Friday, May 7, 2010 North cotabato vs. GRP gr no.

183591 FACTS: The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) brought about by the Government of the republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as an aspect of Tripoli Agreement of Peace in 2001 is scheduled to be signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. This agreement was petitioned by the Province of North Cotabato for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. The agreement mentions "Bangsamoro Juridical Entity" (BJE) to which it grants the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro; authority and jurisdiction over all natural resources within internal waters. The agreement is composed of two local statutes: the organic act for autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao and the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA).
ISSUE: Whether or not the GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOAAD and Whether or not the MOA-AD brought by the GRP and MILF is constitutional HELD:GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and it are unconstitutional because it is contrary to law and the provisions of the constitution thereof. REASONING: The GRP is required by this law to carry out public consultations on both national and local levels to build consensus for peace agenda and process and the mobilization and facilitation of people’s participation in the peace process. Article III (Bill of Rights) Sec. 7. The right of people on matters of public concern shall be recognized, access to official records and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Article II Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law , that state adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. LGC (1991), “require all national agencies and officers to conduct periodic consultations. No project or program be implemented unless such consultations are complied with and approval mus be obtained.” Article VII (Executive Department) Sec. 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. Article X. (Local Government) Sec. 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the province, cities, municipalities and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions on Muslim

Any amendment to. Section 4. or revision of. The President has sole authority in the treaty-making. upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members. and tourism development. cities and geographic areas voting favourably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region. The creation of autonomous region shall be effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the constituents units in a plebiscite called for the purpose. 7. municipalities and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage.” The president’s authority is limited to proposing constitutional amendments. or 2. or revision of. ARTICLE XVII (AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS) Section 1. MOA-AD states that all provisions thereof which cannot be reconciled with the present constitution and laws “shall come into force upon signing of a comprehensive compact and upon effecting the necessary changes to the legal framework. social. 2. this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision. economic and social structures and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. Section 16. provided that only provinces. family. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws. The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. Regional urban and rural planning development. 20. The Congress. She cannot guarantee to any third party . Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region. the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over: 1. cities. and 9. Educational policies. Administrative organization. Sec.Mindanao and the Cordillera as hereinafter provided. and property relations. 8. Economic. 15. Sec. this Constitution may be proposed by: 1. 3. 18. Creation of sources of revenues. Personal. Any amendment to. 4. Ancestral domain and natural resources. 5. Preservation and development of the cultural heritage. A constitutional convention. Sec. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces. 6.

Thereafter. Bayan vs Zamora Facts: The United States panel met with the Philippine panel to discussed. Pres. b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate. what is requires for such treaty to be valid and effective is the concurrence in by at least twothirds of all the members of the senate. the provisions of section 21. or facilities” may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are sufficiently met: a) it must be a treaty. Art VII or of Section 25. ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress. the senate approved it by (2/3) votes.that the required amendments will eventually be put in place nor even be submitted to a plebiscite. however. 1999. among others. under they provision cited. 1998. assert that Sec. To a certain extent and in a limited sense. which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard. 25. troops. which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases. among others. Article XVIII. argue that Section 21 Article VII is applicable so that. . Cause of Action: Petitioners. troops or facilities should apply in the instant case. and c) recognized as such by the other contracting state. the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). on the other hand. Article XVIII of the Constitution? HELD: Section 25. President Fidel Ramos approved the VFA. Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA on October 5. the “foreign military bases. MOA-AD itself presents the need to amend therein. Art XVIII of the 1987 constitution is applicable and not Section 21. ISSUE: Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21. 1998 and on May 27. This resulted to a series of conferences and negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13. 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. Article VII. Respondents. Following the argument of the petitioner.

