Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
73Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Consti2 Midterms Reviewer

Consti2 Midterms Reviewer

Ratings:

4.67

(3)
|Views: 7,064|Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Published by: Sui on Aug 10, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/12/2013

pdf

text

original

 
I.RIGHT-BASED DISCOURSE: NORMS, RIGHTS AND THE PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWERA.General Consti. Art. VIII, sec. 1Section 1
. The judicial power shall be vested in oneSupreme Court and in such lower courts as may beestablished by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice tosettle actual controversies involving rights which arelegally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Consti. Art. VIII, sec. 2Section 2
. The Congress shall have the power to define,prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the variouscourts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when itundermines the security of tenure of its Members.
Consti. Art. VIII, sec. 4.2Section 4. (2)
All cases involving the constitutionality of atreaty, international or executive agreement, or law, whichshall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and allother cases which under the Rules of Court are required tobe heard en banc, including those involving theconstitutionality, application, or operation of presidentialdecrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances,and other regulations, shall be decided with theconcurrence of a majority of the Members who actuallytook part in the deliberations on the issues in the case andvoted thereon.
Consti. Art. VIII, sec. 5.2.aSection 5. (2)
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm onappeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court mayprovide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a)
All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,ordinance, or regulation is in question.
Facts:
Original application of Bataan Petrochemical Corp(BPC) (Taiwanese owned) to BOI specified that:a. it’s going to build a plant in Limay Bataan, where the Petrochemical Industrial Zone (run byPNOC) and the Bataan Refining Corp (producer of the 60% of the Phil’s naptha output and a GOCC)are located.
b.
It’s going to use naptha cracker and naptha asfuel for its plant
BPC tried to amend its application by changingthe site to Bataan and the fuel from naptha tonaptha and/or LPG. Shell Phil operates an LPGdepot in Batangas. (reason for the amendment:insurgency in Bataan and unstable laborsituation)
Several quarters objected to the transfer but BOIasserted that thought it preferred the Bataan site,it recognizes that the final decision/choice is withthe proponent who will provide funding or riskcapital. It approved the amendments.
Issue:
Should the plant remain in Bataan or be moved toBatangas? Did BOI commit grave abuse of discretion inagreeing with the wishes of the investor?
Held:
BOI committed grave abuse of discretion. Theoriginal application is reinstated.
Ratio
:
In this decision, the court asserted that its powersunder Art 8 sec 1(2) of the 1987 Consti provides it with the duty to address this controversy. It saidthat the position of the BOI to give absolutefreedom to the investors is a repudiation of theindependent policy of the government with regardto national interest expressed in numerous laws:a.Sec. 10 of ART XII of the Consti: duty of the stateto regulate and exercise over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction in accordance withits national goals and prioritiesb.Sec. 19, Art II: The State shall develop a self-reliant and national economy effectively controlledby Filipinos.c.Art 2. Omnibus Investment Code: It is the goal of the government to have “the sound development of the national econ in consonance with theprinciples and objectives of economic nationalism”Dissent: Carino-Aquino and Melencio Herrera: The courtshould not delve on matters beyond its competence.
University of the PhilippinesCollege of LawConstitutional Law IIMidterms ReviewerProf. Harry RoqueDean Pangalangan’s Syllabus
 Transcribed and compiled by: Paulyn DumanDigests by Mike Ocampo (2011) and Batch 2008
Garcia vs. BOI
 
Facts:
Minors represented by their parents sued theDENR asking it to repudiate existing TLAs (timberlicense agreements) and ceased issuing them.
 The Complaint is a taxpayers’ suit and thecomplainants stated that they were pursuing it inbehalf of all Filipino citizens as well as“generations yet unborn”, who all have a right toenjoy the country’s rain forests.
 They cite section 15 and 16 of Art.2 in saying thatit is the duty of the State to advance the “right of people to a balanced and healthful ecology inaccord with the rhythm and harmony of nature”and promote “the right to health of the people”(Sec. 15).
As their cause of action in the case they filed withthe Makati RTC Branch 66, petitioners assertedthe ff:
a.
 The continuing unhampered destruction of rainforests will/is caus/causing adverse effects andserious injury and irreparable damage that thepresent and future generations will bear.b.Plaintiffs have a constitutional right to a balancedand healthful ecology and are entitled to beprotected by the State in its capacity as the parenspatriae. Based on this, they have a right todemand the cancellation of TLAs.c.They have exhausted all available administrativeremedies but respondents failed to cancel the TLAs which is contrary to the PhilippineEnvironment Policy:-to develop, maintain and improve conditionsunder which man and nature can thrive inproductive harmony with each other-to fulfill the social, economic, and otherrequirements of present and future Filipinos-to ensure the attainment of an environmentalquality that is conducive to the life and dignity and well being.And which continue to cause serious damage andprejudice to the plaintiffs.d.Violative of the Consti policy of the State:-effect a more equitable distribution oopportunities, income and wealth and make fullefficient use of natural resources (Sec. 1, Art. XII)-protect the nation’s marine wealth (sec. 2)-conserve and promote the nations culturalheritage and resources (sec. 14, Art. XIV)-sec. 16, Art. IIe.contrary to the highest laws of man and naturallaw-the right to self-preservation and perpetuation
 The DENR Sec asked the Makati RTC to dismissfor lack of cause which the judge granted; hencethe petition:
Issue:
1.Procedural Issue: locus standi2.WON pet have a cause of action and whether the judge committed grave abuse of discretion indismissing the suit.
Held:
 They have standing
 The judge committed grave abuse of discretion indismissing the suit as the petitioners have a causeof action
Ratio:
1.Their standing arise from “intergenerationalresponsibility” in so far a balanced an healthfulecology is concerned. J. Feliciano (separate concurring) explains/clarifies theimplication of this pointa.appears to give standing to everyone who maybeexpected to benefit from the petitioner’s actions;hence the court appears to be recognizing a“beneficiariescause of actionin the filed if environmental protection.b.Whether it applies in all situation or whetherfailure to act on the part of the govt agency mustbe shown, is subject to future determination of thecourt.2.The lower court is wrong in saying that thecomplaint failed to point out a specific legal rightviolated.a.sec. 26 of the charter, the right to a healthful,balanced ecology is a specific fundamental legalright. Even if it is not in the bill of rights, “it doesnot follow that is less important than any of thecivil and political rights enumerated in the latter. “Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less thanself-preservation and self-perpetuation..theadvancement of which may even predate allgovernment and constitutions”. They nned noteven be written in the Constitution for they areassumed to exist from the inception of mankind.b.The right involves a correlative duty to refrain fromimpairing the environment, which is a clearmandate of DENR under EO 192 (Reorganizing theDENR) and the Admin Code of 1987).c.This, this is not a political question but an issue oenforcing a right vis-à-vis policy formulated.Nevertheless, political question is no longerinsurmountable in view of Art. 8 sec. 1(2).Feliciano submits that the declaration of the court that thepetitioner cited a “specific legal right” does violence to thelanguage of the constitutional provision cited. In fact, theyare too broad and too comprehensive (i.e. right to balancedand healthful ecology). What the Court is saying, accordingto Feliciano, in granting the petition is that “there may bea more specific legal right in our laws considering thatgeneral policy principles are found in the constitution andelsewhere, which the petitioners could have pointed out if only the lower court gave them an effective opportunity todo so rather than aborting the proceedings (Hence, there was abuse of discretion).Feliciano further suggests that petitioners should thereforecite a more specific legal right to serve as basis for theirpetition, now that the Court has granted themcontinuance, for two reasons:
a.
defendants to may very well unable to
Oposa vs Factoran
 
mount an effective/intelligent defense if the complaint points to a broad right.
b.
If no such specific right is cited,petitioners are expected to fall back onsec. 8(2) of the Constitution. Whensubstantive standards as general as “theright to a balanced and healthful ecology”,and the “right to healthare combined with remedial standards as broad rangingas “grave abuse of discretion”, the result will be “to propel the court to uncharteredocean of social and economic policymaking.
Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, 02/03/97]Bellosillo, J.Facts
: respondent GSIS, pursuant to the privatizationprogram under Proclamation No. 50 dated December 8,1986, decided to sell through a public bidding 30-51% of the shares of respindent Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). The winning bidder "is to provide management expertiseand/or an international marketing/reservation system,and financial suppport to strengthen the profitability andperformance of the Manila Hotel.Sept 18, 1995- two bidders participated in the auction;one was petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corp, who wantedto buy 51% of the shares at Php41.85 each, and RenongBerhad, a Malaysian firm, which bid for the same numberof shares at Php44 each*pertinent provisions of bidding rules:- if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot beawarded the Block of shares, GSIS may offer thisto other Qualified bidders- the highest bidder will only be declared the winner after 1) execution of the necessarycontracts with GSIS/MHC and 2)securing therequisite approvals of the GSIS/MHC, Committeeon Privatization and Office of the Govt CorporateCounselSept 28, 1995-pending the declaration of Renong Berhadas the winning bidder, petitioner matched the bidprice of the Malaysian firmOct 10, 1995-petitioner sent a manager's check issued byPhiltrust Bank as bid securityOct 17, 1995-petitioner, wishing to stop the alleged"hurried" sale to the foreign firm, filed the case inthe SCOct 18, 1995-Court issues TRO
Petitioner: (Manila Prince Hotel)
1. invokes Art12, Sec10, Par.2, and argues that theManila Hotel was covered by the phrase "nationalpatrimony" and hence cannot be sold toforeigners; selling 51% would be tantamount toowning the business of a hotel which is owned bythe GSIS, a GOCC, the hotel business of respondent GSIS being a part of the tourismindustry which undoubtedly is part of thenational economy.2. petitioner should be preferred over its Malaysiancounterpart after it has matched the bid, sincethe bidding rules state 'if for any reason, theHighest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of shares, GSIS may offer this to other Qualifiedbidders, namely them
Respondents:(Govt Service Insurance System, ManilaHotel Corp, COP, OGCC)
1. Art12, Sec10, Par.2
:
merely a statement opolicy/principle; requires enabling legislation2. Manila Hotel does not fall under the term nationalpatrimony; prohibition is against the State, notthe GSIS as a separate entity3. the constitutional provision is inapplicable as since what is being sold are outstanding shares, notthe place itself or the land; 50% of equity is notpart of national patrimony.4. the reliance of the petitioners on the bidding rules ismisplaced; the condition/reason that will deprivethe highest bidder of the award of shares has not yet materialized hence the submission of amatching bid is premature5. prohibition should fail for respondent GSIS did notexercise its discretion in a capricious manner, didnot evade duty or refused to d a duty as enjoinedby law. Similarly mandamus should fail sincethey have no clear legal right to demand anything
Issue:
1.Whether or not the constitutional provision is self-executory-YES2.Whether or not the term "national patrimony"applies to the Manila Hotel-YES3. Whether or not the term "qualified Filipinos"applies to the MPH-YES4. Whether or not the GSIS, being a chartered GOCC,is covered by the constitutional prohibition-YES
Held: 
1. admittedly, some constis are merely declarations of policies and principles. But a provision which iscomplete in itself and becomes operative w/o the aidof enabling legislation , or that which suppliessufficient rule by means of which the right it grantsmay be enjoyed or protected is self-executing.Modern constis are drafted upon a different principleand have often become extensive codes of lawintended to operate directly. If the consti provisionsare treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power toignore and practically nullify the mandate of thefundamental law, which can be cataclysmic. In caseof doubt, the Consti should be considered self-executing rather than not. Though this presumptionis in place, the legislature is not precluded fromenacting further laws to enforce the consti provisionso long as the contemplated statute squares with theconsti. Also a consti provision may be self executingon one part and not on the other/s.Respondents also rely on jurisprudence that are"simply not in point"-Basco v PAGCOR, Tolentino vSec of Finance, Kilosbayan v Morato. A reading of the provisions involved in these cases clearly showsthat they are not judicially enforceable constitutionalrights but guidelines of laws, manifested in the veryterms of the provisions. Res ipsa loquitur. Asopposed to Art12, Sec10, Par.2 which is amandatory, positive command, complete in itself,needing no further guidelines, creating a right wherenone existing before, that right being that qualifiedFilipinos shall be preferred. And where there is aright, there is a remedy.2. in plain language, patrimony means heritage,referring not only to natural resouces but to thecultural heritage of Filipinos as well. Manila Hotelhas become a landmark-a living testament of 

Activity (73)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Harvy Halasan liked this
Harvy Halasan liked this
atianne7 liked this
Bryne Boish liked this
sdysangco liked this
luis_m_dr liked this
Em Asiddao liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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