MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS GR 88211, Sept. 15, 1989 FACTS: February 1986, Ferdinand E.
Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the nonviolent "people power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit: Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. xxx xxx x Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. Furthermore, they contend that the President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do so "within the limits prescribed by law." Nor may the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. They advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the government, there must be legislation to that effect. The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been ratified by the Philippines, provides:
Article 12 1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. 4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. ISSUES: Whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcose's to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return. HELD: SC well-considered opinion that the President has a residual power which justifies her act of banning the return of the Marcoses and she did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines. It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one's country, a totally distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" [Art. 13(l)] separately from the "right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." [Art. 13(2).] On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" [Art. 12(l)] and the right to "be free to leave any country, including his own." [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or enter qqqs own country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).] It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.
2 of the Constitution. acting through the Government. to mention only a few.
. We cannot ignore the continually increasing burden imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime. executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize the country. i. it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power. urban terrorism. against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. The President. in order to keep the peace. which stifles and stagnates development and is one of the root causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant ills. as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos. the protection of life. cannot shirk from that responsibility. The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. Secs. Then. Wide discretion.. It is founded on the duty of the President. within the bounds of law. the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring martial law.Chief powers short of the calling of the armed forces. but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered. is part of the law of the land [Art. while the Government has barely scratched the surface. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcose's and their followers to destabilize the country. The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency." Corollarily.] More particularly. as steward of the people. this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace. which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel. The resulting precarious state of our economy is of common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of judicial notice.] Although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President. police officers and civilian officials. 12 (4). and property. under our Constitution. For in making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to exclude the President's exercising as Commander-in. II.The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.emptive action against threats to its existence if. so to speak. II. rightist conspiracies to grab power. as a generally accepted principle of international law and. in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. liberty. and maintain public order and security. Sec.
The State. is not precluded from taking pre. In other words. The President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency.e. it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order.] However." [Art. To the President. a separatist movement in Mindanao. The preservation of the State the fruition of the people's sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and relatives. in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions. and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws. 4 and 5. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. the murder with impunity of military men. the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct.
128845 June 1. In the workplace. No. (2) affinity and unity of the employees' interest. Section 2(c) of the same decree authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally or abroad. foreign-hires are accorded certain benefits not granted to local-hires. 30 The basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.1 To enable the School to continue carrying out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction. A bargaining unit is "a group of employees of a given employer. Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities. are reasonably related to their status as foreign-hires. xxx xxx xxx The employer in this case has failed to discharge the burden of proving that foreignhires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and regulations attending their employment. When negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held petitioner International School Alliance of Educators. eventually caused a deadlock between the parties. 2000 Facts: Private respondent International School. the office or the field — but includes as well the manner by which employers treat their employees. inequality and discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible.
Notably. pursuant to Presidential Decree 732. The collective bargaining history in the School also shows that these groups were always treated separately. in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men. in particular: a. Foreign-hires have limited tenure. consistent with equity to the employer. as a minimum. indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law. and home leave travel allowance. (3) prior collective bargaining history. shipping costs." 29 The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine). Issue: Whether or not local hire teachers shall enjoy the same salary as foreign hire teachers where they perform the same work Whether or not foreign-hire teachers should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit Ruling: I.
. is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. These benefits. the School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty. The Constitution specifically provides that labor is entitled to "humane conditions of work. II. Although foreign-hires perform similar functions under the same working conditions as the local-hires.INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE) vs. in Article 7 thereof. which ensure. from Philippine or other nationalities. comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees. 31 It does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective bargaining. and justify the exclusion of the former from the latter. such as substantial similarity of work and duties. with: (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind. HON. Inc. Remuneration which provides all workers. To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not assure either group the exercise of their respective collective bargaining rights. This issue. provides: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work. local-hires enjoy security of tenure. LEONARDO A. or similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule). "a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty members"4 of the School. such as housing. contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires. the International Covenant on Economic. QUISUMBING G. where the relations between capital and labor are often skewed in favor of capital. The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. and Cultural Rights . transportation. except laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees. taxes. Social. (the School. Foreignhires are paid more than local-hires. Foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the local-hires. as well as the question of whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit.R. Accordingly. for short). and (4) similarity of employment status. which they perform under similar working conditions. with equal pay for equal work." These conditions are not restricted to the physical workplace — the factory.
has become a basic component of international customary law. as an authoritative listing of human rights. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case on several grounds one of which is that there was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated.R. The Supreme Court said that even in the absence of a Constitution. Thus. raising the point that the seizure occurred when there was no Constitution in effect in the country. MAJOR JOSEPHUS RAMAS AND ELIZABETH DIMAANO G. The Declaration. assumed responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory.”
. Gen. Thereafter they filed a Petition for Forfeiture against him before the Sandiganbayan. indeed binding all states and not only members of the United Nations.” Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant.’ which Member States have agreed to observe. family. the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State. Carpio FACTS: The PCGG created an AFP Anti-Graft Board tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel (active or retired).REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS vs. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State “to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant. even during the interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy. home or correspondence. J. SANDIGANBAYAN. The revolutionary government. the revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration. the revolutionary government had the duty to ensure that “[n]o one else shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy. to which the Philippines is also a signatory. The Boards finds that a prima facie case exists against respondent for ill-gotten and unexplained wealth and recommended that he be prosecuted and tried for “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act” and “Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property". almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. The AFP Board of investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Maj. after installing itself as the de jure government. provides in its Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Josephus Ramas. being only a declaration. A petition for review on certiorari is filed before the Supreme Court. The Universal Declaration “constitutes an authoritative interpretation of the Charter of the highest order.”
The Declaration. ISSUE: Whether or not search and seizure is valid in the absence of a Constitution. under the Covenant and the Declaration. 2003. 104768. the right against unlawful seizure obtained under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Nevertheless. HELD: The petition was dismissed.” It “spells out in considerable detail the meaning of the phrase ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms. No. The Universal Declaration has joined the Charter… as a part the constitutional structure of the world community.” Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document. July 21. and has over the years become a part of customary international law.
A.CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. No. Respondent BSP.A. even as it adheres to the enunciated policy of R. filed a petition for prohibition against BSP and the Executive Secretary of the Office of the President. Petitioner offers the following sub-set of arguments:
. he argues that the classification is based on actual and real differentiation. 2004 FACTS: On July 3. 1235. thus within the class of rank-and-file personnel of government financial institutions (GFIs). and created a new BSP. and (2) the rank-and-file (Salary Grade [SG] 19 and below). 148208. almost eight years after the effectivity of R. which will allow the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the proviso in question without affecting the other provisions. LBP. and the assailed proviso has caused the demoralization among the BSP rankand-file and resulted in the gross disparity between their compensation and that of the BSP officers’. without showing its relevance to the objectives of the law. 7653 to establish professionalism and excellence within the BSP subject to prevailing laws and policies of the national government. 7037. also defends the validity of the provision. A compensation structure. 7653 has a separability clause. provided it is construed in harmony with other provisions of the same law. 6758. On June 8. and (2) it has no appeal nor any other plain. that compensation and wage structure of employees whose positions fall under salary grade 19 and below shall be in accordance with the rates prescribed under Republic Act No. contends that the provision does not violate the equal protection clause and can stand the constitutional test. Petitioner also stresses: (a) that R. based on job evaluation studies and wage surveys and subject to the Board’s approval. No. petitioner posits that the classification is not reasonable but arbitrary and capricious. and even admitted by one senator as discriminatory against low-salaried employees of the BSP.
e. or those not exempted from the coverage of the SSL (nonexempt class).A. vs.A.” and the mandate of the Monetary Board to “establish professionalism and excellence at all levels in accordance with sound principles of management. or dismissal of all personnel.” The Solicitor General. Article II. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY G. Petitioner also claims that it is not germane to the purposes of Section 15(c). nor in the original version of Senate Bill No. Exercise of Authority -In the exercise of its authority. hiring. 1993.A. transfer. 7653 shows that the questioned proviso does not appear in the original and amended versions of House Bill No. the assailed proviso was the product of amendments introduced during the deliberation of Senate Bill No. Provided. Such system shall aim to establish professionalism and excellence at all levels of the Bangko Sentral in accordance with sound principles of management. 7653.
d. DECEMBER 15. NO.
b. in its comment.. No. however. promotion. Article II of R. subjecting the compensation of the BSP rank-and-file employees to the rate prescribed by the SSL actually defeats the purpose of the law of establishing professionalism and excellence eat all levels in the BSP.
In sum. 2001. 7653. the Monetary Board shall: (c) Establish a human resource management system which shall govern the selection. respondents’ implementation of such amounts to lack of jurisdiction.A. That the Monetary Board shall make its own system conform as closely as possible with the principles provided for under Republic Act No. No. 7653 (the New Central Bank Act) took effect. Quite simplistically. 7653 provides: Section 15. which this Court should take cognizance of.A. No. and violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. appointment. to restrain respondents from further implementing the last proviso in Section 15(c). petitioner Central Bank (now BSP) Employees Association. The thrust of petitioner’s challenge is that the above proviso makes an unconstitutional cut between two classes of employees in the BSP. INC. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course except through this petition for prohibition. on the ground that it is unconstitutional. 6758 [Salary Standardization Act]. 7653. GSIS.” allegedly not based on substantial distinctions which make real differences. It is contended that this classification is “a classic case of class legislation. on behalf of respondent Executive Secretary. No. and (b) the urgency and propriety of the petition. as some 2. Inc.
the legislative history of R. viz: (1) the BSP officers or those exempted from the coverage of the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) (exempt class). Petitioner concludes that: (1) since the inequitable proviso has no force and effect of law. No.994 BSP rank-and-file employees have been prejudiced since 1994 when the proviso was implemented. 1235. shall be instituted as an integral component of the Bangko Sentral’s human resource development program: Provided. Section 15(c) of R.A. Article II of R. the BSP rank-and-file are also discriminated upon.
c. No. DBP and SSS personnel are all exempted from the coverage of the SSL.R. such as “fiscal and administrative autonomy of BSP. R. considering the transcendental importance of the legal issue involved. but solely on the SG of the BSP personnel’s position. the most important of which is to establish professionalism and excellence at all levels in the BSP. It abolished the old Central Bank of the Philippines.
Congress retains its wide discretion in providing for a valid classification.A. since the statute may be constitutionally valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to another. Accordingly. said qualifications. 7653 started as a valid measure well within the legislature’s power. and require a stricter and more exacting adherence to constitutional limitations. Jurisprudential standards for equal protection challenges indubitably show that the classification created by the questioned proviso. The deference stops where the classification violates a fundamental right. the crux of the problem being one of legality or validity of the contested act." HELD: A. 7653 IS VALID. Rational basis should not suffice. low-salaried employees are limited to the rates prescribed by the SSL. the judicial inquiry into such issue and the settlement thereof are the main functions of courts of justice under the Presidential form of government adopted in our 1935 Constitution.so long as the classification is not unreasonable. The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long honored legal truism of "equal pay for equal work. to support and defend the Constitution to settle it. Thus. should be paid similar salaries. THE ENACTMENT. under similar conditions.EXEMPTING ALL OTHER RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES OF GFIs FROM THE SSL . a bill proposing the exemption of the BSP rankand-file from the SSL has supposedly been filed. recognizing the broad discretion given to Congress in exercising its legislative power." Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications. While R. .who have the real economic and
. in every instance. which alone has the power to erase any inequity perpetrated by R. 7653. skill. concerns have been raised as to the propriety of a ruling voiding the challenged provision. be determined by a mere comparison of its provisions with applicable provisions of the Constitution. even though affirmed by a former adjudication. As a consequence. No. OF SUBSEQUENT LAWS . The constitutionality of a statute cannot. It has been proffered that the remedy of petitioner is not with this Court. UNDER THE PRESENT STANDARDS OF EQUAL PROTECTION. conditions or limitations . the issue on whether or not the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met. Judicial scrutiny would be based on the “rational basis” test. What is more. it is they . No. It is settled in constitutional law that the "equal protection" clause does not prevent the Legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall operate .A. . Otherwise. In the case at bar.A. we hold that the enactment of subsequent laws exempting all rank-and-file employees of other GFIs leeched all validity out of the challenged proviso. A statute valid at one time may become void at another time because of altered circumstances. HOWEVER. Officers of the BSP now receive higher compensation packages that are competitive with the industry.ISSUE: Whether the last paragraph of Section 15(c).RENDERS THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF THE CHALLENGED PROVISION A VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. This is true whether the actor committing the unconstitutional act is a private person or the government itself or one of its instrumentalities. judicial scrutiny ought to be more strict. Indeed. but with Congress. When these violations arise. It is akin to a distinction based on economic class and status. is justifiable or non-political. Article II of R. B. but are under the ineluctable obligation . Furthermore. on its face and in its operation.A. and the system of checks and balances.possessing higher and better education and opportunities for career advancement . we have neither the authority nor the discretion to decline passing upon said issue. as members of the highest Court of the land. this Court must discharge its primary role as
the vanguard of constitutional guaranties. its validity. especially in terms of job marketability.would be set at naught.are given higher compensation packages to entice them to stay. Under most circumstances. But if the challenge to the statute is premised on the denial of a fundamental right or the perpetuation of prejudice against persons favored by the Constitution with special protection. denied the equal protection of the laws. one of its basic predicates. NO. and its policies should be accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except when they run afoul of the Constitution. conditional or subject to limitations.made particularly more exacting and peremptory by our oath. SECTION 15(c). runs afoul of the constitutional mandate that "No person shall be . if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory. or the limitations respected. while the poorer.and not the officers . not its wisdom. The implications are quite disturbing: BSP rank-andfile employees are paid the strictly regimented rates of the SSL while employees higher in rank . or prejudices persons accorded special protection by the Constitution. ARTICLE II OF R. bears no constitutional infirmities.particularly those prescribed or imposed by the Constitution . Considering that majority. the rank-and-file employees consist of people whose status and rank in life are less and limited. A weak and watered down view would call for the abdication of this Court’s solemn duty to strike down any law repugnant to the Constitution and the rights it enshrines. the challenged proviso operates on the basis of the salary grade or officer-employee status. effort and responsibility. is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions. and the legislative discretion would be given deferential treatment. Oppressive acts will be struck down regardless of the character or nature of the actor. No. 7653. the Court will exercise judicial restraint in deciding questions of constitutionality. when the grant of power is qualified. with the higher grades as recipients of a benefit specifically withheld from the lower grades. if not all.
the BSP rank-and-file employees merit greater concern from this Court. liberties. No. detained in various locations. the brothers were able to escape and file a petition for the writ of amparo. The right to security of person is “freedom from fear. provide adequate social services. They represent the more impotent rank-and-file government employees who. Unless the equal protection clause of the Constitution is a mere platitude. have no specific right to organize as a collective bargaining unit and negotiate for better terms and conditions of employment. At its core is the immunity of one’s person against government intrusion. we hold that the continued operation and implementation of the last proviso of Section 15(c). The right to the security of person is not merely a textual hook in Article III. the brothers Raymond and Reynaldo recognized their abductors as members of the armed forces led by General Jovito Palparan. 2008 FACTS: The brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo. torture and other dehumanizing acts.” Any act of Congress that runs counter to this constitutional desideratum deserves strict scrutiny by this Court before it can pass muster. the desaperacidos. is directed against them? The law thus gives the remedy of the writ of amparo. They also learned that they were being held in place for their brother. and dignity. they met other desaperacidos (including the still-missing University of the Philippines students Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan) who were also suspected of being communist insurgents and members of the NPA. the little ones. Manalo G. Amparo. Section 2 of the Constitution. Bestre. farmers from Bulacan who were suspected of being members of the New People’s Army. October 7. a suspected leader of the communist insurgents. Indeed. and tortured by CAFGU and military units. they have waited for many years for the legislature to act.
. After eighteen months of restrained liberty. a triumph of natural law that has been embodied in positive law.
To whom may the oppressed.financial need for the adjustment This is in accord with the policy of the Constitution "to free the people from poverty. Article II of Republic Act No. and threats thereof. Amparo. literally meaning “to protect. were forcibly taken from their home. enforced disappearances. extend to them a decent standard of living. nor the power to hold a strike to protest unfair labor practices. if the Orwellian sword of the State. HELD: Yes. in addition to the rights and liberties already protected by the Bill of Rights. run to. wielded recklessly by the military or under the guise of police power. gives voice to the preys of silent guns and prisoners behind secret walls.” is borne out of the long history of Latin American and Philippine human rights abuses—often perpetrated by the armed forces against farmers thought to be communist insurgents. 7653 is unconstitutional. Secretary of National Defense vs. anarchists or brigands. it is the Court’s duty to save them from reasonless discrimination. After several days in captivity. To be sure. ISSUE: Whether or not the right to freedom from fear is or can be protected by existing laws.R. and improve the quality of life for all. The writ serves to both prevent and cure extralegal killings. While in captivity.” a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity and security. These BSP rank-and-file employees represent the politically powerless and they should not be compelled to seek a political solution to their unequal and iniquitous treatment. They cannot be asked to wait some more for discrimination cannot be given any waiting time. 180906. giving the powerless a powerful remedy to ensure their rights. IN VIEW WHEREOF. unlike employees in the private sector.
albeit not expressly reserved in the present constitution. et al. The RTC however dismissed the charge against him but the HDO was still in effect. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the amparo case against other respondents for failure of the petition to allege ultimate facts as to make out a case against that body for the enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the threats and harassment that followed. Petitioner requested that HDO should be lifted in view of the dismissal of the criminal case. for which there exists no readily available legal recourse or remedy.FR. whether the accused should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction for humanitarian reasons is a matter of the court’s sound discretion. No. Petitioner argued that a writ of amparo should be issued against the respondents. Joaquin Bernas. or of a private individual or entity.R. the petitioner added. Addressing a concern of his co-members in the 1986 Constitutional Commission on the absence of an express provision on the matter.R. 2007 by armed men belonging to the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron. Petitioner has failed to establish that his right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it amounted to a serious violation of his right to life. specifically. In such cases. his right to travel. REYES VS. and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. ARROYO G. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. Fr. Reyes was among of those who were arrested during the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege. HELD: The presidential immunity from suit remains preserved under our system of government. The respondents then filed a joint return on the writ specifically denying the material inculpatory averments against them. the Head of State. GONZALES G. NO. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT the [CA] committed reversible error in dismissing [their] Petition and dropping President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as party respondent. said she was abducted on April 3. 30th of November. Batangas. Probable cause was found during investigation and petitioner was charged with rebellion. S. violating the whole breadth of rights enshrined in the Constitution. FACTS:
RUBRICO VS. observed that it was already understood in jurisprudence that the President may not be sued during his or her tenure. It also prayed for damages and for respondents to produce documents submitted to any of them on the case of Lourdes. 183871. liberty and security. A Hold Departure Order (HDO) for the petitioner and to the other accused was issued by the DOJ upon the request of the Department of Interior and Local Government. ISSUE: Whether the right to travel is covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. By a separate resolution. February 18. A person’s right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice.
.J. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life. Arsenio Gomez and that there were also armed men following them. Respondents interposed the defense that the President may not be sued during her incumbency. may not be sued in any civil or criminal case. Petitioners pleaded back to be allowed to present evidence ex parte against the President. 2010
Rubrico. The restriction on petitioner’s right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. in her petition. during his tenure of office or actual incumbency. The petitioners prayed that a writ of amparo be issued. 2007 and they were temporarily held at Camp Crame. During her detention. 182161 December 3. HELD: No. her daughters Mary Joy Rubrico Carbonel and Jean Rubrico Apruebo were harassed by Senior Insp. Settled is the doctrine that the President. ordering the individual respondents to desist from performing any threatening act against the security of the petitioners and for the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) to immediately file an information for kidnapping qualified with the aggravating circumstance of gender of the offended party. liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. 2009 FACTS: Fr. if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. based at the Philippine Air Force Field Station at Fernando Air Base in Lipa City. the CA dropped the President as respondent in the case .
it found that the three detainees’ right to life. National Police (PNP) Chief Gen. The appellate court went on to direct the PNP to proceed further with its investigation since there were enough leads as indicated in the records to ascertain the truth and file the appropriate charges against those responsible for the abduction and detention of the three. Col. By Resolution of the Court. liberty and security was being violated. Then President Arroyo was eventually dropped as respondent in light of her immunity from suit while in office. Rather. spouses Asher and Erlinda Cadapan (Spouses Cadapan) and Concepcion Empeño (Empeño) filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Court (habeas corpus case). the appellate court relied heavily on the testimony of Manalo. Lt. The Court of Appeals dismissed the habeas corpus petition there being no strong evidence that the missing persons are in the custody of the respondents. By Return of the Writ. except Enriquez. via petition for review. et al. that they had inquired from their subordinates about the reported abduction and disappearance of the three but their inquiry yielded nothing. Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño filed before the appellate court a Motion to Cite Respondents in Contempt of Court for failure of the respondents in the amparo and habeas corpus cases to comply with the directive of the appellate court to immediately release the three missing persons. liberty and security of a person is at stake. Karen and Merino are in the custody of the military. (AFP) Chief of Staff Hermogenes Esperon Jr. Palparan). Francis Mirabelle Samson (Lt. Karen and Merino in the course of his detention at a military camp. Being not held for a lawful cause. (Carpio Morales. the respondents in the habeas corpus petition denied that Sherlyn. Razon). are being detained in military camps and bases under the 7th Infantry Division. et al. Bulacan. the Decision of the appellate court. By Resolution. the appellate court granted the Motion for Reconsideration and ordered the immediate release of Sherlyn. may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect.R. They also moved to present newly discovered evidence consisting of the testimonies of Adoracion Paulino. ROGELIO BOAC. the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay. ordered the respondents “to immediately RELEASE. Karen and Merino). the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. Since the right to life. CADAPAN. liberty and security of aggrieved individuals. Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño. (Sherlyn. it is a remedial measure designed to direct specified courses of action to government agencies to safeguard the constitutional right to life. hence. impleading then Generals Romeo Tolentino and Jovito Palparan (Gen. 31 May 2011. v. from detention the persons of Sherlyn
. To the Return were attached affidavits from the respondents. Nos. (Gen. By Resolution. the need to immediately release them. Lt. There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. J) An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities involved. Col. on the other hand. In such application. Command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue. 184461-62. Esperon) then Phil. As it earlier ruled in the habeas corpus case. In reconsidering its earlier decision in the habeas corpus case. returnable to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals. Avelino Razon (Gen. Mirabelle) as respondents. the appellate court deemed it a superfluity to issue any inspection order or production order in light of the release order.LT. The petition impleaded the same respondents in the habeas corpus petition. In the amparo case. they should be immediately released from detention. Karen and Merino in the amparo case. Rogelio Boac (Lt. Anotado) and Donald Caigas. Karen Empeño (Karen) and Manuel Merino (Merino) by armed men from a house in San Miguel. Col. Erlinda Cadapan and Empeño filed before this Court a Petition for Writ of Amparo (amparo case). EN BANC. or cause the release. Lt. ERLINDA T. who all attested that they do not know Sherlyn.
and Raymond Manalo who allegedly met Sherlyn. with Prayers for Inspection of Place and Production of Documents. G. the appellate court denied the motion. FACTS: Following the abduction of Sherlyn Cadapan (Sherlyn). even for a day. Sherlyn’s mother-in-law who was allegedly threatened by soldiers. Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative suit. Arnel Enriquez and Lt. and ordered the consolidation of the amparo petition with the pending habeas corpus petition. the Court issued a writ of amparo returnable to appellate court. 184495. with the addition of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Col. Rogelio Boac. COL.. In the habeas corpus case. During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration. Col. Felipe Anotado (Lt. then Armed Forces of the Phil. Karen and Merino. et al. filed their own petition for review also challenging the same Decision of the appellate court only insofar as the amparo aspect is concerned. ratiocinating that while the Court. Hagonoy. or cause their release. challenged before this Court. It held that there is now a clear and credible evidence that the three missing persons. 187109. Boac). a writ of habeas corpus was issued. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the appellate court’s decision. Meanwhile.
or at least accountability. underscoring supplied)
. command responsibility is "an omission mode of individual criminal liability. Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative suit. as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft. or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure. emphasis in the original. and thus a substantive rule that points to criminal or administrative liability. v. Tagitis enlightens: [An amparo proceeding] does nor determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]. As then
formulated." In this sense. On the issue of whether a military commander may be held liable for the acts of his subordinates in an amparo proceeding. There is no showing that Generals Esperon. "command responsibility. foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. Rather. it determines responsibility. Sherlyn. liberty and security of aggrieved individuals. for the enforced disappearance…for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance… (emphasis and underscoring supplied) Further. among them. The use of the term “immediately” does not mean that that it is automatically executory. HELD: Petition DISMISSED. Karen and Merino 2. or those who carry. Tagitis defines what constitutes “responsibility” and “accountability. Whether or not there is a need to file a motion for execution in a Habeas Corpus decision or in an Amparo case to cause the release of the aggrieved parties. Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way. Bernas. it is a remedial measure designed to direct specified courses of action to government agencies to safeguard the constitutional right to life. Via a petition for certiorari filed before this Court. by action or omission. Accountability. According to Fr. on the other hand. Macapagal Arroyo expounded on the concept of command responsibility as follows: The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats." in its simplest terms. but have failed to discharge. in an enforced disappearance. Erlinda Cadapan and Empeño challenged the appellate court’s Resolution denying their motion to cite respondents in contempt. Whether or not the Armed Forces Chief of Staff then Hermogenes Esperon and the Present Chief of Staff has command responsibility in the enforced disappearance and continued detention of the three aggrieved parties. ISSUES: 1. refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above.Cadapan.” the decision is not ipso facto executory. so that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored. Neither did the decision become final and executory considering that both parties questioned the Decision/Resolution before the Supreme Court. Thus Razon Jr. the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance. command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity." whereby the superior is made responsible forcrimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he ordered). the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. (emphasis in the original. Karen and Merino. An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities involved.” viz: x x x. (citations omitted. means the "responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict. a brief discussion of the concept of command responsibility and its application insofar as amparo cases already decided by the Court is in order. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility. underscoring supplied) It bears stressing that command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. In all these cases. Rubrico v. Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino. the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. Razon and Tolentino were even remotely accountable and responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn.
the Rule dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the life. are immediately executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be taken therefrom. however. As it is. Since the right to life. the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay. despite their position. it bears emphasis. it should. Lt. In fine. if there be any. As intimated earlier. The Solicitor General’s argument that the Rules of Court supplement the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced. the disappearance and harassments complained of. so as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. Col. Relatedly. Anotado. is still subject to further investigation by the appropriate government agency. 9851 (RA 9851) to include command responsibility as a form of criminal complicity in crimes against international humanitarian law. Mirabelle. The Court finds that the appellate court erred when it did not specifically name the respondents that it found to be responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn. be only to determine the author who. Karen and Merino was not automatically executory. Arnel Enriquez and Donald Caigas. The Court maintains its adherence to this pronouncement as far as amparo cases are concerned. the determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution. recognizes a preliminary yet limited application of command responsibility in amparo cases to instances of determining the responsible or accountable individuals or entities that are duty-bound to abate any transgression on the life.
Boac. RA 9851 is thus the substantive law that definitively imputes criminal liability to those superiors who. the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately release Sherlyn. liberty or security of the aggrieved party. liberty or security of the aggrieved party. or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative issuances. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) In other words. The Rules of Court only find suppletory application in an amparo proceeding if the Rules strengthen. command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue. Karen and Merino. genocide and other crimes. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court.
. Rubrico. the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. Suffice it to state that a motion for execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy being offered by an amparo proceeding. the procedural efficacy of the writ. of course. there is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. at most. Karen and Merino. it appears that the responsible and accountable individuals are Lt. is accountable for. Summary proceedings.Rubrico categorically denies the application of command responsibility in amparo cases to determine criminal liability. Razon and Tolentino should be dismissed for lack of merit as there is no showing that they were even remotely accountable and responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn. If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these proceedings. at the first instance. may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect. Gen. In such application. For that would defeat the very purpose of having summary proceedings in amparo petitions. liberty and security of a person is at stake. The petitions against Generals Esperon. Lt. 2008 Decision of the appellate court to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Sherlyn. the legislature came up with Republic Act No. and has the duty to address. Karen and Merino. still fail to take all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of illegal acts or to submit these matters to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. however. They should thus be made to comply with the September 17. even for a day. from the records. Such identification of the responsible and accountable superiors may well be a preliminary determination of criminal liability which. Col. Palparan. rather than weaken. For. There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision.
THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010
When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries. Albano Jr.offices. Laurel Facts: The genesis of the foregoing cases can be traced to the events prior to the historic May 2010 elections. a legal inquiry. 1 for being violative of the legislative power of Congress under Section 1. or that the former used the offices and facilities of the latter in conducting the inquiry. Having been constitutionally granted full control of the Executive Department. Power of the President to Create the Truth Commission The Chief Executive’s power to create the Ad hoc Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. to make an investigation. Lagman. No. the legality of the investigation is sustained. they should be resolved for the guidance of all. to find out by careful inquisition. With AO 298 as mandate." "investigation" being in turn described as "(a)n administrative function. Sr.R. x x an inquiry. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the principle of separation of powers by usurping the powers of Congress to create and to appropriate funds for public
. Issues: 1. but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (Truth Commission). Held: Legal Standing of the Petitioners The Court. 2. to which respondents belong. (petitioners-legislators) as incumbent members of the House of Representatives. 192935 December 7. 2010. Justice Jose P. 192935. Where the issues are of transcendental and paramount importance not only to the public but also to the Bench and the Bar. however. 1. There are constitutional issues in the petition which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness. the exercise of which ordinarily does not require a hearing. catapulted the good senator to the presidency.. agencies and commissions. Whether or not the petitioners have the legal standing to file their respective petitions and question Executive Order No. 4. Biraogo assails Executive Order No. "Kung walang corrupt. judicial or otherwise. at the dawn of his administration. 193036. but because the Court stands firm in its oath to perform its constitutional duty to settle legal controversies with overreaching significance to society. convinced of his sincerity and of his ability to carry out this noble objective. novelty and weight as precedents. it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature." "to inquire." The Filipino people. signed Executive Order No. the President has the obligation to ensure that all executive officials and employees faithfully comply with the law. 257. when then Senator Benigno Simeon Aquino III declared his staunch condemnation of graft and corruption with his slogan.59 Thus: The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. for the discovery and collection of facts concerning a certain matter or matters. and Orlando B. 3. the taking of evidence. Datumanong. and 5. Fua. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to injunctive relief. Whether or not Executive Order No. walang mahirap. G. finds reason in Biraogo’s assertion that the petition covers matters of transcendental importance to justify the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. Such validity is not affected by the fact that the investigating team and the PCAGC had the same composition. Commission on Human Rights. to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy. Power of the Truth Commission to Investigate The distinction between the power to investigate and the power to adjudicate was delineated by the Court in Cariño v. Rodolfo B. the Filipino people are more than interested to know the status of the President’s first effort to bring about a promised change to the country. examination.Undoubtedly. it does not assert any superiority over the other departments. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ. No. the President on July 30. Whether or not Executive Order No. to search into. The Court takes cognizance of the petition not due to overwhelming political undertones that clothe the issue in the eyes of the public. No.R. The second case. a special civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis Biraogo (Biraogo) in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Article VI of the Constitution as it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds therefor. To trace or track. Simeon A. The first case is G. 2 Am J2d Adm L Sec. is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners Edcel C.R. Thus. 1 violates the equal protection clause."
1 because it is violative of this constitutional safeguard. The reckless. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth "concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration"only. the RTC held petitioners liable and ordered to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B waters fit for swimming. Renato T. vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay G. Much like its predecessors. nowhere in Executive Order No. Cavite against several government agencies. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. in the exercise of its constitutionally mandated power of Judicial Review with respect to recent initiatives of the legislature and the executive department. Is the Highest Tribunal. The CA sustained RTC’s decision stressing that petitioners were not required to do tasks outside of their basic functions under existing laws. not just those of the legislature. which was confirmed by DENR’s Water Quality Management Chief. its findings would. the petitions are GRANTED." Finally. settle or decree. this issue has been addressed by the Court.R. Cruz that water samples collected from different beaches around the Manila Bay showed that the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from 50. envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution incidents. therefore.000 to 80. and the entry of a judgment. the Feliciano Commission and the Zenarosa Commission. patent and manifest. and to submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose. which is expected to be the protector of the Constitution. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings. and extend to all actions of a state denying equal protection of the laws. wholesale. "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority. Decision The issue that seems to take center stage at present is ." Thus. And being so. The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law.whether or not the Supreme Court. in order to be accorded with validity. among them the petitioners. December 18. They also asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus. Executive Order No. 1999.000 most probable number (MPN)/ml which is beyond the standard 200 MPN/100ml or the SB level under DENR Administrative Order No. Executive Order No." and "adjudge" means: "To pass on judicially. is exercising undue interference. Implies a judicial determination of a fact. 1 can it be inferred that the findings of the PTC are to be accorded conclusiveness. accumulated and ongoing acts of omission or commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear and present danger to public health and in the depletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay. respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus. this appeal. These offices. The intent to single out the previous administration is plain. but it seems that the present political situation calls for it to once again explain the legal basis of its action lest it continually be accused of being a hindrance to the nation’s thrust to progress. be recommendatory in nature. 171947-48. skin-diving. to decide. Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the government including the political and executive departments. Herein petitioners appealed before the Court of Appeals contending that the pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. Applying these precepts to this case. for the cleanup. 3490. Synonymous with adjudge in its strictest sense. the respondents are hereby ordered to cease and desist from carrying out the provisions of Executive Order No. WHEREFORE. hence. 2008 FACTS: On January 29. Nos. or to sentence or condemn. To determine finally. itself guilty of violating fundamental tenets like the doctrine of separation of powers? Time and again. the Ombudsman and the DOJ have a wider degree of latitude to decide whether or not to reject the recommendation. and other forms of contact recreation. x x. rehabilitation. the commission must also cover reports of graft and corruption in virtually all administrations previous to that of former President Arroyo. et al. Mention of it has been made in at least three portions of the questioned executive order. The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions.
. Violation of the Equal Protection Clause The petitioners assail Executive Order No.
MMDA.In the legal sense. 1 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the
Constitution. They contend that it does not apply equally to all members of the same class such that the intent of singling out the "previous administration" as its sole object makes the PTC an "adventure in partisan hostility. and protection of the Manila Bay. through whatever agency or whatever guise is taken. 1. at best. Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations. are not deprived of their mandated duties but will instead be aided by the reports of the PTC for possible indictments for violations of graft laws. As also prayed for. the Davide Commission.
20. they argue that the aforequoted Sec. Sec. the amendment to Sec.––Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 15 and 26 hereof. 16. and cleaning operations of a specific polluted portion or portions of the body of water concerned. SC also noted that MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal is set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003. Clean-up Operations [refer] to activities conducted in removing the discharged or spilled in water to restore it to pre-spillcondition. protection. PD 1152 may have indeed covered only pollution accumulating from the day-to-day operations of businesses around the Manila Bay and other sources of pollution that slowly accumulated in the bay. remove and clean-up water pollution incidents at his own expense. Contrary to petitioners’ posture. Cleanup Operations. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties. respondents assert that Sec. however. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code concern themselves only with the matter of cleaning up in specific pollution incidents. far from being a delimiting provision. 17 & 20 of P. removal and clean-up operations and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities responsible for such pollution. and preservation of the Manila Bay. 7924 (the law creating MMDA) states that the MMDA is mandated to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal systems. their functions being ministerial in nature can be compelled by mandamus.
.D. however. As regard to Secs. rehabilitation.––It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain. No. any person who causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies in excess of the applicable and prevailing standards shall be responsible to contain. 16 of RA 9275 reads: SEC. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code Include Cleaning in General The disputed sections are quoted as follows: Section 17. 20 of PD 1152. Petitioners proffer the argument that Secs. 62(g). remove and
clean up any pollution incident at his own expense to the extent that the same water bodies have been rendered unfit for utilization and beneficial use: Provided. the government agencies concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water quality standards. its Sec. 62(g) requires “cleanup operations” to restore the body of water to pre-spill condition.
Supreme Court held that the cleaning up and rehabilitating Manila Bay is a ministerial in nature and can be compelled by mandamus. by including accidental spills as among the water pollution incidents contemplated in Sec. 20 is limited only to “water pollution incidents. 1152. As may be noted. 62(g) and (h). 20) of the Environment Code (PD 1152).” which are situations that presuppose the occurrence of specific. In case of his failure to do so. 17 in relation to Sec. So. 62(h). removal. in fact even enlarged the operational scope of Sec.(2) HELD:
Whether or not petitioners be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay. as opposed to cleanup in general. therefore. it is ministerial in nature and can be compelled by mandamus. in fact. 62(g). merely consists in the designation of the DENR as lead agency in the cleanup operations. to be operational. pollutants
h. 20 of the Environment Code is more apparent than real since the amendment. as mentioned in Sec. shall undertake containment. the government agencies concerned shall undertake containment. Petitioners contend at every turn that Secs. Accidental Spills [refer] to spills of oil or other hazardous substances in water that result from accidents such as collisions and groundings. Reimbursements of the cost incurred shall be made to the Water Quality Management Fund or to such other funds where said disbursements were sourced. to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the clean up. the Court ruled that: Secs.A. 62(g). A perusal of other petitioners’ respective charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: these government agencies are enjoined. amended the counterpart provision (Sec. and cleanup operations for accidental spills only. the [DENR] in coordination with other government agencies concerned. as a matter of statutory obligation. They aver that the twin provisions would have to be read alongside the succeeding Sec. insofar as it is relevant to this case.” as follows: g. The amendatory Sec. Section 20. isolated pollution events requiring the corresponding containment. When the Clean Water Act (RA 9275) took effect. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 merely direct the government agencies concerned to undertake containment. which means that there must have been a specific incident of either intentional or accidental spillage of oil or other hazardous substances. Pushing the point further. emphasize that Sec. Clean-up Operations. 3(c) of R. 62(g) as delimiting the application of Sec. Upgrading of Water Quality. removal. Respondents explain that without its Sec. That in the event emergency cleanup operations are necessary and the polluter fails to immediately undertake the same. 17 of PD 1152 continues. Expenses incurred in said operations shall be reimbursed by the persons found to have caused such pollution under proper administrative determination x x x. Sec. 20 to the containment. 20. removal and cleanup operations. removal.––Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage. 16 on the subject. which defines the terms “cleanup operations” and “accidental spills. Respondents. respondents argue that petitioners erroneously read Sec. and cleaning operations. but also in its charter. even expanded the coverage of Sec. Cleanup Operations. They maintain that the application of said Sec. As a counterpoint.
And if the issue of illegal or unauthorized structures is not seriously addressed with sustained resolve. and to enjoin them to perform. As earlier discussed. specifically adverts to “any person who causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies. into the major rivers and eventually the Manila Bay. the water pollution incidents are so numerous and involve nameless and faceless polluters that they can validly be categorized as beyond the specific pollution incident level. For one thing. the Laguna De Bay. the Talisay (Bataan) River. a perusal of Sec. the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident. 16 of RA 9275. Sec. In such instance. not even in the chapter where said section is found. Sec. If there is one factor responsible for the pollution of the major river systems and the Manila Bay. Petitioners. dirt. 16 of RA 9275. of the Manila Bay polluters has been few and far between. the doctrine of continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution. petitioners’ parochial view on environmental issues. the Manila Bay water quality would again deteriorate below the ideal minimum standards set by PD 1152. commands concerned government agencies. under extraordinary circumstances. On the contrary. removal. when appropriate. their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the quality of its water to the ideal level.” the Court may. and esteros which discharge their waters. removal. and other minor rivers and connecting waterways.” This section. indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific situation in which the pollution is caused by polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. what the CA said with respect to the impasse over Secs. or clean up a given water pollution incident. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 is at once valid as it is practical. issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference.” Granting arguendo that petitioners’ position thus described vis-à-vis the implementation of Sec. said Sec. It may perhaps not be amiss to say that the apprehension. “to take such measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water quality standards. practically nobody has been required to contain. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup mandate depends on the happening of a specific pollution incident. The appellate court wrote: “PD 1152 aims to introduce a comprehensive program of environmental protection and management. 20 of PD 1152. the complementary Sec. 17 is not hobbled by such limiting definition. then practically all efforts to cleanse these important bodies of water would be for naught. Thus. they seem to have overlooked the fact that the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is well-nigh impossible to draw the line between a specific and a general pollution incident. Petitioners’ assertion. in no time at all. is quite off mark. 20 of PD 1152 mentions “water pollution incidents” which may be caused by polluters in the waters of the Manila Bay itself or by polluters in adjoining lands and in water bodies or waterways that empty into the bay. 20 of the Environment Code. for. it behooves the Government to step in and undertake cleanup operations.” which may refer to an individual or an establishment that
pollutes the land mass near the Manila Bay or the waterways. We note that Sec. In this kind of setting. the Meycuayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers. In this situation. Assuming. Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the government agencies concerned are so undermanned that it would be almost impossible to apprehend the numerous polluters of the Manila Bay. 62(g). any cleanup effort would just be a futile. inland bays. 51 of PD 1067 or the Water Code. thus. 20 is correct. The Court can take judicial notice of the presence of shanties and other unauthorized structures which do not have septic tanks along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers. and garbage. In India. that petitioners are correct in saying that the cleanup coverage of Sec. For another. as long as water quality “has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage. and cleanup operations. covers for all intents and purposes a general cleanup situation. The preservation of the water quality of the bay after the rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase. 17 & 20 of general application rather than limiting them to specific pollution incidents.” In fine. Under what other judicial discipline describes as “continuing mandamus. and other bodies of water be stopped from reaching the ManilaBay. 51 reads:
. 17 of the Environment Code comes into play and the specific duties of the agencies to clean up come in even if there are no pollution incidents staring at them. if any. As pointed out. This is better served by making Secs. as couched. The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an aspect and the initial stage of the long-term solution. and other relevant laws. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment. 20 of PD 1152 or Sec. the phrases “cleanup operations” and “accidental spills” do not appear in said Sec. Respondents are correct. and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. And such impossibility extends to pinpointing with reasonable certainty who the polluters are. 20 of PD 1152 is constricted by the definition of the phrase “cleanup operations” embodied in Sec. Sec. the Imus (Cavite) River. such that the contaminants eventually end up in the bay. Las Piñas) Rivers. Hence. on the other hand. The DENR Secretary said as much. the concerned government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters’ account.To respondents. 17. cosmetic exercise. Sec. cannot plausibly invoke and hide behind Sec. It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the petitionerdepartment-agencies and the bureaus and offices under them on continuing notice about. Otherwise.  Giving urgent dimension to the necessity of removing these illegal structures is Art. the National Capital Region (NCR) (Parañaque-Zapote. In this regard. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident. the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers. RA 9275. It is imperative then that the wastes and contaminants found in the rivers. with all the accompanying filth. previously Sec. Art. coupled with their narrow reading of their respective mandated roles. respondents assert. these unauthorized structures would be on top of the list. has contributed to the worsening water quality of the Manila Bay. that they have to perform cleanup operations in the Manila Bay only when there is a water pollution incident and the erring polluters do not undertake the containment. to stress.which prohibits the building of structures within a given length along banks of rivers and other waterways. remove. river banks.
sufficient sanitary landfills should now more than ever be established as prescribed by the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003). After such period. daunting as they may be. some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates. which enjoins the pollution of water bodies. other major rivers. and connecting waterways. there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tasks. lead and other dangerous contaminants and possibly strains of pathogens seeps untreated into ground water and runs into the Marikina and Pasig River systems and Manila Bay. Judicial notice may likewise be taken of factories and other industrial establishments standing along or near the banks of thePasig River. land or air transport or other human-made structure. navigation. Catmon and Rodriquez dumpsites . from any water. As early as 2003. the necessary waste water treatment facilities and infrastructure to prevent their industrial discharge. and connecting waterways. are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation. But the tasks ahead. canals. hence. floatage. This means that the State. (Emphasis added. further that no controlled dumps shall be allowed (5) years following the effectivity of this Act. with the help and cooperation of all civic-minded individuals. dumping of waste matters in roads. from flowing into the Pasig River. the garbage crisis in the metropolitan area is as alarming as it is shocking. would put their minds to these tasks and take responsibility. Equally unabated are violations of Sec. 4 and 102 of RA 8550 which proscribes the introduction by human or machine of substances to the aquatic environment including “dumping/disposal of waste and other marine litters. which is presumably generated by households that lack alternatives to sanitation. they must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay. Some sludge companies which do not have proper disposal facilities simply discharge sludge into the Metro Manila sewerage system that ends up in the Manila Bay. be allowed after the effectivity of this Act: Provided. Indeed. along their margins. 3. navigation. As there reported. 27 of RA 9275. and other public places. Particular note should be taken of the blatant violations by some LGUs and possibly the MMDA of Sec. we must reiterate that different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates. accordingly. To say that Manila Bay needs rehabilitation is an understatement. 48 of RA 9003. fishing or salvage or to build structures of any kind. including LGUs which [constitute] the use of open dumps for solid
waste. and as a historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized.) RA 9003 took effect on February 15. procrastination.
. the Court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations. and the environment. Leachate are toxic liquids that flow along the surface and seep into the earth and poison the surface and groundwater that are used for drinking. and unauthorized transport or dumping into sea waters of sewage or solid waste and of Secs. The DILG and the concerned LGUs. twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas. reproduced below: Sec. like littering. playground. Most of the deadly leachate. and (2) that the cleanup of the bay is a discretionary duty. open burning of solid waste. have. aquatic life. Given the above perspective. and buckle down to work before the problem at hand becomes unmanageable. 37. fishing and salvage. disposal of infectious wastes from vessels. 2001 and the adverted grace period of five (5) years which ended on February 21. including their sewage waters. and the like. there are rampant and repeated violations of Sec. At this juncture. The high level of fecal coliform confirms the presence of a large amount of human waste in the dump sites and surrounding areas. three land-filled dumpsites in Metro Manila .the Payatas. the duty to see to it that non-complying industrial establishments set up. We are disturbed by petitioners’ hiding behind two untenable claims: (1) that there ought to be a specific pollution incident before they are required to act. the results of which are embodied in the The Garbage Book. non-complying establishments shall be shut down or asked to transfer their operations. 2. through petitioners. 2006has come and gone. nor any practice or disposal of solid waste by any person. The era of delays.The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas.––No open dumps shall be established and operated. gaseous or solid substances. time is of the essence. Thus. But while they may not be treated as unauthorized constructions. Some highlights of the report: 1. The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters. discharge of petroleum or residual products of petroleum of carbonaceous materials/substances [and other] radioactive. real or imaginary. esteros. has to take the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay. operation of open dumps. some of these establishments undoubtedly contribute to the pollution of the Pasig River and waterways. and ad hoc measures is over. 37. Prohibition against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid Waste. but no single sanitary landfill which strictly complies with the prescribed standards under RA 9003 has yet been set up.” In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation. Petitioners must transcend their limitations.generate an alarming quantity of lead and leachate or liquid run-off. we cite the Asian Development Bankcommissioned study on the garbage problem in Metro Manila. within a reasonable period. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation. groundwater pollution. floatage. could only be accomplished if those mandated. and if only to dramatize the urgency of the need for petitionersagencies to comply with their statutory tasks. In addition. other major rivers. noxious or harmful liquid.
 the DILG. designating the DENR as the primary government agency responsible for its enforcement and implementation. through the BFAR. the Talisay (Bataan) River. Las Piñas) Rivers. the Navotas-Malabon-
Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers. Bulacan. in coordination with the DILG. using recognized methods. RA 8550. shall apprehend violators of PD 979. If none be found. as the principal implementor of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan. and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna. Cavite. waterways. Cavite. 25 of the Local Government Code of 1991. and other existing laws and regulations designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.RA 9003 is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted to radically transform and improve waste management. and other minor rivers and waterways that eventually discharge water into the Manila Bay. (8) The MMDA. the NCR (Parañaque-Zapote. and the Manila Bay. 8 of RA 9275. in exercising the President’s power of general supervision and its duty to promulgate guidelines in establishing waste management programs under Sec. management. The fallo of the RTC Decision shall now read: WHEREFORE. (6) The PCG. treatment. which explicitly provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. skin-diving. is ordered to provide. DILG. and connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. operate. and preserve Manila Bay. 4 and 6 of PD 979. affected LGUs. the DENR is directed to fully implement itsOperational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation. these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes. 2 and 6-c of EO 513 and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. the DA. development. Factoran. Rizal. and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers. 34 ) to make them fit for swimming. In particular: (1) Pursuant to Sec. the LWUA. as the lead agency and implementor of programs and projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila. PNP Maritime
. 1851-99 are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS in view of subsequent developments or supervening events in the case. is ordered to improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is ordered to call regular coordination meetings with concerned government departments and agencies to ensure the successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in accordance with its indicated completion schedules. (3) As mandated by Sec. and the lands abutting the bay. CV No. esteros. through the local water districts and in coordination with the DENR. Pampanga. (4) Pursuant to RA 9275. 2005 Decision of the CA in CA-G. constructions. shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila. 2002 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. install. (5) Pursuant to Sec. install. Laguna. It implements Sec. and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time. and rules and regulations. under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions. Bataan. to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. and restore and maintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea waters per Water Classification Tables under DENR Administrative Order No. 43 of the Philippine Environment Code (PD 1152). Rizal. the MWSS is directed to provide. 4 of EO 192. and private homes along the banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction. Rizal. judgment is hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-government agencies to clean up. rehabilitate. Art. to determine whether they have wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by existing laws. So it was that in Oposa v. and Bataan to inspect all factories. ordinances. PNP Maritime Group. The September 28. Las Piñas) Rivers. WHEREFORE. Pampanga. 76528 and SP No. the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay. and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources. Cavite.R. the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers. such as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers. and Bataan where needed at the earliest possible time. and Bataan in developing. Pampanga. and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection. and maintain the necessary adequate waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila. Bulacan. Pampanga. and human wastes from flowing into these rivers. and Sec. the PPA is ordered to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators. Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC). 124 of RA 8550. and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time. in coordination with each other. Laguna. and the PNP Maritime Group. 65 of RA 8550. the Laguna De Bay. 16. the Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed. and other encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279. the Imus (Cavite) River. restoration. Jr. in accordance with Sec. The DPWH. (7) Pursuant to Secs. the Navotas-Malabon-TullahanTenejeros Rivers. the petition is DENIED. (2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the Administrative Code of 1987 and Sec. 19 of RA 9275. affected LGUs. like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. 74944 and the September 13. they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible. and other forms of contact recreation. and Laguna. Cavite. sewage water. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them. Bulacan. the NCR (Parañaque-Zapote. pursuant to Secs. and other agencies. operate. in coordination with the DPWH. commercial establishments. assigning the DENR as the primary agency responsible for the conservation. II of the 1987 Constitution. shall dismantle and remove all structures. It is also directed to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila. Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay.
and other existing laws on pollution. operate.
VINUYA VS. they have approached the Executive Department through the DOJ. In addition. sexual slavery. the Talisay (Bataan) River. waste management. 162230 April 28. they claim that the Philippine government’s acceptance of the apologies made by Japan as well as funds for the AWF were contrary to international law. it was valid. However. 53 of PD 1152. DFA. DENR.” shall. restoration.
Was the refusal of the Executive Department to espouse petitioners’ claims against Japan valid?
Yes. In addition. Sec. DILG. as directed by Art. PNP Maritime Group. preservation. determine if all licensed septic and sludge companies have the proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. So much so.R. the officials declined on that ground that the individual claims had already been satisfied by Japan’s compliance with the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of 1956 between Japan and the Philippines. through them. 76 of PD 1067 and Sec. and other rivers. DOH. (9) The DOH shall. constructions. shall remove and demolish all structures. if found to be non-complying. and OSG and requested assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the “comfort women” stations in the Philippines. The petitioners argue that the general waiver of claims made by the Philippine government in the Treaty of Peace with Japan is void because the comfort women system constituted a crime against humanity. It has the exclusive prerogative for such determination. as prescribed by RA 9003. It is a discretionary power and the exercise of which may be determined by consideration of a political or other nature. The DOH shall give the companies. a non-stock. 8 of RA 9275. within one (1) year from finality of this Decision. 56 of RA 9003. and PPA. from the standpoint of both the interests of the petitioners and those of the Republic. HUDCC. in the eye of the international tribunal. and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers. Given the extraordinary length of time that has lapsed between the treaty’s conclusion. and whether further steps are appropriate or necessary. DPWH. within a period of one (1) year from finality of this Decision. and preservation of the water quality of the Manila Bay. each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision. (10) Pursuant to Sec. from finality of this Decision. the importance of their duty toward achieving and maintaining a balanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire Philippine archipelago. Moreover. PCG. the Executive Department had the ample time to assess the foreign policy considerations of espousing a claim against Japan. in line with the country’s development objective to attain economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection. and revival of our marine waters. The same was prohibited under the jus cogens norms from which no derogation is possible. the only means available for individuals to bring a claim within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a claim on the individual’s behalf. and also of MWSS. to what extent it is granted. On matters within its territorial jurisdiction and in connection with the discharge of its duties on the maintenance of sanitary landfills and like undertakings. and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay. the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention. and when will it cease. and like subjects in the school curricula of all levels to inculcate in the minds and hearts of students and. and decide on that basis if apologies are sufficient. and other concerned government agencies. in line with the principle of “continuing mandamus. such waiver was a breach against the government’s obligation not to afford impunity for crimes against humanity. (11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in the General Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the expenses relating to the cleanup. their parents and friends. it is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective penal provisions of RA 9003. No. In 1998. the petitioners failed to show that the crimes committed by the Japanese
. Therefore. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
G. Thus. 118 of RA 8550. and Sec. (12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA. the MMDA is ordered to establish. in the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligation of the Philippines. the State is the sole claimant.Group. a reasonable time within which to set up the necessary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental sanitation clearance. the Laguna De Bay. LWUA. environmental protection. and maintain a sanitary landfill. connecting waterways. 2010
Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS. Under international law. When this happens. DA. and torture. DBM. Sec. the Imus (Cavite) River. the State is the sole judge to decide whether its protection in favor of those petitioners will be granted. the Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioner’s claim. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act). DepEd. non-profit organization registered with the SEC for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during the WWII. They claim that they were “comfort women” at that time and have greatly suffered because of that.
DISPOSITION Petition is dismissed. or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes in an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens.army violated jis cogens prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed.