doesnot imply primacy of international law over national law. The Constitution espouses a view thathas marked antipathy towards foreign military presence in the country. The Court, if it sees thatthe treaty runs counter to Congress or goes against the fundamental law, can nullify such anagreement. But in the case at bar, the question is WON American troops are engaged in combatalongside Filipino soldiers under the guise of alleged training and exercise. The Court cannotanswer this question because it lacks sufficient information. Newspapers or electronic reportsper se cannot be considered apt support for petitioners allegations. Facts must be establishedaccording to the rules of evidence. WON Pres. GMA is engaged in doublespeak involves aquestion of fact the question is thus not fit for a special civil action for certiorari.Petition is thereby dismissed.
v. Zamora
15, 2000, Kap
nan, J.
IBP alleged that Erap, in ordering the military deployed in Manila, committed grave abuse of discretion because: (a) no emergency existed, and thus no military deployment was warranted;and (b) through Letters of Instruction formulated by the head of the national police, the jointexercise of Task Force Tulungan (as visibility patrols) conducted by the marines and the PNPwas a violation of civilian supremacy because the task of law enforcement was civilian innature.
Issues/ Held/Ratio:
(1) WON the IBP has standing. No. They failed to present a specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the case.Upholding the rule of law and the constitution is not sufficient to clothe it with standing. Thisis too general an interest which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry.(2) WON the Presidents decision is subject to judicial review.Yes. When the President calls out the military to prevent or suppress lawless violence, the Courtcannot question the wisdom or substitute its own. However, it can still conduct an examinationon whether such a decision was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether ornot it was exercised constituting grave abuse of discretion.In lieu of such a decision made by the President, it is incumbent for the petitioners to show thatthe decision was without factual basis. No evidence of such nature was adduced.(3) WON grave abuse of discretion was committed in calling out the military when noemergency existed.In the words of the late Justice Irene Cortes in Marcos v. Manglapus:More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the Presidents powers as protector of thepeace. [Rossiter, The American Presidency]. The power of the President to keep the peace isnot limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or toleading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. The President is not onlyclothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending tothe day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility intimes when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law,in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relativewant of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in making thePresident commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said toexclude the Presidents exercising as Commander-in-Chief powers short of the calling of the

Activity (20)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Sean Galvez liked this
rosevietobias liked this
Sam Leynes liked this
Ivanheck Gatdula liked this
Em David liked this
iceleaves liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->