Plaridel M. PH-204 between the JBIC and the Philippine Government is a kind of a treaty. conventions.” We find nothing in section 25. in the island province of Catanduanes. under international law. Although these instruments differ from each other by title. An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. Jr. agreements. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes dated December 27. PH-204 was executed by and between the JBIC and the Philippine Government pursuant to the exchange of Notes executed by and between Mr. 1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine Government is an executive agreement. This resolution recommended the award to China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. Yoshihisa Ara. These rules are the result of long practice among the States. which have accepted them as binding .The Constitution. Abaya vs. …treaties. declarations. Ebdane. protocols. ISSUE: Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. I (CP I). 2004 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) issued a Resolution No. memoranda of understanding. HELD: The Loan Agreement No. It is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because. with the lengt of 79. Article XVIII that requires foreign troops or facilities to be stationed or placed permanently in the Philippines. and then Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon.818 kilometers. FACTS: On May 7. in behalf of their respective governments. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents. charters. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Philippines. This Loan Agreement No. makes no distinction between “transient” and “permanent. modus vivendi and exchange of notes all are refer to international instruments binding at international law. each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. It was approved by DPWH Acting Secretary Florante Soriquez. which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres-Virac-Jct. Secretary Hermogenes E. Hon. PJHL-A-04-012. Bago-Viga road. they all have common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments.

whether local or foreign. Attorneys Melville Hussey and Robert Port of the United States of America participated in the prosecution of the case in behalf of the United States of America. which becomes binding through executive action without need of a vote by the Senate and that (like treaties and conventions. Executive Order No.norms in their mutual relations. as ruled by the Supreme Court in Abaya v. 14 2007. 68. 68 provided the organization of such military commissions. II of the Constitution. 138. L-2662. a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Imperial Forces of the Philippines was charged before a Military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. regardless of source of funds. What the petitioners wanted was that Foreign funded projects also undergo the procurement process. an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement. 83 Phil. it is an international instrument binding at international law. That case was dismissed by the SCORP last Feb. Held : This court holds that the Executive Order No. Art. Therefore. 195. Issue : Whether or not Executive Order No. including government-owned and/or -controlled corporations and local government units. its departments. during the ZTE controversy. 9184. Any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed. The second issue involves an examination of the coverage of Republic Act No. The dismissal of the case somehow gave justification for the delay of the implementing rules for foreign funded projects (IRR-B) of the procurement law If we recall the decision of the Abaya vs Ebdane was used by the DOJ when the DOTC Secretary was asking for an opinion from the former. Kuroda vs Jalandoni. He had unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duties as a commander to control the operations of members of his command. offices and agencies. 68 is legal and constitutional as provided in Sec. 3. March 26. 68 is legal and constitutional. otherwise known as the “Government Procurement Reform Act”. that- . Ebdane. established National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals. subject to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. Section 4 of the said Act provides that it shall apply to: … the Procurement of infrastructure Projects. Petitioner was duly prosecuted for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention through the issuance and enforcement of Executive Order No. by all branches and instrumentalities of government. they are regarded as international customary law. 1949 Facts : Shigenori Kuroda. Goods and Consulting Services.

enjoins our government not from entering contracts for the purchase of rice. Gonzales vs. Held: The power of judicial review is vested with the supreme court in consonace to section 2 art. VIII of the constitution. with jurisdiction over the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No 68. explicitly prohibits the importation of rice and corn by Rice and Corn Administration or any government agency. The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law. international jurisprudence is automatically incorporated in Philippine law.” The participation of the two American attorneys although under our law. it is common in military tribunals that counsels for the parties are usually military personnel. except under conditions prescribed .68 which requires counsels need to be qualified to practice law in the Philippines.. In fact. the alleged consummation of the contracts with vietnam and burma does not render this case academic. a rice planter and president of ilo-ilo palay and corn planters asso. the court will not interfere with the due process of such Military Commission. RA 2207. thus making war crimes punishable in the Philippines. Under the doctrine of incorporation.“ The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. Ramon A. There is nothing in Executive Order No. but from entering rice. which govern ordinary civil courts. and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation. filed and averring that in making or attempting to make importation of foreign rice are acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction because RA 2207. Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by special law not by Rules of the Court. Issue: Whether an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts. Petition is denied with costs de oficio. and having jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by having said petitioner in its custody. although the Philippines was not a signatory of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Hechanova 9 SCRA 230 Facts: Respondent executive secretary authorized importation of 67.000 tons of foreign rice to be purchased from private sources. they are not qualified to practice law is valid and constitutional. Gonzales.

Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the “concept of sovereignty as autolimitation. freedom. Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. May 2. 1997 Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators. equality. justice. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. A judicial declaration of illegality of the proposed importation would not compel our government to default in the performance of such obligations as it mat have contracted with the sellers of rice in question because aside from the fact that said obligations may be complied without importing the said commodity into the phils. restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. By the doctrine of incorporation.in said act. particularly agricultural and industrial products. which are considered automatically part of our own laws. through the reduction of tariffs on its exports. Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement. As to determine whether such exercise is wise. and adheres to the policy of peace. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a .. the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. Thus. provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. Tanada vs Angara. Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be performed in good faith. cooperation and amity . beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The WTO opens access to foreign markets. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.” What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits. 272 SCRA 18. a “free market” espoused by WTO. especially its major trading partners. the proposed importation may still be legalized by complying with the provisions of the aforementioned law. Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state policies. the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law. with all nations.

After all.” If Muñoz is not entitled to such. to determine whether Juan Muñoz is entitled to bail on the basis of “clear and convincing evidence. However. the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings. the people be allowed. both are administrative proceeding where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue.member. the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the extradition of Juan Muñoz. (visit fellester. Judge X of RTC-Manila allowed Juan Muñoz to post bail.blogspot. 2001. a potential extradite. the Court saw the need to reexamine its ruling in Government of United States of America v. Its alternative is isolation. “If bail can be granted in deportation cases. Likewise. through their duly elected officers. a right under the Constitution. considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases.” the Court said. and thereafter.com) It said that while our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee. it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. we see no justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. stagnation if not economic self-destruction. there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail. he faces a jail term of 7 to 14 years for each charge. be granted bail on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. After Juan Muñoz was arrested in the Philippines. the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention. Judge Purganan which limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings. Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. the government of Hong Kong alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting him to bail because “there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee a right to bail. Juan Muñoz was charged before a Hong Kong Court with several counts of offenses in violation of Hong Kong laws. It further said that even if a potential extradite is a criminal. conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch. Thus. On December 20. make their free choice. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. If convicted. an extradition proceeding is not . In a unanimous decision the SC remanded to the Manila RTC. there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. Also.” May Juan Muñoz. Citing the various international treaties giving recognition and protection to human rights.

humanitarian and compelling circumstances. 229 and the subsequent Administrative Order issued are unconstitutional. once granted bail. This petition alleges that such letter of instruction and subsequent administrative order are unlawful and unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on due process. . Issue: Whether or not Letter of Instruction No. Agustin vs Edu 88 SCRA 195 Facts: This case is a petition assailing the validity or the constitutionality of Letter of Instruction No.by its nature criminal. but one that is merely administrative in character. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Judge Purganan. Marcos. Jr. 229 issued by President Ferdinand E. 1 directing compliance with such Instruction. 2007) Note: In Government of United States of America v. The SC ruled that Mark Jimenez is not entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending except upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that. for it is not punishment for a crime. Nor is it a full-blown civil action. In compliance with such letter of instruction. requiring all vehicle owners. 153675. Judge Olalia. (GR No. and (2) that there exist special. September 24. It added that “extradition is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of potential extraditee. even though such punishment may follow extradition. and Muñoz. the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community. the Commissioner of the Land Transportation Office issued Administrative Order No. April 19. equal protection of the law and undue delegation of police power. 2002. users or drivers to procure early warning devices to be installed a distance away from a vehicle when it is stalled or is disabled.

1951 Facts: This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff. the People's Court ordered his release. Thereafter. "The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this country from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latter's regime in these Islands. In fact. the letter of instruction is based on the constitutional provision of adopting the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. These were definitely in the exercise of police power as such were established to promote public welfare and public safety. he was arrested as a Japanese spy by U. and that such Letter was issued in consideration of a growing number of road accidents due to stalled or parked vehicles on the streets and highways. Upon liberation. Mejoff vs Director of Prisons 90 Phil 70 September 26. But the Deportation Board taking his case up found that having no . the first having been denied in a decision of this Court on July 30. the resolutions of the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations. S.Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled for the dismissal of the petition. The statutes in question are deemed not unconstitutional. The letter of instruction mentions. 1949. as its premise and basis. Army Counter Intelligence Corps.

3. regardless of nationality." and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations. 1948. It was there resolved that "all human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights" (Art. he having been arrested on March 18. 1948. the authorities moved him to Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa where he has been confined up to the present time. without inspection and admission by the immigration officials at a designated port of entry and. After the corresponding investigation. is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents. Moreover. 1948 that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally in 1944. and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land. that "everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth . although. and consequently referred the matter to the immigration authorities. therefore. it ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. except enemy aliens. II of the Constitution of the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation. "Universal Declaration Of Human Rights." And in a resolution entitled. 1). In October 1948. it should be said in fairness to the deportation authorities that it was through no fault of theirs that no ship or country would take the petitioner. Art. and none are in sight. at its plenary meeting on December 10. inasmuch as the Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the best interests of the country to keep him under detention while arrangements for his departure are being made. the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed. the Immigration Board of Commissioners declared on April 5. Two years having elapsed since the aforesaid decision was promulgated. the Government has not found ways and means of removing the petitioner out of the country. The petitioner was then under custody. Mejoff was an illegal alien in this country. of which the Philippines is a member.travel documents. Sec. after repeated failures to ship this deportee abroad. Ruling: The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Issue: Whether or not Boris Mejoff should be released from prison pending his deportation.

without distinction of any kind. 148571. Constitution). No costs will be charged. Hence. 18. 153675. September 24. No. sex. Premises considered. and Mark B. In Government of United States of America v. or other status" (Art. The surveillance shall be reasonable and the question of reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First Instance of Manila for decision in case of abuse. Mario Batacan Crespo. political or other opinion.” (Sec. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. 9 ). 2). colour. It does not apply to extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. J). that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest. applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. nationality or social origin. such as race. . religion. It is “available only in criminal proceedings.R.” thus: x x x. the constitutional provision on bail quoted above. as well as Section 4. Guillermo G. Branch 42. No. the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. it was held that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings. birth. Gutierrez.R. April 19. that "every one has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law" (Art. Presiding Judge.in this Declaration. of Hongkong Special Administrative Region. property. 8). 2002. (Gov’t. G. etc.a. It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application “only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. the writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from custody upon these terms: that the petitioner shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him. In cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature. Hon. Art. detention or exile" (Art. The provision in the Constitution stating that the “right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended” does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. a. Purganan. RTC of Manila. VIII. 2007. 389 SCRA 623. As suggested by the use of the word “conviction”. Jimenez.k. language. G.

Q — The SC in USA v. Second. however. such as deportation and quarantine. First. have likewise been detained. In fact. such that. the right to bail may be available in extradition proceedings? Explain. Purganan limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings. taking into cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under international conventions to uphold human rights. particularly the right to life and liberty. is a reexamination of this Court’s ruling in Purganan in order. to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close our eyes to our jurisprudential history. The SC has admitted to bail persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings. Philippine jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings only. bail has been ed in this jurisdiction to persons in detention during the pendency of administrative proceedings. . ANS: Yes. the exercise of the State’s power to deprive an individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal proceedings. Respondents in administrative proceedings. in light of the various international treaties giving recognition and protection to human rights.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful